Low Cost Airline IndiGo to provide dedicated stairlifts for passengers with special needs

Dear Friends,

Today, IndiGo Airlines has become the first airlines in India with dedicated stairlifts for passengers with special needs. At airports around the country that do not use ramps, IndiGo will be introducing these motorised chairs that enable passengers to board and deplane in complete comfort! 

This is no doubt a welcome step as it will help many elders and those passengers with disabilities who can transfer easily on their own but this still fails to address the needs of those who are in wheelchairs and have problems in transfers. The ramped access patented by Indigo is a better option any day where everyone walks up in an inclusive way irrespective of being  a walker or the one being pushed on manual wheelchairs by the ground service providers! Hope this facility would be in addition to that and not as a replacement to the ramps.  

So congratulations to the Low Cost Airliner and to those who would benefit from this service which is of course coming at no added cost!

57 Traffic Lights now blind friendly after auditory devices installed

As a result of a PIL pending in the Delhi High Court, the Delhi Traffic Police informed the Delhi high court that they have installed 57 auditory devices at traffic signals in the capital for safety of visually impaired people.

In his reply, filed before a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, deputy commissioner of traffic police also informed that 35 more locations have been identified for providing auditory signals.

"... Traffic police has provided 857 traffic signals and 401 traffic blinkers all over Delhi for ensuring smooth flow of traffic and safety of pedestrians and other road users. A total of 57 traffic signals have been provided with auditory devices for the safety of visually handicapped persons. In addition, 35 locations have also been identified for providing auditory signals," the reply filed through Rupinder Kumar, deputy commissioner of traffic police, said.

"Besides... on roads where there is continuous flow of traffic, 22 pelican traffic signals and 36 pedestrian traffic signals are functional which have the facility to provide adequate time in the signal cycle to pedestrians for safely crossing the roads. Additionally, 96 signals with pedestrian aspects have been installed and it is envisaged to provide pedestrian aspects on nearly all the signals," the official said.

The police's reply came after the court in March had issued notice to the Delhi government and civic agencies on a plea seeking direction to provide parking space to the physically challenged near the entrances of public buildings in line with the Master Plan Delhi 2021. The bench had also asked the traffic police, police commissioner and DDA to file responses.

The DCP also said that regular action is taken by traffic police to remove illegal parking. He added that the traffic police prosecuted 7,10,025 people in 2013 and 2,96,232 in 2014 till April 30. The official also stated that action is also being taken against second-hand car dealers, who are causing encroachment on the roads of the capital.

The official said that the department had launched a special drive on May 6 in coordination with the civic agencies for removal of encroachment "on specially identified 11 vital corridors in the NCT of Delhi, in which 567 encroachments have been removed, action has been taken against 180 vendors, 159 vehicles have been towed away, 1047 vehicles have been challaned and 145 notices for obstructive parking have been issued. The drive shall continue on a regular basis".

A PIL filed by social worker Vinod Kumar Bansal, through advocates Anupam Srivastava and Sitab Ali Chaudhary, had sought the court's direction to the Delhi government and civic agencies to install auditory signals at red lights on public roads for physically handicapped people. The plea further sought directions to make pavements wheelchair-friendly.

Source: Times of India

Train with 20 Braille friendly coaches in the 100 days agenda of Indian Railways

Dear Colleagues,

Railways will launch a new train with all its coaches equipped with Braille-embedded signages on berths, toilets, wash basins and doors as part of the 100-day agenda being finalised by the national transporter.

Flagging off train to Katra, long awaited for clearance from Railway Commissioner for Safety, too is on the agenda.

Launching of the 20-coach train with Braille signages, a first of its kind, for facilitating visually-impaired passengers, will be part of the Railway's 100-day agenda to be submitted to PMO shortly, a senior Railway Ministry official said today.

The visually-impaired-friendly coaches in both AC and Sleeper classes were made on the basis of inputs received from Research Designs and Standards Organisation, Railways' research arm, and in consultation with associations for the blind.

