India, Aug. 29 -- Post the Air India crash in June, India's civil aviation regulator, the directorate general of civil aviation (DGCA), the airlines it regulates, and their safety practices, have all been facing intense public scrutiny in Parliament and in the media. Every minor development in the civil aviation sector is now being dissected, leading to paranoia creeping into the minds of the ordinary flyer. Recently, on a flight from the national capital to Goa, a woman seated next to me prayed for such a long time at take-off that I thanked her for praying on behalf of both of us. Ever since she saw the video of the June crash, she said, she prays harder than she did earlier upon boarding an aircraft - which, she added, is thankfully not often. In a gesture of warmth one comes across while travelling in India, she insisted on sharing some of her homemade food with me. Thanks to the enhanced scrutiny, two things have become very clear: One, the functioning of DGCA needs a dramatic overhaul, which this writer has thoroughly discussed in these pages even before the accident. And two, airlines need to adopt a more proactive approach to violations and transgressions by their staff, many of which are a direct threat to passenger safety, as highlighted in reports of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). A recent report on safety by the parliamentary standing committee on civil aviation makes a slew of recommendations. Many of the suggestions have been highlighted by the media in the past, but have been water off a duck's back as far as the authorities are concerned. Coming against the backdrop of the June catastrophe, and from a parliamentary committee, the public may yet hope that the recommendations will be taken more seriously by the powers that be. While many of the reforms suggested have merit, I will highlight two that should have been undertaken long ago. The first is setting up an independent civil aviation economic regulatory authority. With flyer numbers swelling (domestic air passenger traffic declined 2.94% in July year-on-year, presumably because of the Ahmedabad crash), and in the absence of an authority looking after the interests of passengers, DGCA is pulled into managing/solving every controversy/problem, big and small, affecting the sector - from rising fares to passenger misbehaviour, delays to operator transgressions. It has willy-nilly become the nation's favourite punching bag for all ills afflicting the sector - a safety threat in itself, given that the body in charge of keeping flying incident- and accident-free is perpetually distracted by matters unrelated to it. As someone who has observed this space for over 25 years now, I maintain that we need to start from scratch and establish a brand new regulator rather than trying to reform the existing one. The report prescribes full administrative and financial autonomy for DGCA - which, at 85%, has a far lower International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) audit score than peer organisations in the US, UK or UAE (all well above 90%). This, the report says, will allow it to fill the shortage of critical technical staff - DGCA is presently functioning with just 50% of its technical staff requirement - and upgrade the technology it uses, in keeping with today's needs. The second is rethinking the regulator's personnel requirements and hiring practices. While this article cannot highlight all the sub-optimal practices being followed by the regulator, let me delve into one: the sad history of one of the most critical positions at DGCA, the flight operations inspector (FOI). FOIs keep review operations of the airlines from a safety perspective. Unable to find talent ready to join on the government's terms and remuneration, DGCA, decades ago, started inducting senior commanders from Air India and Indian Airlines on "secondment" from the then government-owned airlines. These commanders were paid by their airlines but were deputed to the safety regulator to aid with inspecting flight operations. This perhaps explains why they were often found batting on behalf of their airlines rather than the regulator. It was only after the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) downgraded India in 2014 that DGCA started paying the salary of these commanders. Even so, most perks such as flight tickets, insurance, and other benefits still come from the airline from which they are "on lien" to the regulator. Even the airline's top managers - despite the clear interest in continuing with the status quo - can see the flaws in the present system and argue that DGCA needs to offer these inspector-commanders a package that exceeds market remuneration by a wide margin and, ideally, have them on its rolls, with fixed tenures. With the better work-life balance such a job can offer, many will apply, and the regulator will get the best of the pick, who can then work free of biases. But before we take this plunge or others that are needed, we need to start at the very top to correct recruitment practices that have remained deeply flawed for decades. The safety regulator needs to be headed by a highly experienced, technically qualified, and incorruptible individual for its culture to change. It might be a cliche but change truly must begin at the top....