Friday, October 14, 2016

Star para-athlete forced to take off prosthesis at airport, left bleeding


Oct 13, 2016 12:20 IST

One of India’s top para-athletes has alleged that he was forced to remove his prosthetic leg and humiliated by the security staff at Bengaluru airport.

Two-time para-cycling Asian medallist Aditya Mehta wrote on Facebook post that Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officials at Bengaluru airport made him “undo and redo” his prosthesis during the security check for a 5.30am flight to Hyderabad.

“I have been suffering with an injury since the past 20 days with my stump and the security check officials only had to say “It is your problem!”. It took me 40 min for the entire process which left me bleeding at the end,” Mehta wrote.

The athlete said this wasn’t the first time he was forced to undergo the ordeal and had similar experiences at Delhi and Bengaluru earlier this year.

“I have mentioned how painful the procedure is to remove the prosthetics and wear it back. Worth mentioning is the psychological scar that it can leave on a physically challenged person’s mind.”  “Thankfully, I am not that weak mentally.”

He said that a foundation run by him had asked for full-body scanners at airports to deal with disabled persons but no action – not even sensitization of security staff – had been forthcoming.

“This isn’t just my personal battle but the emotions behind the cause is. I am not here to absorb the humiliation and break. I am here to stand for my people and make a change,” he wrote.

“This isn’t a plea because we have pleaded before with no luck. This is a challenge to your oppressive system.”

More than 21 million people in India are certified as disabled but often complain of neglect and discrimination, especially in accessing public spaces and services. A clutch of medals at the recently concluded Paralympics in Brazil brought back the focus on social bias against para-athletes and how many of them had surmounted obstacles to represent India at the world stage.


Wednesday, September 7, 2016

BCAS says Passengers with Disabilities Pose "Higher" Security Risk

Dear Colleagues,

Below is the coverage on the RTI expose by our colleague Satendra Singh of what BCAS believes which runs contrary to the policy of the Aviation Ministry. Here is the story by Sh. Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar.

Passengers With Disabilities Pose ‘Higher’ Security Risk, Says Aviation Authority

The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security has also blocked full body scanners that would decrease harassment faced by persons with disabilities at airport security checks.

06/09/2016

By Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar

New Delhi: Millions of passengers at airports across India go through pat-down security checks, often leading to delays and harassment, especially for persons with disabilities. An RTI application filed by a disability rights activist has now revealed why this is the case, even though technology exists that makes it unnecessary. Not only does the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) regard passengers with disabilities as a higher security risk but the agency has also been responsible for blocking the introduction of disabled-friendly safe full body scanners since it is still “exploring its feasibility at Indian airports keeping in view the privacy (issues) and health hazards from radiation”.

BCAS, which is the regulatory authority for civil aviation security in India and comes under the ministry of civil aviation, appears to have not taken into account the fact that many nations, including the US, have shifted to the use of new technology at airports for reducing scanning time and inconvenience to the passengers.

The agency’s role has come to light in response to an RTI application filed by Satendra Singh, an associate professor of physiology at the University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, Delhi. In its response to a set of questions posed by him, BCAS stated that the “security scenario in India is not the same as that of America”. When asked about the perceived radiation hazard and whether they had received “any recommendations from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) on the use of non-ionising millimetre wave technology at airports in India”, BCAS initially cited security concerns for not answering this question.

But when Singh filed a first and second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC), stating that the matter needs to be decided in light of the constitutional mandate of the RTI Act, the bureau conceded that the AERB’s recommendations were not available to them.

In his plea before the CIC, Singh, who suffers from loco-motor disability and has faced humiliation at Hyderabad airport before, noted that that harassment of persons with disabilities on the pretext of security under BCAS guidelines was a violation of their fundamental rights under articles 15 and 21 of the constitution. He argued before the CIC that millimetre wave technology was widely used in international airports.

Incidentally, in March 2016, it was reported that the US Trade and Development Agency would be giving a millimetre wave scanner to Indira Gandhi International Airport, which was to be then tested by BCAS for Indian conditions.

Such scanners, commonly referred to as body scanners, are supposed to cut down average frisking time by avoiding pat-down checks. They are also seen as an ideal replacement for present scanners, given increasing passenger traffic.

Even in the US, according to a US Environmental Protection Agency document, the airport security screening machines use non-ionising radiation which does not have enough energy to break bonds in living cells, therefore being safe. Millimetre wave machines use low-energy non-ionising radiation.

Millimetre wave machines use radio frequency waves to detect threats. The machine bounces waves off the body. Millimetre wave scanners emit thousands of times less energy than a cellphone. Threats are shown on a generic body outline rather than the person’s actual outline. When there are no weapons or other threats, the screen turns green and shows an “OK”, the document stated.

Along with backscatter x-ray systems, which use very low levels of x-rays (almost equivalent to cosmic radiation received during two minutes of flight) millimetre wave machines are now emerging as key scanning equipment across the globe.

Despite these positive attributes, why India has been slow to introduce this technology has been explained by the BCAS response.

