Features
Truth about air safety
By Guwan Seeya
This has reference to Dr Upul Wijayawardhana’s article on ‘Biggest Mysteries in Aviation History’ that appeared in The Island on 22nd March 2024. He ends his informative article by saying that there are allegations that some aircraft manufacturers, like Boeing, put profitability before air safety and hopes it is not true.
May I contribute my ‘two cents’? Flying is now considered the safest mode of transport. Yet the safest aircraft is one permanently ‘on ground’. On the other hand, aircraft were built for a purpose. Namely, flying passengers and cargo safely from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’. The quality of that service will improve if it could be done on time as advertised. In real time flights are monitored for safety analysis, and later, if necessary, by the intelligent use of Flight Data Recorders (FDRs) and Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVRs), collectively known as the ‘Black Box’. There are other telemetric links through which authorised third parties can observe in real time what is happening on board. For example, they can now monitor from the ground how well each engine is working. They could even monitor what movies the passengers at any seat are watching, for future product and market research purposes. Airline management need not wait for an accident to occur. The bottom line for any flight operation is being ‘Safe and on Time’
Every human action involves a potential risk to life and limb. So, it is a matter of ‘Risk Management’. There is always a practical limit to Air Safety, and as C.O. Miller, a consultant to the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said, is a an “informed compromise”. In other words, it is a fine balance between Air Safety and Profitability. When operating aircraft, considerations are Safety, Comfort, Schedule and Economy – strictly in that order of priority. During manufacture and planning the priorities may differ with other economic considerations.
The FAA was traditionally and historically the world leader in air safety standards, as most of the major airplane manufacturers were based in the USA. That status quo remained until the mid-Seventies when a consortium of French, British and German manufacturers emerged as ‘Airbus Industrie’, to compete with Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed. This gave rise to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), created in July 2002.
The FAA, more reactive than proactive, was very slow in enacting safety standards in keeping with the times. Even that was deadly slow (pun intended). The regulations governing aircraft de-icing standards was one glaring example, according to Ralph Nader and Wesley Smith in their book Collision Course: The Truth about Airline Safety. It took more than 23 years, ten crashes and many lost lives before regulations were put in place.
Pilots always say there has to be blood on the runway for changes to happen! The under-funded FAA were and still are short of staff in the role of regulators to monitor manufacturing practices and standards, and are therefore forced to use surrogate personnel co-opted from the manufacturers themselves to certify on behalf of the FAA. Further, some FAA personnel do not have the required knowledge and experience of new technologically advanced flight management systems (FMS). There is a distinct possibility that the manufacturer will override the regulator and cut corners at wrong places on the required standards, thus creating an undesirable compromise – as is happening now. The manufacturers were largely left to self-regulate.
It takes a few years for a brand-new aircraft to ‘mature’ (an Airbus term). If modifications are needed after accidents or serious incidents, a fixed value is added, such as $150,000,000 (which may differ from time to time) for each life that will be saved by proposed modification (benefit to society) by studying accidents and incidents that have occurred.
The estimated cost of modification will have to be within that amount of dollars in order to be ‘cost effective’. Then and only then will the FAA bureaucrats grant approval. The FAA uses this reactive method of a ‘Tombstone Imperative’, according to Nader and Smith, to provide fixes without looking at the potential lives that could be saved (predictive).
The FAA have been accused of not being innovative enough, and not moving toward improved crash survivability based on reports by safety experts who have suggested inclusion of smoke hoods with the life jackets at passenger seats. There is foot-dragging. The furnishings in the passenger cabin are fire-resistant, but may not be fire-proof; a more than subtle difference. Exposure to high temperatures will cause them to burn and emit super-heated toxic gases. Smoke hoods will increase passenger survivability by 40 to 60 seconds. It is quite an increase of survivability when considering that all aircraft are certified to evacuate all passengers within 90 seconds with 50% of the emergency exits unserviceable!
