The Delhi High Court has clarified that Certification Specifications for Light Sport Aircraft (CS-LSA) certification basis recorded in European Union Aviation Safety Agency’ (EASA) Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) governs domestic licensing consequences, and that flying experience on an LSA cannot be reckoned towards the 200-hour aeroplane requirement for a Commercial Pilot Licence under Schedule II to the Aircraft Rules, 1937. Accordingly, the Court held that Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) was justified in classifying the Pipistrel Virus SW 121 as a Light Sport Aircraft by virtue of the Communication dated Feb 26, 2024, since CS-LSA recorded as the certification basis in the EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet was the operative criterion for determining the regulatory treatment of the aircraft under Indian law.
The High Court asserted that a Certificate of Airworthiness concerns the airworthiness of an aircraft, namely its fitness to operate safely, and is distinct from the question whether flying experience acquired on that aircraft may be reckoned for the purposes of obtaining a Pilot’s licence, which is governed independently by Schedule II to the Aircraft Rules, 1937. At the same time, the Court clarified that Paragraph 3.4(2)(c) of CAR Section 2, Series F, Part XXIII excludes from the LSA category only an aircraft possessing a Certificate of Airworthiness issued by a foreign civil aviation authority and does not extend to an aircraft holding a Certificate of Airworthiness issued domestically by the DGCA.
The High Court also explained that EASA’s description of the Pipistrel as a ‘Normal’ category aircraft under the European regulatory framework, and the Working Arrangement between the DGCA and EASA, do not bind the DGCA in the exercise of its independent statutory functions under the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and the Civil Aviation Requirements. Thus, there can be no estoppel against the exercise of a statutory function, and an erroneous or inadvertent administrative act cannot create a vested right compelling the authority to perpetuate such error, particularly in matters concerning public safety and licensing standards.
The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya observed that the DGCA was justified in classifying the Pipistrel as an LSA by the Communication. The Bench reasoned that CS-LSA is not merely a technical certification standard unrelated to the operational classification of the aircraft, and that the DGCA, in accepting the Type Certification under CAR Section 6, Series A, Part II, was entitled to take into account the certification basis recorded in the TCDS.
The Bench held that a Certificate of Airworthiness concerns the airworthiness of an aircraft, namely its fitness to operate safely, and is distinct from the question whether flying experience acquired on that aircraft may be reckoned for the purposes of obtaining a Pilot’s licence, which is governed independently by Schedule II to the Rules. The Bench held that Paragraph 3.4(2)(c) of CAR Section 2, Series F, Part XXIII excludes from the LSA category only an aircraft possessing a CoA issued by a foreign civil aviation authority and does not extend to an aircraft holding a CoA issued domestically by the DGCA.
The Bench held that EASA’s description of the aircraft under the European regulatory framework, however categorical, governs the position under that framework and does not bind the DGCA in the exercise of its independent statutory functions under the Act, the Rules and the CAR. The Bench held that Clause 3.2(a) of the Working Arrangement provides for acceptance of an EASA Type Certificate through issuance of a Letter of Type Acceptance, and Clause 5.3 confines itself to compliance with the certification basis and environmental protection requirements, and neither provision purports to regulate or restrict the DGCA’s licensing functions under Schedule II to the Rules.
The Bench held that Article 33 of the Chicago Convention does not require a contracting State to suspend or disregard its domestic regulatory framework governing the licensing of Pilots. The Bench held that there can be no estoppel against the exercise of a statutory function, and that an erroneous or inadvertent administrative act cannot create a vested right compelling the authority to perpetuate such error, particularly in matters concerning public safety and licensing standards.
The Bench held that the determination of the applicable stall speed parameter for the purposes of Rule 3(33AA) is a technical matter falling squarely within the specialised domain of the DGCA, and that the Communication was issued after an extended exchange commencing with GATI’s objection dated 04.07.2023 and culminating in the report of an Expert Committee dated 10.01.2024, and therefore the principles of natural justice were not violated.
On the second issue, the Bench held that once the Pipistrel is treated as an LSA, the flying experience acquired thereon cannot be reckoned towards the 200-hour aeroplane-experience requirement for grant of a CPL under Section ‘J’ of Schedule II to the Rules, and that the limited exception under Paragraph 1(e)(v) of Section ‘E’ of Schedule II permits a maximum of 20 hours of solo flying experience on an LSA to be reckoned only towards a Private Pilot Licence and not towards a CPL.
Briefly, Global Avianautics Limited, which operated the Government Aviation Training Institute (GATI) in Odisha under a Lease-Develop-Operate Agreement dated Nov 03, 2008, imported two Pipistrel Virus SW 121 aircraft from Slovenia in June-July 2021 after the DGCA granted in-principle approval and a No-Objection Certificate. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) had issued a Type Certification to the Pipistrel on April 18, 2016, employing the Certification Specifications for Light Sport Aircraft (CS-LSA) as the certification basis, and the DGCA accepted this Type Certification by its letter dated Nov 29, 2019, under CAR Section 6, Series A, Part II.
The DGCA subsequently issued Certificates of Airworthiness (CoAs) in respect of both aircraft, VT-DPA on Aug 18, 2022, and VT-DPB on Oct 28, 2022, recording the category of each aircraft as ‘Normal’ and the sub-division as ‘Passengers’. The DGCA’s 2022 FTO List did not reflect the Pipistrel aircraft in GATI’s fleet, but the 2023 FTO List published on May 26, 2023, showed both Pipistrel aircraft as belonging to the Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category. By communication dated Feb 26, 2024, the Directorate of Flying Training (DFT) on behalf of the DGCA formally classified the Pipistrel as an LSA, and the DGCA thereafter rejected the Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) applications of five student Pilots (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5), on the ground that more than 90 hours of flying experience claimed by each student had been acquired on the Pipistrel, which was treated as an LSA and could not be reckoned towards the 200-hour aeroplane-experience requirement for a CPL under Schedule II to the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
The Appellant, GATI and the student Pilots filed petition challenging the classification and the rejection orders, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the present intra-court appeal, and during its pendency, the Government of Odisha terminated the LDO Agreement by notice dated Oct 03, 2025, citing the grounding of GATI’s Pipistrel fleet.
