If mishap was due to poor training, it's a reflection on the airline: Mohan Ranganathan

What's the standard procedure followed by airlines during push back and take-off?
Normal push back procedure followed at international airports abroad is the following: a) Once the push back has commenced and the ground engineer gives clearance, the right outboard engine is started, followed by the left outboard. All starts are only after the ground engineer on the tow truck gives the clearance. b) In India, DGCA permits engine start only after push back, parking brakes are set. APU INOP (the standard procedure worldwide) is to start no.1 engine at the gate, get the gernator on line, so that the aircraft is powered, and disconnect all ground equipment and then commence the push back. After the push back is complete, parking brakes are set and all ground equipment removed, engineer gives clearance with an announcement that area behind and around no.1 engine is clear. After getting ATC clearance for increasing thrust, the pilot increases thrust on no.1 engine and follows the SOP for a cross-bleed start.

What according to you could have gone wrong?
The ground engineer may not have given the clearance and the pilot increased thrust on no.1 engine without ensuring that the area behind and around it was clear. If the flight was running late, there may have been pressure to hurry... The ground personnel may not have had any briefing on the procedure to be followed.

Is there a safer option available for push back other than the one currently followed?
The safest option is to strictly follow SOPs laid down by the manufacturer with augmentation from the regulator and company procedures. Proactive measures are required, not reactive cover-ups.

Is it lack of training that could have led to poor communication or misjudgement?
The regulator and airlines must realise that training of all personnel is extremely important. If it was due to poor communication, it is a reflection on poor SOP and training of the airline. Unfortunately, neither the DGCA nor the airline may come out with the true picture.

What role do the airlines and the DGCA will have to play now so that this does not happen again?
The letter that an IndiGo engineer has circulated, as per observation, states that the technician was on the tow truck and not the ground, which is a very serious reflection on the DGCA. It makes a mockery of the safety audits the DGCA conducts on airlines as well as its RAMP inspection audits. If the allegation of the IndiGo engineer is true, Air India has committed a serious violation. However, it is unethical on part of the Engineer to presume that the pilot and airline are at fault, even before the investigation commences. The DGCA must come out with the facts at the earliest to prevent a recurrence.