Aircraft Rules 1937, Rule 91 — Bird & Wildlife Attractant Control (RULE_AIRCRAFT_RULES_91)

Reference only — not legal advice. This page is EarthReheal WasteLedger's plain-language interpretation of the rule, written to help organisations understand what may apply to them. It can be incomplete or inaccurate. Always read the official gazette notification or statute, and confirm with your regulator or a qualified adviser, before relying on it for compliance decisions.

Quick Summary

Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 makes waste an air-safety matter, not just a municipal one. Nobody may slaughter or flay animals, or deposit rubbish, filth, garbage or other polluted or obnoxious matter, within a 10 kilometre radius of the aerodrome reference point — where that matter attracts, or is likely to attract, vultures or other birds and animals. The rule names hotels, meat shops, fish shops and bone-processing mills as example sources. The only way around it is written permission from the Director-General or Joint Director-General of Civil Aviation, and then only where adequate arrangements stop birds and animals being drawn in.

For an airport operator this cuts two ways. Inside the fence, your own waste handling must not create an attractant. Outside it, you are expected to survey the 10 km belt, escalate attractant sources through the Airfield Environment Management Committee (AEMC), and run a wildlife hazard management programme with patrols and strike recording — because the enforcement consequence of a bird strike lands on the aerodrome licence.

What This Rule Is

Full name: Rule 91, The Aircraft Rules, 1937 — "Prohibition of slaughtering and flaying of animals, depositing of rubbish and other polluted or obnoxious matter in the vicinity of aerodrome".

Issuing / administering authorities: Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Ministry of Civil Aviation. Enforcement against off-airport sources runs through the Airfield Environment Management Committee (AEMC), which DGCA has asked State governments to constitute — headed by the Chief Secretary / Commissioner or the head of the district — with the local body and police as members.

Legal basis: The Aircraft Rules, 1937 are framed under the Aircraft Act, 1934. The parent Act carries the prohibition at section 10(1A), covering the slaughter and flaying of animals and the depositing of rubbish, filth and other polluted or obnoxious matter within a 10 km radius of the aerodrome reference point.

Penalty basis: Contravention attracts imprisonment which may extend to three years, or a fine, or both. The Aircraft (Amendment) Act, 2020 raised the monetary ceiling for offences under the Act to ₹1 crore. Verify the currently notified figure for the specific offence before quoting a number to a customer.

Operational overlay (not part of Rule 91's text, but how DGCA supervises it): DGCA requires aerodrome operators to maintain a wildlife hazard management programme — routine patrols in random patterns, bird-scaring deployment, advising pilots of wildlife activity, and recording and monitoring wildlife/bird movement and strike data. DGCA has repeatedly directed operators to review these programmes and not to relax them.

Who This Applies To

Applies to: licensed aerodrome and airport operators (AAI and private/PPP concessionaires alike), and — importantly — to any person depositing attractant matter inside the 10 km radius, whether or not they have anything to do with aviation.

Practically, that means an airport operator must manage:

• On-airport waste — terminal, lounge, flight-kitchen and apron waste that could become an open attractant.
• Off-airport sources — municipal dumpsites, abattoirs, meat and fish markets, poultry units, bone mills, and open dumping inside the belt. You cannot enforce against these yourself, which is exactly why the AEMC route exists.

Note on the exemption: the DG/Joint DG may permit an activity in writing, having regard to how close it is to the aerodrome and the arrangements for disposing of carcasses and polluted matter. This is a narrow, conditional, site-specific permission — not a general carve-out, and not something to assume exists.

The 10 km Radius — What It Is Measured From

The radius runs from the aerodrome reference point (ARP), the designated geographic centre of the aerodrome, not from the perimeter fence or the runway threshold. For most Indian metro airports that circle swallows a substantial part of the surrounding urban area, including municipal waste infrastructure that long predates the airport. Practical consequence: this rule is routinely in tension with real municipal waste siting, and a survey almost always finds sources. The compliance question is not "are there any?" but "did you identify them and escalate them?"

Compliance Requirements — What You Actually Have to Do

The audit trail that matters is escalation: a documented survey showing a dumpsite at 6 km, minuted at the AEMC, with a follow-up, is a defensible position. The same dumpsite with no record is not.

Penalties & Enforcement

• Statutory: imprisonment up to three years and/or fine under the Aircraft Act, 1934 (section 10(1A) route), with the post-2020 ceiling of ₹1 crore for offences under the Act.
• Regulatory: findings against the aerodrome licence — the sharper commercial risk. DGCA audits wildlife hazard management as part of aerodrome oversight.
• Consequential: where a strike is traced to an attractant source the operator knew about and did not escalate, the failure becomes a liability and licensing finding on top of any environmental penalty for the dumping itself.

Frequently Asked Questions

We don't own the dumpsite — why is it our problem? The prohibition binds whoever deposits the matter, so the dumpsite operator is the one breaking the rule. But your obligation is to identify it and drive it through the AEMC. Regulators judge the aerodrome operator on escalation, not on ownership.

Does the municipal landfill inside 10 km have to close? Not automatically, and in practice most do not. What the rule creates is a duty to control attraction — covering, compaction, netting, faster turnaround — usually negotiated through the AEMC with the local body. Treat closure demands as an outcome of that process, not a starting assumption.

Is this the same as the SWM Rules obligation? No. SWM Rules 2026 governs how you segregate and process your own waste as a bulk waste generator. Rule 91 governs whether waste anywhere in a 10 km circle is attracting birds into the approach path. An airport needs both; satisfying one does not satisfy the other.

Does it apply to a small non-scheduled or private airstrip? The rule speaks to aerodromes generally. Scope and licensing category affect what DGCA supervises in practice — confirm with the licensing office for the specific aerodrome rather than assuming the full metro-airport regime applies.

Government / Official Sources

• DGCA — Aircraft Rules, 1937 (dynamic rules viewer): https://www.dgca.gov.in
• Ministry of Civil Aviation — Aircraft Rules, 1937 (PDF mirror): https://www.civilaviation.gov.in
• Aircraft Act, 1934 — India Code: https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• Rule 91 text (secondary mirror, useful for the exact wording): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103317111/

Related Rules

• RULE_SWM_2026 — the airport's own bulk-waste-generator obligations; the on-airport half of keeping attractants down.
• RULE_AQCS_ICW — international catering waste, which must leave the terminal on a separate quarantine-controlled chain and never sit in an open attractant stream.
• RULE_SWM_2026_LANDFILL — where a landfill inside the 10 km belt is itself a WasteLedger tenant, its cover and compaction obligations are the practical fix the AEMC will ask for.

Additional Reference Content

Secondary explainers and reporting — useful context only; prefer the Act and the DGCA rules viewer.

• Implementation of environment and wildlife norms around Indian airports remains on paper (Down To Earth)
• DGCA asks airports to review wildlife management plans (Swarajya)
• DGCA issues guidelines to prevent bird hits at airports (Tribune India)
• Amendment to the Aircraft Act, 1934 — penalty changes (Mondaq)