Training on New Aircraft
Then there is the matter of crew training. When airlines withdraw flight crew from the ‘line ‘(day to day flying activities) it costs money to keep them unproductive. The manufacturer’s training programme will always be confined to the shortest time possible and approved by the FAA. (The tail wagging the dog?) There will be a definite possibility of cutting corners as in the case of Boeing 737 MAX series of aircraft, where the ‘Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System’, or MCAS, training for pilots was ‘glossed over’ for the sake of shortening training time. As a direct result, in 2018 and 2019 two fatal crashes of 737 MAX 8 airplanes, of Indonesia’s Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines, respectively, occurred within five months of each other. The pilots were not taught how to quickly deactivate and over-ride this automatic system if and when necessary.
In recent years Boeing tried to do what Airbus was doing from its inception. That is, outsourcing the manufacture of various parts all over the USA while making a hash of it, due to lack of proper independent supervision. They also fired a few ‘whistle blowers’. Above all, they lost money as admitted by the CEO at the time. Economic pressures are bound to increase.
When it comes to commercial aircraft our choices are limited. Airbus or Boeing. In Ceylon (as Sri Lanka then was) we were forced to fly jetliners made in the UK – for example the de Havilland Comet, Vickers (BAC) VC10, and Hawker Siddeley HS121 Trident – for airports in Commonwealth countries, because our runways were neither long nor strong enough to accommodate early American commercial jet planes such as the McDonnell Douglas DC 8 and Boeing 707. A new runway was commissioned at BIA in the late 1960s to accommodate all types of commercial aircraft.
After accepting delivery of a new aircraft type, the local regulating authority must adhere to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) rules. It is an expensive business. The FAA and EASA rules may have minor differences but strive to achieve acceptable levels of air safety.
The local authority of each country will abide by whatever ruled they decide on, under the umbrella of ICAO regulations. The Manufacturer’s Manuals, FAA or EASA regulations, ICAO Standards and Recommended Procedures (SARPS) in Annexes 1 to 19 of the Chicago Convention. In Sri Lanka, the Civil Aviation Act Number 14 of 2010 and the Ceylon Air Navigation Regulations (1955) will all have to be followed. Sadly, they have not been harmonised and sometimes will work at cross purposes and will be counterproductive.
Inadvertent violations of the law by those concerned will be discovered by the ‘Legal Eagles’ only after the occurrence of an accident or a serious incident. Those responsible (the manufacturer, regulator and operator) will be sued for millions of dollars. Then it will be too late and insurance liability will be compromised. Possibly, a situation far worse than the ‘X-Press Pearl’ maritime disaster.
Yes, it is a mercenary world and we are all walking on thin ice.
Features
Combining local resources,traditional knowledge and science to build a food-secure Sri Lanka
World Food Day 2026: Innovating today for a better food future
by Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara
What will be on the Sri Lankan dinner table ten years from now? Will our children be able to get nutritious food at a price their families can afford? Will farmers be able to grow enough despite changing weather and rising costs? And how much of the food we produce will actually reach the consumer, instead of being lost or wasted along the way?
These questions can’t wait. A farmer faces unpredictable weather. A family faces rising food costs. Fruit goes unsold after a good harvest. Some children do not get enough nutrition. The future of food is tied to the future of Sri Lanka itself.
World Food Day 2026 is a chance to look beyond the immediate problems and ask whether we can build a food system that feeds our people well, gives farmers better opportunities, protects the environment and makes better use of what we already have. The answer can be yes, but we will have to think differently.
We are not starting from zero. Sri Lanka has diverse crops, fisheries, traditional food knowledge, indigenous varieties, research institutions, universities and a young generation able to create new solutions. What we need is to bring these together and act. Producing more will not secure our food future on its own. It will depend on how intelligently we produce, process, preserve, distribute and consume food.
Making more of what we already have
Innovation does not always mean inventing something new. Often it means finding better uses for the resources we have.
Sri Lanka grows traditional rice varieties, kurakkan, green gram, cowpea, jackfruit, breadfruit, cassava, sweet potato, coconut and palmyrah. All of them have great potential for modern, nutritious, value-added foods. Jackfruit and breadfruit can be made into flour and other convenient products. Traditional rice varieties can go into new foods that suit changing consumer needs. Palmyrah, with its strong cultural heritage, can create new income through better processing, packaging, quality assurance and market development.
The aim is to connect our traditional food knowledge with modern consumer needs and technology, while keeping our food heritage.