The long-awaited train service to Katra, the base camp of Vaishno Devi shrine in Jammu and Kashmir, will soon be a reality as the Railways is gearing up to make the 25-km long Udhampur-Katra rail line operational shortly.

"The commissioning of the Udhampur-Katra line is likely to be part of the 100-day agenda," the official involved with finalising the agenda said.

Getting down to business, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has asked all his Cabinet colleagues to set a 100-day agenda with focus on efficient governance, delivery and implementation of programmes.

Source: Business Standard

International Law fails to protect rights of Disabled Persons when travelling by air

Dear Colleagues,

The instant judgement of the Supreme Court of England, titled Stott (Appellant) v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd (Respondents) [2014] UKSC 15  stresses that even though European law can protect disability rights, where it conflicts with international convention, the international convention will prevail, not the European legislation. The case highlights the need to revisit the Montreal Convention, since this convention was drafted in an era when disability advocacy wasn't firmed in the policy framework as it exist today.  The Court though accepted that there was a breach of duty on the part of respondents, however, since the international convention did not provide for the kind of relief of damages sought on the grounds of disability discrimination, the same could not be granted.

The respondents argued that the Montreal Convention (“the Convention”), an international treaty which governs the liability of air carriers in international carriage by air, precluded a damages award for injury to feelings. Under Articles 17 and 29 of the Convention, damages can only be awarded for harm to passengers in cases of death or bodily injury.

Brief of the Case:

Mr and Mrs Stott decided to take a holiday in Zante, Greece, in September 2008. Mr Stott is paralysed from the shoulders down and a permanent wheelchair user. He has double incontinence and uses a catheter. When travelling by air, he depends on his wife to manage his incontinence, help him to eat, and change his sitting position.

Mr Stott booked return flights with Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd (“Thomas Cook”), a tour operator and air carrier. He telephoned Thomas Cook’s helpline twice, informing them that he had paid to be seated with his wife, and was assured that this would happen. However, on arrival at check-in for the return journey, Mr and Mrs Stott were told that they would not be seated together. They protested, but were eventually told that the seat allocations could not be changed.

Mr Stott had difficulties in boarding the aircraft, and was not sufficiently assisted by Thomas Cook staff. He felt extremely embarrassed, humiliated, and angry. He was eventually helped into his seat, with his wife sitting behind him. This arrangement was problematic, since Mrs Stott could not properly assist her husband during the three hour and twenty minute flight. She had to kneel or crouch in the aisle to attend to his personal needs, obstructing the cabin crew and other passengers. The cabin crew made no attempt to ease their difficulties.

Mr Stott, assisted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, brought a claim under the Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1895) (“the UK Regulations”), which implement EC disability rights regulations (“the EC Regulations”). The UK Regulations enable civil proceedings in UK courts for breaches of the EC Regulations, and state that compensation awarded may include sums for injury to feelings. The EC Regulations require Community air carriers (among other things) to make reasonable efforts to provide accompanying persons with a seat next to a disabled person. Mr Stott claimed that Thomas Cook had breached this duty, and sought a declaration and damages for injury to his feelings.

Thomas Cook argued that it had made reasonable efforts and that the Montreal Convention (“the Convention”), an international treaty which governs the liability of air carriers in international carriage by air, precluded a damages award for injury to feelings. Under Articles 17 and 29 of the Convention, damages can only be awarded for harm to passengers in cases of death or bodily injury.

The judge at trial found that Thomas Cook had breached the UK Regulations, and made a declaration to that effect. However, he held that the Convention prevented him from making any damages award to Mr Stott. The Court of Appeal agreed. Mr Stott appealed, arguing that his claim was (i) outside the substantive scope of the Convention, since the Convention did not touch the issue of equal access to air travel which are governed by the EC Regulations and (ii) outside the temporal scope of the Convention, since Thomas Cook’s failure to make all reasonable efforts began before Mr and Mrs Stott boarded the aircraft. He relied on EU cases discussing a different EU Regulation which required compensation and assistance for The passengers in the event of cancellations and delays: the European Court had held that this Regulation was not incompatible with the Convention. The Secretary of State for Transport intervened to support Mr Stott’s claim on the second (temporal) ground.

