Introduction
In recent years, the strategic landscape of defense and civil aviation has become increasingly intertwined. For Indonesia, the world’s largest archipelagic state with vast territorial waters and dispersed population centers, air mobility is not a luxury but a necessity. The Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) must often respond to crises: natural disasters, humanitarian emergencies, and evacuations of citizens from conflict zones abroad. Yet, the TNI’s fleet is limited in both scale and flexibility.
This has led to a recurring practice: the use of civil aircraft—owned by the state, state-owned enterprises, or even private operators—to support defense-related missions. While the practice itself is not inherently problematic, Indonesia faces a pressing issue. Unlike many advanced aviation nations, Indonesia has no dedicated regulation that explicitly governs the use of civil aircraft by the military. This absence creates a vacuum where legality, safety, accountability, and international credibility are all at stake.
As the country prepares for greater regional responsibilities and faces intensifying global scrutiny through mechanisms such as ICAO audits, this gap can no longer be ignored. It is time for Indonesia to take a deliberate, measured step toward regulating this sensitive but increasingly necessary practice.
The Legal and Safety Gap
At first glance, allowing the TNI to use civil aircraft in times of crisis may appear practical. However, beneath this operational convenience lies a set of unresolved problems that could snowball into national and international crises.
- Legal Ambiguity
Indonesia currently lacks an explicit legal framework distinguishing when and how civil aircraft may be classified as state aircraft for military purposes. This gap risks violating Article 3 of the 1944 Chicago Convention, which strictly separates civil and state aircraft. Without proper re-registration, Indonesia could be accused of blurring the boundary, raising questions of compliance with international law. In the worst case, unauthorized flights could be challenged, delayed, or even denied access to foreign airspace.
- Safety Concerns
Civil aircraft are not designed for military operations. Without clear Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), questions emerge: who controls flight planning? Which radio frequencies should be used? How are air traffic controllers notified? Without a unified system, the possibility of airspace incidents—mid-air conflicts, misidentification by defense radar, or communication breakdowns—becomes a real threat.
- Insurance and Liability Risks
Most civil aircraft are insured for commercial or humanitarian purposes, not for military deployment. If an incident were to occur during such missions, it is unclear whether insurance coverage would apply. This ambiguity could place both operators and the state in precarious financial and legal positions.
- Institutional Friction
The absence of regulation fuels potential conflict between the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Defense, and the TNI. Each has overlapping but distinct responsibilities: civil aviation oversight, defense strategy, and operational execution. Without clear legal boundaries, coordination risks descending into disputes over authority and accountability.
- International and Diplomatic Repercussions
ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) has repeatedly flagged similar issues in other countries as “significant safety concerns.” Should Indonesia continue without regulation, it could face negative findings that damage its reputation in the international aviation community. Worse, in the highly competitive geopolitical environment of the Indo-Pacific, rival states could exploit these gaps to challenge the legality of Indonesian flights, even when carrying out humanitarian missions.
- Operational Inefficiency
Finally, the absence of a clear framework reduces efficiency. Evacuations of Indonesian citizens from Sudan in 2023, for example, succeeded only through ad-hoc measures. While technically successful, the operation highlighted the fragility of governance: no formal re-registration, no standardized flight coordination with civil authorities, and no predefined insurance provisions. Next time, in a more complex or hostile airspace, such improvisation may not be enough.
In short, the gap is more than academic. It represents a tangible set of risks that cut across legality, safety, governance, and diplomacy.
International Best Practices
Indonesia does not need to start from scratch. Around the world, countries and alliances have long recognized the need for clear frameworks governing civil aircraft in military operations. A closer look at several best practices reveals useful lessons.
United States: The Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)
The United States pioneered the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, a contractual arrangement with commercial airlines such as Delta and United Airlines. When activated during national emergencies, these airlines provide transport capacity for troops and cargo. The critical feature of CRAF is its clarity: civil aircraft are temporarily reclassified as state aircraft, operate under military call signs, and receive proper air traffic clearance. In return, airlines receive financial compensation and government support during peacetime. This model combines legal certainty, operational safety, and industry incentives.
NATO: Multinational CRAF
NATO expanded the American model into a collective framework. Under NATO’s Civil Reserve Air Fleet, member states pool resources, ensuring interoperability across borders. Aircraft deployed under this scheme follow strict re-registration processes and communication protocols, preserving compliance with ICAO standards while enabling rapid multinational deployment. For Indonesia, this shows the value of multilateralism and collective discipline in managing civil-military aviation.
