The problem of unruly passenger behaviour or air rage, has always been with us but in recent years the number and seriousness of cases has increased to an extent where airports, airlines, authorities and governments need to take action. Instances of sports teams or pop groups have occasionally been reported in the press in the past. More recently, cases of serious injury to aircrew and aircraft diversion have again brought the problem to the forefront in the media; however, the background to legal aspects of dealing with problems is less well understood. The aim of this article is to outline the laws dealing with disruptive passengers and how airports and airlines can help themselves to prevent incidents or, if they occur, ensure that the offenders are prosecuted in the courts.

The 1963 Tokyo Convention was designed primarily to combat terrorism. The hijacking and destruction of aircraft was countered by most, but by no means all, countries agreeing a common policy for dealing with terrorists. The Convention outlined the laws which countries needed to pass to enable the courts to deal effectively with offenders. Not all nation states signed the Convention and not all signatories passed the necessary legislation to make the Convention effective and, as we know, this left safe havens for terrorists to escape from international justice. A number of countries have become independent since 1963 and not all of them have yet adopted the Convention or passed the necessary national laws to empower their police or their courts to deal with the problem. The basis for most countries to deal with unruly passengers stems directly from laws passed in support of the Tokyo Convention and, as can be imagined, a law designed to combat terrorism may not be entirely suitable for prosecuting a passenger who assaults a cabin attendant.

The law of the land governs the actions of the police and the courts. In the UK the Civil Aviation Act 1982 derives from the Tokyo Convention. Section 92 of the Act provides UK courts with the jurisdiction to deal with offences committed on board UK registered aircraft wherever in the world an offence takes place. Offences committed on non-UK aircraft can be dealt with in the UK if the next landing of the aircraft is in the UK and if the crime would be a crime in the state of registration of that aircraft. This second part of the Act, which deals with foreign aircraft landing in UK, was omitted from the original Act and was introduced as an amendment in 1996 after Qantas pointed out the omission.

Section 94 of the Civil Aviation Act deals with the power invested in the aircraft commander to ensure the safety of his aircraft. Aviation law is derived from maritime law and many, but not all, of the commander’s powers are similar to those of a ship’s captain. The powers of the commander are designed to maintain good order and discipline on board the aircraft and include the physical restraint of troublemakers. The powers of the commander may only be exercised from doors closed after passengers have boarded until the doors are opened for disembarkation at destination – or diversion! When the doors are open the law is enforced by the local police rather than by the commander.

The Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 provides specific laws to protect the crew and fellow passengers from disruptive behaviour. In short they prohibit passengers from:

Article. 55: Acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or any person on board.

Article. 56: Causing or permitting an aircraft to endanger persons or property.

Article. 57: Entering an aircraft while drunk or being drunk on an aircraft.

Article. 58: Smoking if banned by the operator. However, NO SMOKING notices are required. An announcement by the Commander is NOT enough.

Article. 59: Every person on board an aircraft must obey the lawful commands of the commander.

Articles 55 and 56, the “endangering articles” and article 57, the drunkenness article carry a maximum fine of £5,000 on summary conviction or 2 years’ imprisonment. Or an unlimited fine if convicted in the Crown Court

The No Smoking Article provides for a maximum fine of £2,500 with no option for imprisonment.

Comparable penalties available under the laws in the USA are:

Criminal penalties of a fine of up to US$ 11,000 or 20 years imprisonment apply to cases where passengers assault, intimidate or interfere with or lessen a crew members ability to perform his or her duty.

Civil penalties for similar offenses carry a maximum fine of US$ 1,100 per violation.

The police can act only if the law of the land provides a framework for a charge. In countries where the Tokyo Convention has not been ratified or where legislation has not been passed enforcing the Convention it is difficult for the police to formally charge an offender. The result is that aircrew often waste a considerable amount of time providing statements in support of a serious incident to find that the disruptive passenger is let off with a caution.

In many countries the police are not familiar with aviation law and therefore they fail to understand the problems associated with dangers such as smoking on aircraft. The result is often frustrating to the crew who are then less likely to report a subsequent incident. One method of overcoming this shortcoming is to foster a close liaison with the airport police. In the UK such cooperation has resulted in a much-improved understanding of mutual problems, has reduced the time needed to take statements and increased the liklihood of securing a conviction.