The Judgement

The Supreme Court of England unanimously dismisses the appeal. The judgment of the Court is given by Lord Toulson, with a concurring judgment by Lady Hale. Mr Stott was treated in a humiliating and disgraceful manner by Thomas Cook. However, his claim falls within the substantive and temporal scope of the Convention, and as a result damages cannot be awarded for injury to feelings. Substantively, the Convention deals comprehensively with the carrier’s liability for physical incidents involving passengers between embarkation and disembarkation. The fact that Mr Stott’s claim involves an EU law right makes no difference. Temporally, Mr Stott’s claim is for damages and distress suffered in the course of embarkation and flight, and these fall squarely within the temporal scope of the Convention. It is not enough that the operative causes began prior to boarding.

Reasons for the Judgement

The only true question in the case is whether Mr Stott’s claim falls within the scope of the Montreal Convention. There is no dispute between Mr Stott and Thomas Cook as to the interpretation of the EC Regulations or UK Regulations, or their compatibility with the Convention. The EU cases do not assist: that other Regulation concerned general standardised measures, and the European Court had recognised that any claim for individualised damages would be subject to the Convention. The case raised no question of European law [54-59].
On substantive scope: the Convention was intended to deal comprehensively with the liability of the air carrier for whatever might physically happen to passengers between embarkation or disembarkation. The fact that Mr Stott’s claim relates to disability discrimination makes no difference. The underlying difficulty is that the Montreal Convention and its predecessors long predated equality laws. It is unfair that someone suffering as Mr Stott had could not obtain any compensation, but that is the plain meaning of the Convention. It would be desirable for the states parties to the Convention to consider its amendment. It is also possible that the Civil Aviation Authority could take other enforcement actions against Thomas Cook [61-64].
On temporal scope: the operative causes of Mr Stott’s treatment undoubtedly began at check-in, prior to embarkation. However, this is not enough. Mr Stott’s claim is for damages for the humiliation and distress that Mr Stott had suffered during the course of the flight, which fall squarely within the Convention period of exclusivity. To hold otherwise would encourage deft pleading and would circumvent the purpose of the Convention [60].
In her concurring judgment, Lady Hale considers it disturbing that the Convention excludes damages claims for breaches of individuals’ fundamental rights. It is particularly unsettling that this applies not only to private air carriers such as Thomas Cook, but also to state airlines. A treaty which contravened a fundamental international law norm would be void. Torture is a fundamental norm of this kind, and race discrimination might be another. There is a respectable view that Mr Stott’s treatment would, under the European Convention on Human Rights, constitute inhuman and degrading treatment (“IDT”). However, it appears that IDT has not yet become a fundamental international law norm. Since Thomas Cook is not a state air carrier, these issues do not arise in this case. At the very least, however, the grave injustice done to those in Mr Stott’s position should be addressed by the parties to the Convention [67-70].


Related Review by Ms. Catherine Leech  

Disabled persons’ rights not protected by International Law when travelling by air

A recent case in the Supreme Court has demonstrated that in some circumstances, even though European law can protect disability rights, where it conflicts with international convention, the international convention will prevail, not the European legislation.

The claimant in this case, Mr Stott, had booked with Thomas Cook to fly to Zante and had telephoned their helpline to ask and advise that he paid to sit next to his wife so that she could assist him during the flight. He was assured that they would be seated together. However, when they arrived at check-in, they were told that it would not be possible. Upon boarding the aircraft, Mr Stott's wheelchair overturned but he didn't receive appropriate assistance. He was then seated in front of his wife, which made it difficult for her to assist him. Relying on European law [Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007] Mr Stott argued that Thomas Cook were in breach of its duty in their efforts to give his wife a seat next to him. The judge accepted that they had breached their duty, but that unfortunately the regulations, which are part of European law, were incompatible with the more powerful International treaty [Montréal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999}. Consequently, the judge was unable to make an award of damages because the Montréal Convention permits an award of damages, only in very specific and defined circumstances, which would not include this disability discrimination and hurt to his feelings.

