The government has intensified scrutiny of Air India after flight AI 2379, operating from Phuket to Delhi on August 4, lost around 300 feet of altitude during cruise, injuring passengers and crew onboard.
The Airbus A320, carrying 137 passengers and eight crew members, landed safely in Delhi, but the incident is now being investigated on multiple fronts, including aircraft systems, cockpit operations and the fitness of the pilot-in-command (PIC).
A subsequent confirmatory drug test reportedly found marijuana in the captain’s sample, while the pilot has reportedly told investigators that he had been taking prescribed sleeping medication because of personal problems. Both pilots were removed from flying duties pending the inquiry.
The government has asked Air India to strengthen operational oversight and “take responsibility” for safety, while directing the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to review its rules on testing aviation personnel for psychoactive substances.
The proposed changes could increase the proportion of personnel tested, strengthen action against confirmed recreational drug use and provide greater clarity where legitimate medication contributes to a positive result.
Meanwhile, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), with assistance from Airbus and France’s BEA, is examining a reported sequence of hydraulic, door, flight-control and autopilot warnings.
The government has stressed that those found responsible will not be spared, but investigators have yet to establish whether the technical warnings, the pilot’s condition or any other factor contributed to the altitude loss.
Safety Questions Go Beyond One Pilot
The Phuket-Delhi incident has raised concerns that extend well beyond the reported drug-test result. According to the latest reports, AI 2379 experienced a series of warnings while flying over Odisha, including alerts relating to the aircraft’s hydraulic systems, doors and elevator, while the autopilot also disengaged.
The aircraft then lost altitude before stabilising and continuing towards Delhi. A later maintenance report has also reportedly recorded multiple system warnings, adding a technical dimension to the investigation. Airbus has sent specialists to assist the AAIB, while France’s BEA is participating in the investigation.
The reported condition and behaviour of the PIC are being examined separately. Times of India, citing sources, reported that the captain allegedly sat on the cockpit floor, attempted to smoke and appeared to have difficulty maintaining his balance, with cabin crew reportedly assisting him back to his seat. The crew later complained about his conduct.
These allegations have not been established as findings and remain part of the investigation. The captain’s reported explanation regarding prescribed sleep medication will also have to be assessed against medical records, the substance detected and the timing of the medication. A toxicology result alone does not establish whether a person was impaired while operating an aircraft.
A senior government official, quoted by Times of India, said the situation had been viewed very seriously and that the government would not spare those found guilty. The official also praised the co-pilot for helping ensure that the aircraft landed safely despite the reported circumstances. Separately, Air India CEO Campbell Wilson has said the airline is co-operating with the investigation.
The government’s message is therefore aimed at both the individual and the institution: accountability must extend to airline systems that are responsible for ensuring that safety procedures work before, during and after a flight.
Why Drug Rules Are Being Reviewed
India already has a DGCA framework requiring random testing of aviation personnel for psychoactive substances. The existing rules require at least 10% of relevant employees to be covered by random testing annually and provide for confirmatory testing after an initial non-negative result.
The framework covers substances including cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine-type stimulants, opiates, barbiturates and benzodiazepines. A person who receives a non-negative screening result is removed from safety-sensitive duty pending confirmation.
The rules also recognise that legitimate medication can complicate toxicology results. Following a confirmed positive result, the medical review process can examine whether it could have resulted from legitimate therapeutic treatment.
The government is now seeking a review of this framework, with the latest reporting indicating that testing coverage could be increased and penalties strengthened for genuine recreational or prohibited drug use. At the same time, the proposed changes are expected to distinguish more clearly between deliberate substance use and positive results linked to prescribed medicines.
That balance matters because aviation safety requires strict standards, but a regulatory system must also distinguish between impairment, substance misuse and medically justified treatment. The review comes as Air India continues to face intense safety scrutiny following the June 2025 Ahmedabad crash that killed 260 people.
The final investigation report into that disaster is still awaited. The latest incident has consequently revived wider questions about safety management, pilot fitness, airline oversight and regulatory enforcement. However, investigators have not yet established that the captain’s reported drug-test result caused the AI 2379 altitude loss, nor that the reported aircraft warnings were responsible.
Aviation experts and online aviation communities have offered competing theories, including speculation about whether some alerts were false, but such claims cannot replace flight-data, cockpit-voice, maintenance and laboratory evidence.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
An aircraft carrying more than a hundred people is a shared space of trust: passengers place their lives in the hands of pilots, cabin crew, engineers, airlines and regulators. That trust can only be protected when safety concerns are taken seriously, investigated transparently and addressed without rushing to judgment. The AI 2379 incident should therefore not become a trial by media against an individual pilot before the evidence is complete.
Equally, a positive confirmatory drug test or reports of concerning behaviour cannot be brushed aside when the responsibility involves the safety of hundreds of people. The right response lies in accountability supported by evidence, stronger preventive systems and compassion for people who may legitimately require medication. Air India must strengthen its internal safety culture, while the DGCA must ensure that its rules are both rigorous and fair.
Also read: Jantar Mantar Season 2 Coming Soon,Says CJP Founder Abhijeet Dipke
