The Airlines Pilots’ Association of India (ALPA) has urged India’s aviation regulator to halt airline operations into designated high-risk conflict zones in West Asia and to require proof of war risk insurance for crew operating in those areas. In a letter sent on March 28 to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), ALPA called for a review of Indian carriers’ exposure to the ongoing Israel-US-Iran conflict and for a move from advisory guidance to binding rules.
According to Business Standard’s report, ALPA wrote: “Operating flights into, or in close proximity to, an active war zone constitutes a serious and unacceptable risk to the safety of passengers, flight crew, and aircraft. In our considered view, such decisions amount to wilful endangerment of human life.” The association noted that it had already raised the issue with the DGCA on March 18, following which the regulator issued an urgent safety advisory on March 19 that left final risk assessment to individual operators. The pilots’ body said that approach does not address its concerns where airspace is directly affected by military action. It is seeking a centralised assessment process led by state authorities.
A key issue for ALPA is how conflict-related risks that can affect civil operations and aviation insurance arrangements are assessed and by whom. “Commercial airlines do not possess the requisite intelligence, surveillance capabilities, or geopolitical risk assessment infrastructure necessary to adequately evaluate threats in active conflict environments. Such assessments fall squarely within the domain of sovereign authorities and specialised agencies. Delegating this responsibility to individual operators not only creates inconsistencies in safety standards but also exposes flight crew and passengers to potentially catastrophic risks without a robust and uniform safety framework,” the association said in the letter.
The union also highlighted uncertainty over war risk protection for flight and cabin crew assigned to routes into or near affected airspace. According to ALPA, pilots have been “actively seeking clarification regarding the status and validity of their insurance coverage while operating into such high-risk zones,” yet “to date, no documentary evidence or formal assurance has been provided to confirm that adequate war risk insurance coverage remains valid under these circumstances. It is perhaps because the Airlines do not have suitable and adequate insurance riders entirely.” To illustrate the potential consequences of conflict exposure, ALPA cited past incidents in which commercial aircraft were shot down during hostilities, including Iran Air Flight 655, Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114, and Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.
ALPA has asked the aviation regulator to move beyond guidance and set out enforceable rules on flying into conflict zones, with specific references to war risk insurance for crew. “In light of the above, we strongly urge the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the DGCA to: Immediately review and suspend operations into identified high-risk conflict zones until a centralised and authoritative risk assessment is conducted, especially in light of the worsening situation,” the association wrote. It further called on the DGCA to “establish clear, binding directives regarding operations in conflict regions, aligned with international best practices and based on intelligence inputs,” and to “mandate immediate disclosure and verification of valid insurance coverage, including war-risk clauses, for all crew operating into or near conflict zones.”
ALPA also requested “a thorough inquiry into the decision-making processes within Air India, particularly the roles of the Vice President – Operations and the Crew Scheduling Department, to determine accountability for exposing crew and passengers to such risks, particularly if found not to have adequate war risk insurance.” The current conflict in West Asia escalated after Israel-US strikes on Iran on Feb. 28 that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran’s response has widened regional tensions and disrupted airspace, leading to diversions, cancellations, and schedule changes on Asia-Europe and transcontinental routes.
The same conflict is bringing renewed attention to the scope of standard travel and health insurance products, particularly long-standing war and war-like operations exclusions. Hari Radhakrishnan of the Insurance Brokers Association of India (IBAI), said that many affected passengers are finding that their policies do not respond to losses linked to the current conflict. “Standard travel insurance policies usually do not cover war or war-like situations. Trip cancellation, curtailment, interruption, or extension benefits are not offered on an ‘all risks’ basis; they apply only to specific situations mentioned in the policy. These typically include events such as hospitalisation or death of the traveller or an immediate family member, natural disasters, political unrest at the destination (like riots, strikes, or civil commotion), or loss of passport or visa,” Radhakrishnan said, as reported by NDTV.
Radhakrishnan said added that medical expenses arising from war or war-like situations are “generally not covered” under standard health and travel medical products, in line with exclusions on non-medical travel benefits. In operational terms, airlines may still refund fares or offer rebooking when flights are cancelled or rerouted, but under aviation rules war and related events are treated as force majeure. That reduces the likelihood of additional statutory compensation and places more weight on the specific wording of insurance contracts for any additional recovery.
From an underwriting and claims standpoint, insurers are focusing on proximate cause – the primary trigger of loss – to determine whether a claim is payable under policy terms. Where the initiating event is war, invasion, hostilities, or coordinated airspace closure, key travel benefits are typically excluded. This can affect:
Claims may still be accepted where the initial cause is unrelated to the conflict, such as a medical emergency or an airline operational issue that later coincides with wider disruption. Market participants report that many current disputes are being described as falling into a “grey zone,” where policyholders see losses as accidental, while policies classify them as war-related under exclusion clauses.
Siddharth Maurya, founder and managing director of Vibhavangal Anukulkara Pvt Ltd, said recent developments around the Iran-US crisis are drawing attention to how travellers interpret policy exclusions. “Current geopolitical events especially those concerning Iran and the United States underscore another insufficient aspect in travellers' comprehension of insurance policies. Typical travel insurance policies cover many types of sudden and unforeseen activities like medical emergencies, delays in the trip, and loss of luggage but they cover nothing in relation to war, invasion, or war-like situations. This means that regardless of conflict escalation that leads to the cancellation of flights or the disruption of travel routes, travellers will receive no reimbursement regardless of their travel insurance policies,” Maurya said, as reported by NDTV.
Maurya added that “travellers will have to revise insurance policies and try to procure insurance in specialised areas that are less typical than standard travel insurance,” indicating potential demand for add-on or standalone covers that address war and political violence exposures. The combination of pilot concerns over war risk cover and passenger disputes over travel insurance exclusions is likely to draw further scrutiny to product design, regulatory expectations, and disclosure practices for operations that intersect with conflict zones. While standard policies continue to cover non-conflict medical emergencies, personal accidents, and some baggage losses, the current situation is clarifying the line between conventional consumer travel insurance and specialised war risk solutions used in aviation and marine markets.
