A two-step approach to reducing unruly and disruptive passenger incidents.
It is clearly preferable to avoid unruly and disruptive incidents occurring in the first place than to try and manage them during the flight. How ground and cabin crew react to situations is crucial and de-escalation and other training techniques aimed at preventing and managing incidents will be covered in Section 4. However, IATA strongly believes deterrence has a key role in preventing such incidents. Airlines want their customers to have a safe and enjoyable journey, but actions that affect the safety and comfort of other passengers and crew cannot be tolerated and those who become unruly and disruptive need to know there are serious consequences to their actions. This sends a very powerful message to those who may feel that rules and regulations do not apply to them.
That being the case, several aspects relevant to deterrence should be reviewed, namely: ▪ Are travelers aware of what constitutes unruly and disruptive behavior onboard and what legal and other sanctions may result? ▪ Do governments have the necessary legal powers needed to deal with unruly passenger incidents on foreign registered aircraft that land in their territory? ▪ Do governments have the enforcement tools in place to respond to the different types and severities of incidents that may occur? Are these sufficient to ensure that a person is held to the consequences of their behavior?
An aircraft cabin is a unique environment. Behaviors which some people may deem to be acceptable on the ground take on a completely different complexion in the confines of an aircraft traveling at 500 miles per hour six miles above the ground. For example, while smoking in a building lavatory may be illegal and a public health nuisance, smoking in a lavatory during a flight is not only illegal, but also could have serious or even fatal consequences should a fire break out onboard. This speaks to the need for increased awareness of the types of prohibited conduct onboard aircraft and the personal consequences of being unruly and disruptive. One of those fundamental safety responsibilities is that lawful instructions given by the crew are followed without exception, and that interactions between fellow passengers and crew are respectful. That’s why various international treaties such as the Tokyo Convention 1963 refer to the need to maintain “good order and discipline” onboard. Governments and aviation regulators are strong advocates of consumer protection. They also need to be equally strong advocates for consumer responsibility regarding safety and security.
“Governments and aviation regulators are strong advocates of consumer protection. They also need to be equally strong advocates for consumer responsibility regarding safety and security. “
It is essential that all passengers, especially those who are flying for the first time, understand clearly what constitutes prohibited behaviours onboard and what legal or other actions may result for failure to comply. States have recognized the importance of ensuring that travelers understand their responsibilities and the consequences of misbehaviour. Standard 6.45 of Annex 9 - Facilitation of the Chicago Convention states that:
“Each Contracting State shall, to deter and prevent unruly behaviour, promote passenger awareness of the unacceptability and possible legal consequences of unruly or disruptive behaviour in aviation facilities and onboard aircraft.”
Communication should be through media, social media and on physical sites within the airport environment (for example on flight information display screens or on check-in desks). In the past, for example, Transport Canada developed a range of physical posters that could be deployed. Of course, airlines, airports and other stakeholders can refer to or promote these communications to further raise awareness. However, if people are made aware of prohibited conduct onboard and possible sanctions, it is important that appropriate enforcement action is taken against those who fail to comply, as this will deter future incidents. If there is no law enforcement response to such behaviour this undermines these messages.
“Assault a member of staff in a shop or a restaurant and the likelihood is you will be arrested and face prosecution. Do it on an international flight and there is a high probability that you won’t be penalised for it. “
Assault a member of staff in a shop or a restaurant and the likelihood is you will be arrested and face prosecution. Do it on an international flight and there is a high probability that you won’t be penalised for it. This is because under existing international law (the Tokyo Convention 1963), authorities in the State in which the aircraft is registered have jurisdiction over offenses committed onboard, and due to practical enforcement aspects, as well as the discretion of enforcement authorities as to the type of case and the appropriate use of their resources. This means, for example, that if an unruly passenger assaults a crew member on a British (G-) registered aircraft traveling to Thailand and is subsequently delivered to the local authorities upon landing in Bangkok, law enforcement and prosecutors are often powerless to act. UK police (in the state of registration) are 9,500km and several time zones away, so in such cases unruly passengers are simply released, without facing any punishment for their misbehaviour. Indeed, in a survey of IATA member airline legal departments, over 60% of respondents highlighted that these jurisdictional issues were the main reason for lack of prosecutions globally.