United Kingdom: Sponsored Reserves
The UK has taken a different approach. Under its Sponsored Reserves program, civilian pilots and crew may also serve as military reservists. When civil aircraft are deployed for defense purposes, the crew themselves shift under military command, ensuring unity of control without disrupting safety standards. This hybrid model preserves the civilian character of aviation while strengthening military readiness.
Germany: Charter-Based Solutions
Germany frequently charters Lufthansa aircraft for military deployments abroad. However, every mission is preceded by formal re-registration and diplomatic clearance, aligning strictly with Chicago Convention requirements. This method underscores Germany’s commitment to legality and its reputation as a rules-based actor.
Australia: Whole-of-Government Coordination
Australia integrates defense and civil aviation through a whole-of-government approach. In crises—whether bushfires, Pacific disasters, or conflict evacuations—civil aircraft may be mobilized under tight coordination between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), and humanitarian agencies. This approach highlights the value of seamless inter-agency collaboration.
Across these examples, several threads emerge:
- Clear legal frameworks exist.
- Temporary reclassification of aircraft is mandatory.
- Safety, communication, and liability procedures are codified.
- Transparency and accountability mechanisms are built in.
Lessons for Indonesia
What do these international practices mean for Indonesia? First, they demonstrate that the use of civil aircraft for military purposes is neither unusual nor inherently controversial. However, all successful models rely on clarity, legality, and transparency.
Indonesia’s current reliance on improvisation and goodwill is unsustainable. As a country deeply integrated into the global aviation system, Indonesia cannot afford to appear casual about international obligations. Moreover, as an archipelagic nation with unique geographic vulnerabilities, Indonesia needs a system that guarantees rapid, lawful, and safe mobilization of all national assets in emergencies.
The lesson is simple: Indonesia must adapt global best practices into a framework that reflects national realities. The system should combine the legal discipline of Germany, the contractual clarity of the US, the inter-agency coordination of Australia, and the flexibility of the UK model.
Policy Options and Critique
Policymakers face three main options.
Option 1: Status Quo
Keeping things as they are may seem convenient but is fraught with danger. The lack of explicit rules perpetuates ambiguity, undermines safety, and weakens international credibility. This option is neither sustainable nor responsible.
Option 2: Internal SOPs
An alternative is to create internal Standard Operating Procedures between the TNI and the Ministry of Transportation. While faster to implement, this approach lacks legal force, applies only to the agencies that draft it, and does not guarantee transparency. It risks being seen as a half-measure, insufficient to satisfy ICAO standards or public accountability.
Option 3: A Dedicated Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah)
The most comprehensive solution is to establish a Government Regulation that explicitly governs the use of civil aircraft by the TNI. This would provide binding legal authority, ensure accountability, and align Indonesia with global standards. Such regulation could cover:
- Criteria for permissible use (evacuations, humanitarian assistance, national emergencies).
- Application and coordination processes between ministries.
- Temporary re-registration as state aircraft.
- Safety, security, and insurance provisions.
- Monitoring and public reporting mechanisms.
Of the three options, only a Government Regulation addresses the root of the problem.
Recommendations
Given the stakes, Indonesia should move forward decisively. Several principles must guide this effort:
- Legality and Compliance
The regulation must align with the Chicago Convention and domestic laws, ensuring Indonesia is seen as a responsible aviation actor.
- Safety and Security
Airworthiness audits, specialized crew training, and standardized flight procedures are non-negotiable. Civilian lives and international confidence depend on them.
- Accountability and Transparency
Civil-military cooperation in aviation cannot be a black box. Oversight from Parliament, reporting to ICAO, and public summaries are necessary to build trust.
- Interoperability
The framework should promote seamless coordination between civil and military agencies, ensuring that whole-of-government responses are efficient and unified.
- Flexibility and Responsiveness
Finally, the system must allow rapid mobilization in crises while preventing misuse for offensive or opaque operations.
Conclusion
Indonesia stands at a crossroads. As a nation with vast airspace, significant defense challenges, and growing regional responsibilities, it can no longer afford the risks of regulatory ambiguity. The use of civil aircraft by the TNI is not merely a technical issue; it is a matter of legality, safety, and credibility in the eyes of the world.
By establishing a clear, transparent, and internationally compliant framework, Indonesia will not only close a domestic legal gap but also strengthen its position as a responsible aviation power. In doing so, the country can transform a potential vulnerability into a source of resilience—one that protects its citizens, upholds international norms, and enhances its defense posture in an uncertain global order.
The skies are no place for ambiguity. For Indonesia, clarity is now a strategic imperative.