Stop wasting the food we produce
Reducing food loss and waste should be a major priority. Seasonal fruits such as mango, banana, papaya and pineapple can be lost in large quantities when production exceeds demand or when storage, transport and processing facilities are inadequate. With suitable technology, these fruits can become dried products, pulps, powders, beverages and other shelf-stable foods.
Agricultural and fisheries by-products are resources too. They could be turned into food ingredients, animal feed, bio-based products and other useful materials, which would move us toward a more circular food economy.
Technology alone is not enough. We need stronger local processing facilities, cold storage, efficient transport, collection centres and market information systems, especially close to where food is produced. Cutting food loss raises the value of what our farmers and fishers already produce.
Nutrition and food safety come first
Food security means more than having enough food. People also need food that is safe and nutritious.
Sri Lanka can develop affordable, nutritious foods from local pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and fish. Children and other vulnerable groups should get particular attention. Schoolchildren in particular deserve a focus: safe, nutritious, locally sourced products for school feeding programs would support child nutrition, local farmers and domestic food industries at the same time.
Food safety must stay at the centre of food innovation. Good hygiene, quality control, laboratory testing, traceability and appropriate food safety systems are what make new products safe as well as attractive and nutritious.
A food system that can cope with climate change
Climate change is already affecting agricultural production, water availability, crop yields and food prices. We need food systems that can handle changing conditions. That means climate-resilient crops, efficient water use, soil and water conservation, better storage and resource-efficient food processing.
Traditional knowledge matters here. Generations of Sri Lankan farmers have developed practices suited to local climates and ecosystems. Combining that experience with modern science can give us solutions that fit local conditions and are sustainable. Technology alone will not build the future of food. Science, experience and local knowledge together can.
Give young people a bigger role
Sri Lanka’s universities have an important part to play in shaping our food future. Young people should be encouraged to identify real problems in the food system and work on practical solutions in areas such as food waste, sustainable packaging, nutrition, food safety, modernising traditional foods and digital technologies.
A good research project should not always end as a research paper. Where appropriate, research should be supported to move on to products, technologies, enterprises and community solutions. That needs stronger partnerships between universities and industry, along with mentoring, research funding, business support and market connections. If young researchers and entrepreneurs can turn their ideas into viable food innovations, both consumers and producers will benefit.
A pathway designed for Sri Lanka
We do not need to copy food-system models from other countries. We can build a pathway that suits our own resources, culture and needs. It would bring together local resources, traditional knowledge, scientific research, appropriate technology and entrepreneurship, with farmers, fishers, universities, research institutions, food industries, entrepreneurs and policymakers working side by side.
The goal goes beyond selling raw materials. We need to create more value, reduce waste, improve nutrition, generate jobs and strengthen rural livelihoods. This matters especially for small and medium-scale food enterprises, which can drive local economic development when they get the right technical, financial and market support.
The choices we make today
The food future will not create itself. It will be shaped by what we grow, what we research, what we process, what we consume and what we choose not to waste.
So, the question for World Food Day 2026 is this: what can we do today so that every Sri Lankan has safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food tomorrow?
The answers are already around us, in our farms, fisheries, food businesses, universities, laboratories and communities. We have the resources, the traditional knowledge, the scientific expertise and talented young people. What we need now is to connect them and act.
A better food future begins with the choices we make today.
Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara
Senior Lecturer, Department of Biosystems Technology, Faculty of Technology, University of Ruhuna
Features
20th Anniversary of Digampathana blast – the day Sri Lanka Navy cried
By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan
The Digampathana suicide truck attack on 16th October 2006 remains the deadliest single strike in Sri Lanka Navy history, leaving scars that time cannot erase.
It was a seemingly ordinary Monday morning on 16 October 2006, but the calm of that day would soon be shattered in a way none of us could have imagined. As the Commandant of the Naval and Maritime Academy and Flag Officer Commanding Naval Fleet at Trincomalee, I was aware that a number of my cadets were travelling that morning, part of a convoy of fifteen buses carrying naval personnel from Trincomalee, Colombo, and other bases, heading toward Dambulla to rendezvous with another group. The convoy also included trucks and escort vehicles, a routine movement planned and coordinated with the army to ensure the roads were clear. The morning started quietly. Some personnel greeted friends, handed over their weapons, or strolled to a nearby tea shop. It all seemed so ordinary—too ordinary for what would come next.