Hearing the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the Montréal Convention was indeed the piece of law that trumped all others in respect of an event which occurred on an aircraft, between embarkation and disembarkation, in the course of aviation transport. Once the Montréal Convention is the governing law, the court in England (and Europe) cannot look beyond that to other pieces of legislation, which are not international. To provide a remedy on the basis of current law is impossible. It would need the Convention to be amended.

The Supreme Court held that the claim for damages for failing to properly provide for the needs of the disabled passenger was not envisaged by the convention, but because it occurred in the course of aviation travel, which the convention covers. The convention being intended to deal comprehensively with the liability of the air carrier for anything that physically might happen to passengers between embarkation and disembarkation, was not open to the court to find a way round the convention for this claimant. They agreed that it seemed unfair that Mr Stott or somebody like him who suffered ill-treatment of the kind, should be denied compensation and the fact that they had declared the air carrier in breach, was a small comfort. The underlying problem, however, is that the predecessor of the Montréal Convention, which was the Warsaw Convention dating back to the 1920s, long predated equality law and therefore this type of situation was never envisaged in the original drafting. The Supreme Court said that there was a good argument to say the convention should now be amended to take into account the development of equality rights, but any amendment would have to be agreed by all of the contracting parties internationally.

The Montréal Convention requires revisiting. Because of its antiquated origins, it is out of touch with modern society. Not only excluding appropriate remedies in respect of disabled passengers, even where (as in this case) the court identifies that the carrier has treated the passenger inappropriately, but it also excludes claims in respect of the sort of psychological harm, which has long been recognised medically. It provides an exclusive remedy, that in failing to address issues which are excluded from the convention, it provides no remedy at all and denies access to justice for various classes of genuine claimants to suffer a genuine wrong. It is surely time for this piece of legislation to be given a complete overhaul. The origins of the Montréal Convention are almost 100 years old. In this time, travel has expanded and increased beyond measure and society has developed an increasing sophistication with regard to psychiatric injury and human rights in general. An international convention which excludes a remedy to genuinely affected individuals, is not worth the paper it is written on. This is definitely something we should lobby politicians to revisit.

For Mr Stott, it is scant comfort for the Supreme Court and the courts lower down, to confirm that he has been inappropriately treated. The airlines will know that they are untouchable in law, however inappropriately they may treat disabled people or people with reduced mobility. One thing that is clear in other aspects of personal injury law, whether this relates to employers liability or clinical negligence, is the increase in safety for the public and an awareness, before accidents happen, as people are aware that negligent mistakes will be actioned, making processes such as risk assessments, essential. The absence of any effective sanction, which is the effect that this judgement has had where the airlines are concerned, is a disincentive for them to treat such passengers with appropriate respect and consideration. 

Read more .......Disabled persons’ rights not protected by International Law when travelling by air

BCAS notifies SoPs for Screening of passengers with Disabilities

(Click here for the PDF version of the Revised DGCA's CAR 28 Feb 2014)

(Click here for the PDF version of the below SoPs)

Press Information Bureau

Government of India

Ministry of Civil Aviation

28-March-2014 19:26 IST

SoP for Screening of Passengers with Special Needs and Medical Conditions

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security has issued procedure for screening of passengers and carry on baggage vide Circular No. 23/2005. The procedure for screening of persons with special needs including differently ­abled passengers and passengers with medical condition, has been described  in  the  said  circular.  The  Standard  Operating  Procedure  (SoP)  is  laid  down in the following paragraphs, prescribing the guidelines for screening of such passengers and device, appliances and carry–ons pertaining to them.

The provisions contained in this SOP shall be applicable to the following:

(i)  All Indian airlines/ carriers engaged in scheduled and non­scheduled air transport services both domestic and international;

(ii)   All foreign airlines/ carriers engaged in scheduled air transport operating to and from Indian Territory.

(iii)   All airport operators, including private/JVs, within Indian Territory.

(iv)   Aviation Security Group (ASG) / CISF / APSU deployed at airports.

I.     Person with disability means any individual who has a physical or mental impairment that, on a permanent or temporary basis, substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded as having such impairment.