Of course, in the UK the police are not the final arbiters of whether a case is prosecuted. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decides if there is a case to answer and, in doing so, must be convinced that it is in the public interest to prosecute the case and that there is at least a 50% chance of success. If either of these criteria is not met then the case is dropped. If a case goes to court and is thrown out, the wrong message is given to the public and it is a waste of taxpayer's money. The police are very well aware of these rules and put forward only those cases deemed to have a real chance of success. This places the onus on the evidence provided by witnesses and, often, the statements provided by crewmembers leaves much to be desired.

As stated earlier there has been a marked increase in the number of reports of unruly passengers. Some sources quote a 400% increase in recent years. The increase is probably due, at least in part, to a better reporting climate; however, there is no doubting the fact that changes in society have contributed to the increase.

Throughout the past 30 years there has been a noticeable increase in violent crime. Muggings in the street, riots in our cities and mass shootings in schools have seen a disregard for law and order. Personal standards are lower and there is often a total lack of consideration for the property or well being of others. The materialistic and inconsiderate attitude of many people is magnified when faced with the stress of air travel. In the past, travel by air was the privilege of the well off and often the better educated. The introduction of cheap mass air travel has opened up the market to many people who would otherwise have travelled by train or coach. This, combined with the stresses associated with airports and flying, push some individuals over the top. The customer often feels that anything goes once the ticket is paid for and the holiday begins in the bar as soon as check-in is completed. It is a sad but irrefutable fact that, nowadays, many customers believe that the customer is always right!

The stress of getting to the airport and the fear of flying are often exacerbated by long check-in queues, contentious seat allocation and, inevitably, aircraft delays. Even without a delay, the 2 hour prior to take off check-in still leaves ample time for the party minded to imbibe to excess. It is not widely known that it is an offence under Article 57 of the Air navigation Order to be drunk on an aircraft. Bars at airports are required to display signs stating that it is illegal to serve alcohol to persons under the age of 18, but there are no signs stating that it is illegal to be drunk on an aircraft. Airports make a lot of money from the sale of duty free alcohol. The fact that it is dangerous because it is inflammable, heavy because it is in glass bottles and tempting to those who wish to drink en route could be resolved if all duty free goods were collected on arrival at the destination.

Often, the stress factor is increased by the lack of information. A delayed departure can bring out the worst in some people; however, providing information can help passengers to cope with the stress. Certainly, an information vacuum has the opposite effect.

As more and more airlines introduce “No Smoking” flights, the stress induced by nicotine craving is a major factor in many disruptive incidents. Airports could well help by designating pre-flight smoking areas to enable the addicted passenger to get a last minute “fix”.

Observation of behaviour at check-in and at the gate is important if the potential troublemakers are to be prevented from boarding the aircraft. It is all too easy to turn a blind eye to a difficult passenger at the gate and pass the problem on to the aircrew who are faced with dealing with it at 30,00 feet in a dangerous environment. Airports, airlines and their handling agents should increase awareness of the consequences of dodging the issue and passing the problem on. In this respect it would seem sensible to review the rules governing unaccompanied baggage as many “problems” are boarded because locating and off-loading the offender’s baggage would cause the flight to miss the ATC slot.

First impressions on boarding an aircraft are important. The crew set the standard for the entire flight by the way they greet and treat passengers who may have just spent a very sweaty and crowded 20 minutes in a 90 degrees plus mobile lounge. To find the overhead racks full of the entire worldly possessions of the passenger in the next seat is not the best start to a journey. The “tone” of a trip is set by the safety briefing during which the cabin crew set the ground rules for smoking, mobile ‘phones, laptop computers and other electronic devices that can interfere with aircraft operation. The crew needs a clear understanding of company policy and a firm belief that the company will back them in implementing that policy. The increasing tendency for cabin crew to operate under marketing rather than operations can lead to divided loyalties.

