The affected engineers from India, who are seeking the Union government's support, argue that the process is neither fair nor transparent and are questioning the legitimacy of the decisions.
Published Mar 04, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 16, 2025 | 6:10 PM
Engineer in Safety Vest Standing next to Airplane in Hangar. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Netherlands’ ILT suspended Aircraft Maintenance Licences (AMLs) of some engineers, claiming that the training programmes compromised safety standards. The affected engineers are questioning the legitimacy of the decisions. Some argued that the licences issued before the introduction of the specific regulation were also suspended.
More than a 100 aircraft maintenance engineers from India are left in limbo after the Netherlands Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) revoked their Aircraft Maintenance Licence (AML) — the same licence the ILT had issued to them.
The engineers had spent lakhs of money to earn the licence through dedication and hard work, which was lost in a single stroke, thanks to the ILT’s retroactive decision.
Most of them have landed jobs as aircraft maintenance engineers with reputed organisations. They now see their future grounded, if there is no purposeful intervention.
Rakesh*, a middle-class man who dreamt of being a certified Maintenance Engineer, started as a diligent aircraft mechanic. He devoted two decades of his life to the aviation sector, stood by the companies through thick and thin, and worked his way up with hard work.
Like every individual, he pursued growth in his career — for himself, and his loved ones.
His search and determination to achieve international certification ended when he found an organisation recognised by most authorities in the European Union. He checked for the credibility of the course, got the approvals from the concerned aviation authorities and jumped on the wagon.
He worked towards a brighter future by balancing grueling 12-hour shifts, studied late into the night, cleared 16-18 exams with a minimum of 75 percent marks, and earned the Basic Licence for aircraft maintenance.
For years, he battled many adversities, including financial instability, to complete various trainings and associated SOJT (Structural On-the-Job Training), since each aircraft type requires specialised knowledge.
Like many middle-class individuals, Rakesh struggled to pay for expensive courses while also managing financial difficulties at home, even resorting to loans. He travelled across several countries, enduring extreme temperatures, and completed his training courses, but only after obtaining approval from the competent authority.
After 10 years with the company and 20 years in the industry, Rakesh became an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer certified by the ILT, and joined another organisation with a salary that could secure his financial future.
Today, he stands stranded with a licence that has lost its value, rendering his years of dedication and hard work useless.
Rakesh’s happiness was cut short when the ILT sent him an email suspending his AML. In the suspension notice, the ILT claimed that the training programmes had compromised safety standards.
“The ILT expects us engineers to be accountable for mistakes that we didn’t make, instead of taking responsibility for the mistake it made? It was ILT’s responsibility to conduct audits from time to time. Five years is not an acceptable duration,” he told South First.
One of their member states approved the course and gave us the licence. Our lives are not their drawing books that they draw and erase whenever they please. We shouldn’t be paying for somebody else’s mistakes,” he added.
Rakesh is one among hundreds whose AMLs have been cancelled by the ILT. The move has triggered a wave of controversy, especially among non-European engineers, including many from India.
However, the affected Indian engineers, who are seeking the Union government’s support, argued that the process is neither fair nor transparent. They questioned the legitimacy of the decisions.
Some argued that the licences issued before the introduction of the specific regulation were also suspended.
An ILT investigation into the training programmes conducted by maintenance organisations across Europe uncovered alleged deficiencies in the SOJTs component of the courses provided by organisations such as Job Air (Czech Republic), Magnetic MRO (Estonia), and Adria Tehnika (Slovenia).
These organisations, according to ILT, had failed to meet the necessary safety standards, which led to the suspension of licences issued to the engineers trained under them.
The affected engineers contend that they completed their training according to the regulations in place at the time.
Many of these engineers received prior approvals for their training and were endorsed by the ILT before starting their careers. The suspension of their licences has raised significant concerns about the fairness of retroactive rule enforcement.
Sagar Singamsetty, an aviation lawyer at Belgium-based Grayspace Law and Policy Consulting, is representing many of the affected engineers.
Singamsetty voiced strong objections to the retroactive nature of the decision, stating that these engineers followed all protocols and received necessary approvals when they began their training.
Their legal representative claimed that the maintenance organisations responsible for providing the training have largely failed to offer assistance to the engineers facing the suspension of their licences.
“These organisations are leaving their students to face the consequences, despite the fact that it was their training programs that were questioned,” Singamsetty said.
Despite the training organisations’ failure to support their graduates, national civil aviation authorities in the affected countries have sided with the ILT’s findings, supporting the suspension of licences without presenting evidence from prior audits that could have raised any concerns about the training programs in the past.
What is also strange is the reasoning being provided by ILT.
“In accordance with the Principle of subsidiarity, the least burdensome measure must always be chosen. Given the importance of aviation safety, the least intrusive necessary intervention — suspension — was chosen, while providing you the opportunity to rectify the identified deficiencies before any revocation would take place.”
Singamsetty raised an important issue: The principle of applying regulations retroactively — a practice he said undermined legal certainty and fairness.
Many engineers affected by the suspension completed their OJT as far back as 2017, long before the ILT’s recent investigation into training deficiencies.
“If these engineers are penalised retroactively for following the rules, it could have a chilling effect on the entire aviation workforce,” the lawyer said, adding “It raises questions about legal certainty and whether workers can trust that the regulations they follow today won’t be used against them tomorrow.”
Furthermore, the suspension of licences threatens the livelihoods of these engineers, many of whom have spent years building their careers in aviation.
Another engineer Siju, who works in Kerala, told South First, “This recent decision by aviation regulators to retrospectively suspend AML licences has raised concerns among maintenance professionals. They are questioning the fairness, confusion and frustration within the industry, with many AML holders expressing shock and disappointment at the sudden suspension of their licences, despite having fulfilled all necessary requirements and adhering to established regulations.”
In a letter dated 25 February, regarding the suspension of AML type rating NL.66.57448 of S Vasudevan Pillai, a native of Marayoor in the Idukki district, the ILT detailed the reasons for the action.
The letter, accessed by South First, stated that ILT had conducted the investigation under the regulations in effect when the OJTs were carried out. However, these OJTs were carried out before 12 June 2024, before Regulation (EU) 2023/989, amending the rules, was introduced.
Their investigation results stated: “Based on the results of this investigation, the ILT cannot accept the OJT as performed by this maintenance organisation for the endorsement of type ratings on AMLs issued in the Netherlands.”
The ILT made the following conclusions:
It also stated, “The ILT has shared the results of the investigation with Magnetic MRO and with the competent authority of Estonia. The conclusions have been recognised and accepted by both parties. The competent authority was informed prior to the on-site assessment and was given the opportunity to be present. Following the ILT’s investigation results, the competent authority of Estonia also carried out its own audit. This audit confirmed the ILT’s findings.”
Around 400 engineers from India, now affected by this decision, have called upon the Union government to intervene and protect their rights.
The affected engineers demanded a transparent, individualised review process to ensure that suspensions are applied only when absolutely necessary.
ILT did not respond to South First‘s email queries.
(*Name changed. Edited by Muhammed Fazil).