(a)        Physical or mental impairment means:
(1) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory including speech organs, cardio­vascular, reproductive, digestive, genito­urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or

(2) any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.

The term physical or mental impairment includes, but is not limited to, such diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments; cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, autism, drug addiction, alcoholism and geriatric disabilities.

(b)        Major life activities means functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.

(c)        Has a record of such impairment means has a history of, or has been classified, or misclassified, as having a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

II.        A person with reduced mobility (PRM) means any person whose mobility when using transport  is  reduced  due  to  any  physical  disability  (sensory  or  locomotor  permanent  or temporary), intellectual disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or age, and whose situation needs appropriate attention and the adaptation to his or her particular needs of the service made available to all passengers.

III.       Incapacitated passengers are those with physical or mental disability or with a medical condition, who require individual attention or assistance on emplaning.

All airport operators should make special arrangements to facilitate screening of persons with special needs as above so that the process is carried out efficiently keeping the dignity and privacy of the passenger in mind while ensuring adequate level of screening. This will include provision of suitable enclosed space for private screening of passengers covered in this SoP.

The airport management/representative of air carrier shall provide wheel chairs and render necessary assistance to facilitate the movement of the persons with special needs, when required. However, they would not normally be directly taken to the aircraft, except in case of ambulance passengers.

While  thorough  checking  is  essential  and  the  directives  under  AVSEC  circular  No. 23/2005 will be followed in letter and spirit, courtesy and attention to privacy and dignity will be invariably observed.

In the case of a passenger having difficulty in walking or standing, the way his or her screening is conducted will depend on his or her level of ability/disability.

If a passenger has difficulty standing or waiting in line due to a disability or a medical condition, he/ she should duly inform the screening personnel who will assist in directing the passenger either to front of the queue or to a separate line. Passengers should be encouraged to indicate brief details of their disability at the time of booking of the ticket itself and in case of such prior information, airlines and security staff shall make advance preparation for such passengers.

Medical documentation is helpful but not essential.

Canes, crutches and other devices which can be separated from the passengers should be subjected to x ray screening.

Wherever testing is done for detection of explosives, in addition to ETD, help of dog squad may be taken as per need. However, sensitivity of passenger and religious considerations may be kept in mind.

The  procedure  laid  down  herein  is  not  exhaustive,  and  therefore,  in  the  situations/ circumstances not exclusively dealt with in this SoP, commonsense of the screener shall prevail depending upon the situation, circumstances and condition of the passenger. For example, special procedure may be devised for persons with autism, down syndrome etc. The paramount importance is to ensure aviation security and at the same time safeguarding dignity of the passengers and preserving privacy.

Screening of passengers who use wheel chair or scooters (i.e. self - driven wheel chair)

1.  When a passenger arrives at a screening point in a wheel chair / scooter, he/ she must be accompanied either by another travelling passenger or an airline representative (including GHA of the airline) before he proceeds through security. The accompanying passenger or the airline representative is responsible for the passenger throughout the whole process of screening.

2.  If a passenger arrives at a screening point in a wheelchair and he/she is not accompanied by another travelling passenger or an airline representative, the airline’s Customer Service should be contacted for assistance.

3.  At the screening point, depending upon the ability of the passenger to walk, he/she will be requested to walk through the DFMD unaided. If he/she cannot walk, it is the responsibility of the accompanying travelling passenger or the airline representative to push the passenger in the wheelchair unless it is self – driven.

4.  In accordance with Airlines’ policy, there may also be non travelling support personnel in  attendance to board the aircraft and lift the passenger into his/ her seat. This support person must be accompanied by the airline representative. 

5.  If there is a requirement for the passenger to be lifted at the screening point, the support person or the airline representative will perform the lifting for the passenger.   

6.   The support person will be escorted by an Airline representative at the time of boarding / disembarkation.

7.  If the passenger can stand but cannot walk, he/she can be screened by undergoing a pat­down while he/she stands beside the wheelchair or scooter.