Sri Lanka Navy sunk LTTE Ships carrying arms, ammunition and warlike materials thousand miles away from Sri Lanka in Indian Ocean in September and October 2007.
By late morning, both convoys had reached the small ground at Digampathana, near the Sigiriya junction, and personnel mingled briefly, unaware that a carefully orchestrated act of terror was waiting. Then, suddenly, an empty half-truck veered directly into the convoy. It exploded with a ferocity I can still recall as if it were yesterday. Nuts, bolts, and high explosives tore through the air. Pandemonium erupted instantly. I later learned that 107 of our naval personnel were killed on the spot and another 153 critically injured. The scene was indescribable—bodies scattered, vehicles mangled, personal effects strewn across the ground. I remember later hearing that the head of the suicide bomber was recovered more than 100 meters away from the blast, a grim testament to the sheer force of the explosion.
I was in my office at the Naval and Maritime Academy when my mobile phone rang. A young midshipman from the 21st intake called, his voice trembling: “Sir, there was a huge explosion at the convoy point! Many are dead … my batch mate Wijesundara is among them.” I immediately jumped into my jeep with my escort Chief Petty Officer and driver and rushed to Digampathana, relying on every ounce of my driving skill to reach the scene. The journey, which usually took little more than an hour, felt endless that day, each passing mile weighed down by dread.
When I arrived, I was confronted with a sight that no training can prepare you for. The injured were being rushed to Dambulla Hospital, where doctors and nurses worked tirelessly, improvising in ways that saved lives despite the overwhelming chaos. I went back to the site after visiting the hospital. The remains of our naval personnel were scattered across the ground, and someone had begun collecting weapons and protective gear. I immediately contacted Surgeon Rear Admiral Nico Jayasekara and received his instructions: collect all body parts in separate bags and transport them to the Trincomalee Naval Hospital mortuary. This gruesome work had to be done with care and dignity, and it filled the icebox in my vehicle. Through DNA testing initiated by Rear Admiral Nico, we were able to identify every naval personnel lost that day, bringing some closure to grieving families.
The Navy Commander at the time, Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, was devastated. I had worked closely with him and knew how deeply he cared for his men. He ensured that the fallen were honoured with full ceremonial naval funerals at Welisara Naval Base, attended by families and comrades. Sixty-seven funerals were conducted in a single day—a number that still haunts me.
The Digampathana attack remains the largest single loss of naval life in our history. It was a day of sorrow, but also a day that reinforced our resolve. The tragedy galvanized the Navy to target the LTTE Sea Tiger wing with renewed determination and reshaped our maritime operations forever. Every time I think of that day, I remember not just the lives lost, but the courage, professionalism, and dedication of those who survived, those who treated the injured, and those who ensured the fallen were honored properly. May the souls of our naval hero’s rest in peace, their sacrifice guiding us and inspiring generations of naval personnel to come.
Features
‘Murder at Whitby Abbey’
Tales of Mystery and Suspense – 24
I was intrigued by the title of a book I found in a book drop at the condominium of a friend, Murder at Whitby Abbey, and I brought it home with me though I will not be able to return it in the near future. It was described on the cover page as ‘a standout in the crowded medieval mystery field’, though I fear I do not know of other books in this field, apart from the Cadfael series, which I have dealt with earlier.
The book, by Cassandra Clark, is set during the reign of Richard II and has as a backdrop his precarious position, which led to his being replaced, and murdered, by his cousin Henry, who reigned as Henry IV. It is a gloomy book, the action taking place in the twelve days of Christmas leading up to the Epiphany. And the gloom is pervasive, even though this is supposed to be a time of festivity, with mummers performing, and many of those in the guest house where the heroine stays going to town to enjoy themselves, with much drinking and much music, which also fills the guesthouse.
The heroine Hildegarde is a nun, sent to try to acquire a relic being sold by Whitby Abbey, though this was also a penance set by the Abbot of the monastery that governed her abbess because she had had sex with a man. Soon after she and her companions reach the Abbey set high on a cliff, she finds that there are other bidders, and soon suspects that the hierarchy, not perhaps the Abbot who seems a weakling, but his rapacious bursar, is determined to make money, and not above creating false relics to sell to several aspirants.
