New Delhi: The government has asked the DGCA to review rules for testing pilots for psychoactive substances after the Air India AI2379 captain tested positive for marijuana following the flight’s sudden 300-foot altitude drop.

The Ministry of Civil Aviation has asked the Directorate General of Civil Aviation to examine how pilot drug testing is carried out in other countries and assess whether India’s existing framework needs changes. The move follows the confirmatory test of the Air India pilot after the August 4 incident.

The ministry said India’s current procedures are broadly aligned with international norms, but the latest case has raised questions about whether additional safeguards are needed. Any changes will be considered after the DGCA completes its review.

What happened on Air India AI2379?

Air India flight AI2379, travelling from Phuket to Delhi on August 4, experienced a sudden drop of around 300 feet. The incident injured passengers and crew members.

Both pilots underwent mandatory psychoactive-substance screening after the incident. The captain’s initial screening required confirmatory testing, after which the sample was sent to a designated laboratory. The reported confirmatory result was positive for marijuana.

Both pilots were removed from the flying roster while the investigation and testing process continued.

What are the current rules?

Under the existing DGCA framework, aviation personnel who test positive for psychoactive substances are referred for rehabilitation.

A second positive test can lead to a three-year suspension of the licence, while a third violation can result in cancellation of the licence.

The government is now examining whether these rules and testing procedures provide sufficient safeguards.

AAIB probe continues

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau is separately investigating the AI2379 incident.

The probe is examining technical, operational, medical and human factors, including aircraft systems, flight data, maintenance records, medical information and interviews. The AAIB has cautioned against drawing conclusions from any single piece of information while the investigation remains underway.

The case has brought renewed attention to an important aviation-safety question: whether detecting a substance in a pilot’s system is enough to establish impairment during a flight.

The government’s review is therefore expected to look not only at how often pilots are tested, but also at testing methods, confirmatory procedures, international practices and how medical or prescribed substances are assessed.

The review does not itself establish that the pilot’s drug-test result caused the aircraft’s altitude loss. The AAIB investigation is still examining the full set of technical, operational and human factors involved.