A further issue occurs where the aircraft is dry leased (i.e., without crew) to an operator that does not routinely fly to the state of aircraft registration as shown in Scenario 4 above. With more than 50% of the global fleet leased, without widespread ratification of MP14, the problem of jurisdiction when dealing with unruly passengers may get worse
In 2014, ICAO Member States recognized the need to close jurisdictional gaps in international air law and agreed the Montreal Protocol 2014 or MP14. It is beyond the scope of this high level document to explain in detail the legal benefits that MP14 provides, though more information can be found in the ICAO Administrative Package (Doc. 10034). However, in simple terms, MP14 extends the jurisdictional provisions of the Tokyo Convention 1963 such that the state of scheduled landing has the necessary jurisdiction and may deal with unruly passengers under their own laws, irrespective of where the aircraft is registered. In addition, the state of operator also has option the capability to exercise jurisdiction. This closes the so-called jurisdictional gaps that are shown above and gives governments the ability to prosecute and take enforcement action against unruly passengers where appropriate.
Key benefits ▪ Jurisdiction extended to State of landing or State of the operator to initiate criminal, administrative or other form of legal proceedings – closes the jurisdictional gap. ▪ Protection of crewmembers and passengers of national carriers ▪ Keeps flying safe: ‒ safety of aircraft, persons & property on board ‒ maintains good order and discipline on board Status As with all international treaties, it takes time for domestic legislation to be amended to reflect treaty obligations. However, MP14 came into force on 1 January 2020 and as at 21 November 2022, 45 States have now ratified it, with nine states becoming parties this year alone. This included Kenya, Peru, Rwanda, and Romania. IATA estimates that more than 33% of international traffic is now covered by states that are parties to MP14 and is supporting ICAO in urging more States to ratify MP14 in line with Assembly Resolution A41-4Appendix C. IATA has an ongoing advocacy engagement campaign with governments promoting the benefits of MP14 that is led by IATA’s local office teams in coordination with regional partner associations.
Summary – Governments are urged to: ▪ Undertake a review of the existing jurisdictional provisions in their national laws/regulations relating to unruly and disruptive passengers, using ICAO Documents 10117 and 10034 as guidance ▪ Assess the necessary domestic legislative or other steps required to accede/approve or ratify MP14 and start the process needed to become a party to MP14 ▪ Deposit the instrument of ratification/accession/approval (a model instrument is provided in Doc 10034).
An ICAO task force was formed in the aftermath of the Diplomatic Conference that agreed MP14 tasked with updating and preparing additional guidance material and examples in respect of such systems for the reference of the international community. A regulatory manual is now available for States known as ICAO Manual Document 10117 – Manual on the Legal Aspects of Unruly and Disruptive Passengers. These civil and administrative penalty systems are known to save considerable time for police authorities and the courts. When an infringement notice is issued, the person receiving the notice can either pay the fine or contest it if they wish. While not appropriate for all cases, IATA considers such as system as one tool for police to have at their disposal for example for basic cases of non-compliance. Criminal proceedings will always be relevant for the more severe incidents.
At the 41st ICAO Assembly, States agreed Resolution A41-4 Appendix E which provides model legislation on offenses committed onboard aircraft and “Encourages States which have not yet done so to consider introducing civil and administrative sanctions to deal with less serious acts or offences relating to unruly and disruptive behaviour on board aircraft in an expeditious and effective manner.”. Summary – Governments are urged to: ▪ Review their existing enforcement measures available to deal with the different types of unruly and disruptive passenger incidents, using ICAO Manual Doc. 10117 as a guide. ▪ Where gaps are identified, particularly where dealing with less severe types of incidents, new enforcement mechanisms including civil and administrative penalties should be considered to enhance the deterrent in line with ICAO Resolution A41-4 Appendix E.
Individual airlines may refuse carriage to persons who present a safety risk in accordance with conditions of carriage and local laws. However, there are cases where unruly passengers who have been refused carriage on one carrier simply travel on another carrier and continue their journey. In response to the surge in reported cases of unruly behavior associated with non-compliance with mask requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, were calls by some for the establishment of a government managed registers of unruly passengers. To date, there are only a handful of countries that have such registers to IATA’s knowledge. Overall, IATA’s view is that in most cases, national ‘no-fly’ or similar unruly passengers registers are not the most effective means of addressing the issue of unruly and disruptive passengers for the following reasons: ▪ The main priority is for governments to a) fix the jurisdictional issues by ratifying MP14 and b) ensure that enforcement measures are in place and applied in practice, as appropriate ▪ National registers could detract from political and legislative efforts that could be devoted to a) and b) above, including any relevant policy consideration and implementation of civil and administrative penalties ▪ Managing and maintaining the registers could be legally complex, resource-intensive and costly, relative to the numbers of persons to which these types of interventions may apply.
Summary: IATA believes that improving the existing jurisdictional and other practical barriers to enforcement are more effective use of precious legislative time and effort. However, where these have been overcome or where there is a specific request from airlines in that market, national registers may be a further measure that governments may wish to conside
Comments
Post a Comment