After Hildegarde and her Cistercian companions – Whitby is a Benedictine Foundation – two monks, Gregory and Egbert, and a young priest Mark, reach the abbey, they find that Aelwyn, a monk they had met on their way to the guesthouse had died. This was in the apple store, and they realize, when they find the surplices of novices stuffed into the air vents, that he had been left to suffocate in the overwhelming scent of apples.
The Cistercians are asked to look into the death, perhaps because they are likely to get no cooperation from the Abbey folk, but perhaps because those in charge are keen to know what happened. And the infirmarer, an old monk, suggests Hildegarde talk to a man called Edred who worked for the bursar, and had been a friend of Aelwyn’s. But Edred too is killed, before he can keep an appointment he had made with Hildegarde, drowned in a pool near the farmhouse of the Abbey.
Meanwhile tensions arise between the fisherfolk and the abbey for the bursar wants to charge them for using the beach that technically belongs to the abbey to dry their fish and their nets. This leads to physical battles, when the guards used by the abbey, under the command it seems of the bursar whose determination to make money is not resisted by the abbot and the prior, try to storm the area where the fishermen live.
Hildegard finds out more about what had happened through two youngsters, one of whom Torold is the son of Aelwyn by a woman who worked as a prostitute for a cartel, and with whom Mark fell in love. The other works on the farm and had seen Edred meet someone near the pool, after which that someone left the place by himself. And the boy had also found in the pool a sort of dagger with the seal of the abbey.
He and his dog, and Torold who follows her, rescue Hildegarde from a man at arms who has waylaid her and tries to rape her earlier. Escaping into the abbey she was nearly been raped then by the bursar, but she managed to escape, in the process setting fire to him and the muniments room, which led, when he was rescued, to the discovery of a box with the money he said had been stolen, blame being cast on both Aelwyn and Edred.
Matters come to a head when the fisherfolk try to storm the abbey, being resisted by the men at arms stationed on the towers. But then Hildegarde realizes that behind the murders was the bursar’s clerk, whom she pursued to the cathedral. There is great drama then as she escapes from him when he tries to kill her, and then from the man at arms who had tried to both rape and kill her, but they both fall from the scaffolding she had climbed, the latter coming from a tower where he had been stationed.
Both of them think they run the rapacity of the abbey, the latter claiming to work for the nobles opposed to Richard, who is presented throughout the book as devoted to his subjects, not to power or money. But though the villains die, the bursar continues, having got over the hysteria the fire had caused and his acknowledgment then of guilt – and though the abbot and the prior seem less vicious, whether they will be able to assert themselves is questionable.
Before the climax, when the others in the guesthouse were leaving, Hildegarde found that two of them were in possession of the relic, for which they seem to have paid well. Hildegarde herself had made a derisory offer, but before she leaves the abbot gives her the relic, perhaps in gratitude for what she and her fellow Cistercians had discovered, the abbey having made as much money as it needed and more from the gullible other buyers.
Mark’s inamorata is saved from the stews because she moves in with Edred’s widow whom the bursar had thrown out of the rooms he occupied when her husband was found dead. Hildegarde had paid for lodgings, in a house run by the man who ran the brothels, but he had a kindly side and was going to finance them to make nets for the fishermen.
So, the Cistercians set off for their home as swiftly as they can to get there on the day of the Epiphany, having stopped en route to pray for King Richard whose birthday it was.
-
News7 days agoSri Lanka escalates anti-graft drive with Shiranthi’s jailing
-
News7 days agoIranian ships stranded, Lanka fears US sanctions
-
Latest News6 days agoFarhan and Sadaqat help Pakistan seal series in style
-
Latest News4 days agoNissanka’s return headlines Sri Lanka’s Test squad against Pakistan
-
Features6 days agoIntake 16: 45 years of duty and honour
-
News6 days agoMalwathu Chapter issues statement on talks with President over Gnanasara Thera’s robes
-
News7 days agoNavi Pillay’s Lankan affairs in focus as she wins 2026 Nobel Peace Prize
-
News6 days agoCP alleges NPP has taken the blame for illegal US sanctions on Iranian vessels