8.  If a passenger cannot stand, he/she should be offered a chair for screening and subjected to a pat­down thereafter.

9.  If there is an alarm by the DFMD, HHMD or other technology, the same must be resolved. If the alarm cannot be resolved, the passenger will not be permitted beyond the checkpoint.

10.  The passenger’s wheelchair or scooter will be inspected, including the seat cushions and any pouches/ pockets.  It will be tested for traces of explosives. Removable pouches will be x­ray screened.

11.  Any carry – on bag or document with the wheelchair passenger shall be passed through the x­ray screening.

12.  If a person objects to proceeding through the DFMD on justified medical or other ground, he/ she will be allowed passage through alternative way by the frisking officer and then subjected to screening by pat down search and HHMD where permissible.

13.  If a person refuses to undergo screening, the frisking officer will inform the supervisor, who will direct what further action is to be taken. The concerned passenger will not be allowed entry past the screening point.  

14.   Only when satisfied that a person is not carrying any prohibited or dangerous article, the screening officer shall allow the person to proceed beyond the screening point. 

Screening of passenger with prosthetics

1. During screening of prosthetics ASG/APSU may use X­ray. ETD and visual check depending on the circumstances.

2.  The passenger should inform the ASG/APSU of the existence of a prosthetic, his or her ability  and  of  any  need  for  assistance  before  screening  begins.  Passengers  can  use Notification Card to communicate discreetly with security officers. However, showing this card or other medical documentation will not exempt a passenger from additional screening when necessary.

3.  Dignity and privacy of the passengers should be borne in mind during the entire process of security screening. Where the officer needs to see the prosthetic, care should be taken against  exposing  any  sensitive  areas.  ASG/APSU  will  also  use  technology  to  test  the prosthetic for traces of explosive material. If explosive material is detected, the passenger will have to undergo additional screening.

4. Passenger with prosthetics or braces/support appliances must be accompanied by an airline representative, preferable of the same gender as the passenger.

5.  The staff of airline and any other accompanying person shall be frisked and checked before allowing them access to the passenger with prosthetics at the screening point.

6.  The passenger will first pass through the DFMD and necessary security checks.

7. The passenger should then be taken to a private screening point and made to sit comfortably. He/she  will  receive  additional  screening  including  a  pat­down.  If  necessary,  screening through ETD trace will be adopted. While dealing with prosthetic device and during taking off and putting on of clothes, privacy of the passenger should be maintained.

8.   Screening of the prosthetic appliance will include x­ray screening, ETD detection and visual inspection.  During  visual  inspection,  care  should  be  taken  that  sensitive  parts  are  not exposed.

9.      The screening in the private screening area will be carried out by two officials, one to handle to  HHMD  and  pat­down  and  the  other  to  inspect  the  prosthetics,  braces  and support appliance and subject them to additional screening.

Screening of passengers who cannot remove shoes, medical device or bandages

1.      Passengers who cannot remove their shoes due to a medical condition should inform the supervisor, SHA before screening.

2.      Passenger can be screened using DFMD and/ or a whole – body pat – down.

3.      The shoes may be subjected to additional screening like ETD, etc. 

4.            Passengers can be screened without disconnecting external medical devices and submitting them for x­ray. Such devices include Insulin pumps, Hearing aids, Cochlear implants, Spinal stimulators, Bone growth stimulators and Ostomies.

5.      Under most circumstances, a passenger can conduct a self pat­down of these devices followed by ETD screening of his/ her hands.

6.      The devices should also be physically checked against any outside interference in the manufacturing.

7.      Casts, braces and support appliances will be thoroughly inspected without exposing sensitive areas as far as possible.  ETD screening will also be used to test for traces of explosive materials, where possible.

8.      In case of bandages and/ or dressing, while caution will be observed during pat­down, it needs to be ensured that the covered area is free of threat item. Metal detector, observation and self pat­down followed by ETD checks may suffice in most cases.

9.      Passengers with metal implants will be subjected to a thorough pat­down, and the metal alarm should be resolved satisfactorily. The full body pat down should include the following:

            i.   It should concentrate on upper legs and torso.

            ii.  Special attention should be given to the chest and abdomen areas of the body.

            iii.  Particular focus should be on any skin surface abnormalities or wires or tubes exiting the body that may be signs of an implanted device.