Training of cabin crew to recognise and defuse difficult situations is important. Verbal and physical self-defence training is now undertaken by many airlines. The use of restraint devices and coaching in report writing and making statements is also important. A suggested list of Training Topics is:

- Legal rights of the Commander

- Company Policy

- Legal rights concerning denied boarding

- Employee’s basic rights

- Company Support

- Psychological background of misbehaviour

- Communication Skills

- The use of restraint devices

- Reporting

- Law enforcement procedures

Another device introduced by some airlines is the “Yellow” and “Red” card system. Most passengers are familiar with the soccer system and respond favourably to a “yellow” card warning which cuts off all further alcohol, stresses the penalties for further misbehaviour and the liability for the cost of a diversion landing to off load the offender. Obviously the card system is not effective if the recipient can’t or is incapable of reading or if he does not understand the language written on the card!

If the commander decides to request the police to meet his aircraft there are certain procedures that will help. ATC can usually contact the police or the ambulance service more readily than the company representative can and, rather than providing specific details, the phrase “endangering the safety of the aircraft” is often more effective.

The crewmembers concerned and any passengers willing to provide statements should provide names, contact numbers and permanent addresses. If the case goes to court the airline should support those staff called to give evidence. In more serious cases post trauma counselling may also be necessary. As mentioned earlier, it is important for staff to know that they will receive the full support of the company in progressing a formal charge. To this end some UK airlines have issued a policy letter to all staff stating that they will be supported and that court time will be treated as duty time.

The seriousness of the charge will decide whether the case will be heard in a magistrate’s court or a crown court. If the police believe there is a serious case to answer then they will forward the papers to the Crown Prosecution Service (in UK) for a decision. If the CPS does not recommend a prosecution, the Civil Aviation Authority can independently prosecute the offender or, failing that, the airline can bring a private prosecution. This last option is seldom exercised. The more usual practice is for the individual to sue the airline!

In the UK the UK Flight Safety Committee has provided aircraft commanders with a checklist of essential information to help with the decision making process when confronted with trouble in the air. In November 1998 a seminar was held to bring together all parties involved and to gain media support to better inform the public of the danger to aircraft and the penalties of unruly behaviour in the air. The UKFSC also declared 1999 a year to concentrate on the problem and published a 12-point programme – CONDUCT 99 - for airports and airlines to implement.

The UK government and the CAA have reacted to increased violence in the air by amending the Air Navigation Order to increase the penalties available to the courts and to make it easier for the police to secure a conviction. During September 1999 the following amendment to the law was introduced:

Article 59A

- No person shall while on an aircraft:
a, use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew
b, behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards the crew of the aircraft; or,
c, intentionally interfere with the performance by a crew member of his duties

PENALTIES -

This amendment is secondary legislation to send a clear message to would be offenders by defining the increased penalties for threatening, abusive, insulting behaviour and disorderly conduct.

At the same time, the airlines are providing reports of all disruptive passenger incidents to the government to support the case for changes to primary legislation; however, this is a longer-term option as parliamentary time is at a premium.

The European Union is taking an interest in the problem and has been briefed on UK initiatives; however, most airlines look to IATA or ICAO for guidance. IATA working groups are studying the problem and guidelines have been published.

ICAO, which has grown some teeth in recent years, has yet to act, but with the policy of compulsory audits of all airlines and national authorities, the promotion of a worldwide campaign to reduce this unnecessary danger to aircrew and aircraft would be welcome.

The increasing threat to safety of an aircraft and its crew and passengers has led to concern throughout the industry. Changes in society have seen a more violent culture develop and this, combined with mass air travel has resulted in a 4-fold increase in reports of disruptive behavior. The laws to deal with problems on aircraft stem from the Tokyo Convention of 1963 which was designed to combat terrorist hijackings and, consequently, they do not cover cases of assault or disorderly behaviour. Moreover, not all countries have ratified the Convention and many that have do not have national laws to support that ratification. Even in countries that have legislation in place, police enforcement can be a variable feast.

Airlines and airports can reduce the risk to aircraft and crew by acknowledging the problem and providing training and support to back up those dealing with problems. Training to better understand the psychology of violent behaviour and how ton deal with it is as important as self defence and restraint training. National and international action is taking place to increase awareness of the danger to aircraft safety and also to that of the crew and fellow passengers. New laws are being introduced to increase the penalties for offenders and to enable the police to deal more quickly and effectively with this growing threat.

8418

[ Home ]