Since Singh had faced harassment in February 2014, he filed complaints with the BCAS, the ministry of civil aviation and the chief commissioner of persons with disability. He then filed an RTI application on October 21, 2014 and followed it up with first and second appeals on November 12 and December 22, 2014.

“I have been fighting a long battle… that of dignified screening of passengers with disabilities at Indian airports,” he said.

On the reason behind his filing the application, he said, “Human dignity is a constitutional value and a constitutional goal. BCAS is humiliating people with disabilities though we are willing to help them by providing suggestions. That is why I am advocating the millimetre wave technology. In the recent landmark judgement in Jeeja Ghosh vs Spice Jet, the Supreme Court had categorically said, “Non disabled people do not understand disabled ones…. What non-disabled people do not understand is that people with disabilities also have some rights, hopes and aspirations as everyone else”.

Singh said that if it had not been for the insistence of information commissioner Bimal Julka, a former director in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the BCAS would not have parted with any information. “BCAS kept denying information on the pretext of national security,” Singh said.

However, Julka said the “appellant raised pertinent issues regarding safeguarding the rights of disabled persons who are harassed by screeners. The appellant also raised very important and critical issues related to the new and innovative technologies being adopted by various advanced countries for disabled”. Given the gravity of these issues, he directed BCAS to provide the relevant information.

Apart from information on the bureau’s approach towards the new technology, the appeal also revealed a “restricted” document in the form of circular No. 23/2005 of BCAS pertaining to “procedure for passenger and carry on baggage screening”.

Section 4.7 of this document dealt with “Procedure for persons with special needs” and “screening of the disabled/ handicapped, sick passengers, etc”.

Singh said he was surprised to learn how the security agencies view persons with disabilities.

Calling such passengers a high security risk, the document said “screeners should be thoroughly briefed that the possibility of carrying weapons/ explosives and other dangerous materials through such passengers is higher than a normal passenger and therefore, these passengers need to be checked with care”. (emphasis added)

It also noted that “the checking of such passengers should be thorough and the supervisor should also satisfy himself that the passenger can be cleared for boarding”.

The rules also state that “there is no scope for leniency in respect of invalid/disabled/sick persons during the pre-embarkation screening / procedures. On the contrary, there is ample reason to be more alert and wary”.

Averring that this “‘restricted’ document clearly highlights malice towards disabled passengers”, Singh said the use of new technology is needed to end such discrimination.

BCAS also communicated through its RTI reply that in January this year it had a meeting with the Central Industrial Security Force, which is in-charge of security at all airports, in order to sensitise the security forces about the issue of security. The response claimed that it had “advised (forced) to be more careful while screening passengers with special needs and medical condition.”

In another reply, BCAS stated that “a training module is incorporated in screener certification handout as ‘Security Procedure for Screening of Passengers with special needs and mental conditions'”. This module, the bureau claimed, had “detailed info and is being taught by all BCAS approved Aviation Security Training Institutes”.

It added that this “module is being taught to the security personnel involved in screening”. During the 12-day course, the bureau said it was planning to include modules of screening procedures for persons with disabilities and would be consulting organisations that represent them.

After much prodding, BCAS also gave out details of the various complaints received from persons with disabilities regarding harassment at airports and their status.

Source: The Wire

Friday, August 19, 2016

Interactive Kiosks with real time Sign Language Interpretation launched for Deaf & Hearing Impaired Customers in Brazil

Dear colleagues,

GOL, Delta’s partner in Brazil, has launched interactive kiosks for deaf customers at Rio de Janeiro's Santos Dumont and Rio GaleĆ£o airports.

This device connects customers to sign language interpreters via a real-time video conferencing system. These translators provide information about any aspect of the travel experience, including flight and gate information.

“We are very proud to offer this exclusive service to help our deaf and hard-of-hearing customers,” said Camila Bisinoto, GOL's Airport Manager. “It is very important to us that we provide the tools necessary to help all of our travelers enjoy their flights.”

The service has been available in Sao Paulo's Congonhas and Guarulhos airports since 2014, and the number of users has been growing steadily.

This device also provides more information about the assistance GOL provides to passengers with a physical, visual, hearing or mental disability.

Delta also remains committed to making travel more accessible, by providing closed-captioning on its in-flight entertainment systems, updating lavatories and enhancing the user experience at delta.com and kiosks.

Source: Delta 

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Accessible Airport Award- Larnaca Airport, Cyprus adjudged Best European Airport providing services for persons with Disabilities

'Accessible Airport' honour for Larnaca Airport, Cyprus.

FAMAGUSTA GAZETTE • Sunday, 26 June, 2016

LARNACA AIRPORT has been highly commended as the Best European airport in providing services for people with disabilities, during the 12th General Assembly of the Airports Council International (ACI) – Europe, hosted in Athens on June 22.

The General Assembly was attended by various agencies and services from European airports.

As stated in the ACI’s press release Larnaca International Airport is “the highly commended airport for the Accessible Airport Award”.

Larnaca Airport is also honoured for “the positive travelling experience it gives to people with disabilities as well as for its great efforts to comply with accessibility standards”.

In a statement, Eleni Kaloyirou, Chief Executive Officer of Hermes Airports, said that “we are delighted with this honoring distinction obtained by Larnaca International Airport” and congratulated Sophie Christofides, Terminal Services Manager of Hermes Airports, also responsible for facilities and services for people with reduced mobility, as well and the company S & L Airport Services Ltd, who are responsible for the delivery of the services for people with disabilities at Larnaca Airport.

In addition, Kaloyirou highlighted the strong commitment of Hermes Airports to remain dedicated to the efforts for continuous improvement of this sector in providing high quality services to people with mobility problems or disabilities.

Source: Famagusta Gazette 

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Comments invited on DGCA's CAR on carriage by Air of Persons with Disabilities. Closing date- 27 June 2016

Dear friends,

This is in continuation to my earlier post [hyperlinked titleSC slaps Rs.10 lakhs fine on Spice Jet for discriminating with a flier with disability dated 08 June 2016.

The Directorate of Civil Aviation has, after Jeeja Ghosh's Supreme Court ruling, has  issued yet another draft Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) on Carriage by Air of Persons with Disabilities and Persons with reduced mobility. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the DGCA to revise the CAR after consulting with civil society to ensure that air travel was non discriminatory and safe for every one. 

Brief Background

After the 2008 CAR, when cases of discrimination related to persons with disabilities did not stop, the  DGCA  set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Shri Asok Kumar, with several representatives from Private and Public Airliners, BCAS, DGCA and the disability sector. The report of Asok Kumar Committee (Oct 2012)  can be found (hyperlink opens).

In response to the Asok Kumar Committee's report,  the DGCA issued a draft CAR in 2013, which was published, after comments from the sector as the DGCA CAR 28 Feb 2014 (hyperlink opens). 

In Jeeja Ghosh's case, the deficiencies between the CAR and the Committee Report were highlighted before the Supreme Court with the efforts of HRLN and thus the Supreme Court directed in the judgement that the CAR be revised. 

The DGCA had made some changes in the CAR such as removing the category of 'incapacitated persons', adding 'Autism' as one of the impairments etc. but there are many issues that are still a major concern for the sector. 

The draft CAR for public comments with a closing date of 27th June 2016 is uploaded on the DGCA's Website (draft opens in hyperlink). You may like to send your comments directly to Shri. Lalit Gupta,  Deputy Director General,  Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation,   Opp. Safdarjung Airport, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi – 110 003 

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Swiss International Airlines website to comply WCAG 2.0 AA Level by end of 2016

Dear Colleagues,

The SWISS International Airlines has announced that while core functions of swiss.com have been accessible since December 2015 and at the moment, the functions such as booking flights and checking in online are accessible, and comply with level AA of the standards of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. The entire website will comply with this standard by the end of 2016.

The SWISS wants to comply with the requirements of the World Wide Web to ensure that the airline can serve anyone who uses the website regardless of what their impairments or disabilities might be. 





SC slaps Rs.10 lakhs fine on Spice Jet for discriminating with a flier with disability [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,


In a remarkable judgement in a clear case of disability discrimination, a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and R K Agrawal of Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the budget airline Spicejet to pay a sum of Rs 10 Lakh (One Million Indian Rupees) as damages to a flyer living with cerebral palsy, who was forcibly offloaded in 2012, saying the manner in which she was de-boarded depicts "total lack of sensitivity".

The apex court noted that the flier with disability Ms. Jeeja Ghosh was not given "appropriate, fair and caring treatment" which she required with "due sensitivity" and the decision to de-board her was "uncalled for".

"On our finding that SpiceJet acted in a callous manner, and in the process violated Rules, 1937 and Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), 2008 guidelines resulting in mental and physical suffering experienced by Ghosh and also unreasonable discrimination against her, we award a sum of Rs 10,00,000 as damages to be payable to her," observed the Bench.

Ms. Ghosh was offloaded from a SpiceJet flight on February 19, 2012 from Kolkata when she was going to attend a conference in Goa hosted by NGO ADAPT (Able Disable All People Together), the second petitioner in the case.

The bench said the decision to offload Ghosh was taken by the airlines without any medical advise or consideration and her condition was not such which required any assistive devices or aids.

"Even if we assume that there was some blood or froth that was noticed to be oozing out from the sides of her mouth when she was seated in the aircraft (though vehemently denied by petitioner), nobody even cared to interact with her and asked her the reason for the same. No doctor was summoned to examine her condition. Abruptly and without any justification, a decision was taken to de-board her without ascertaining as to whether her condition was such which prevented her from flying. This clearly amounts to violation of Rule 133-A of Rules, 1937 and the CAR, 2008 guidelines," the bench said.

Click here for the Judgement WP(C) No. 98/2012 Titled Jeeja Ghosh and Anr Versus Union of India and Others