10.  In accordance with BCAS memo. no. CAS – 3 (32)/ 2009/ DIV – III B (SA Kolkata) dt 5.9.2010, all airport operators shall display a board near SHA in a prominent way stating that DFMD/ HHMD are safe for pacemaker and for pregnant ladies.

Screening of passengers with service animals:

If the passenger has a service animal, the instructions issued by AVSEC circular no. 6/2001 shall be implemented. If the service animal is permitted to be carried on board the following instructions shall be followed.

a.   The animal must be wearing a harness, vest, or other identifier that it is a service animal.

b.   The passenger must maintain control of the animal at all times.
c.    He or she should not be separated from the service animal.
d.   The screening officer should ask for permission of the passenger before touching the animal.
e.   Service animals are screened using walk through metal detector followed by a pat down.  There are three options:

        i.      The service animal goes first and the passenger follows holding the leash.

        ii.     The passenger goes first holding the leash and the service animal follows.

       iii.      The passenger and the service animal go together.

f.     Regardless of who goes through the metal detector first, the screening officer will perform a physical inspection of the animal and its belongings (collar, harness, leash, backpack, vest, etc.). The belongings will not be removed from the animal.

g.    The passenger should not make contact with service animal (other than maintain control of the leash) until the animal has been cleared.

h.    Medication for serving animals will be subjected to x – ray and other screening, if required, separately. These also should be separated from other items in the passenger carry­on.

Ambulance passengers 

Due to exigencies of their exceptional medical conditions/ illness, some passengers are directly taken through the security gates to the aircraft for boarding. In such cases, as far as possible, the airport operator/ airline should provide its own ambulance.

a.  The passenger and all occupants of the vehicle should be subjected to a pre – embarkation security check at the security gate by the ASG/ APSU staff under the supervision of an officer not below the rank of an Inspector. The ambulance should be permitted to proceed to the aircraft only after this check has been completed.

b.   In case the ambulance is privately owned or hospital provided, it must be led by follow – me vehicle of the airport operator. The ASG/ APSU staff shall check to ensure that the vehicles  do  not  carry  anything  objectionable  and  are  not  being  accompanied  by unauthorized persons or persons who have no need to be in the vehicles. Such ambulance will be escorted by ASG/APSU staff.

c.    All occupants of the vehicles, unless exempted, must be screened at the gate before allowing entry into the airport.

d.    The movement of the ambulance should be coordinated well in advance by the airline operator with CASO and airport operator.

Screening of medication and associated supplies

a.  All medications and associated supplies (i.e., syringes, sharps disposal container, pens, infusers etc.) are allowed through the checkpoint only after they have been screened.

b. Medication and related supplies are normally x – rayed.

c.  Passengers have the option of requesting a visual inspection of medications and associated supplies with due reason.

d.  Any medication that cannot be cleared visually must be submitted for x – ray screening.

e.  BCAS has issued detailed guidelines regarding carriage of liquids, aerosols and gel (LAGs) on board vide AVSEC Circular No. 18/ 2006. Medically necessary LAGs are permitted in excess of 100 ml on need basis after they have been screened. These items are subject to additional screening through visual inspection and ETD swipe, if necessary.

If a passenger has medically necessary LAGs, he or she needs to :

      i.      Limit the amount to what is reasonably necessary for the itinerary;

      ii.      Separate these items from the other LAGs;

      iii.      Declare the items; and,

      iv.      Present these items for additional inspection on reaching the security check point. 

X­ray screening of respiratory equipment

a.    Supplemental oxygen and other respiratory related equipment are permitted through the checkpoint once they have been screened. This is subject to DGCA regulations also.

b.    If a passenger can disconnect from the oxygen, the oxygen container will undergo x–ray screening.

c.    Passengers who cannot disconnect from respiratory equipment will be screened by undergoing a pat – down.

d.   Respiratory equipment that is not x – rayed will be visually and physically inspected, and will be subject to ETD screening.

*****

Click here for the source of the below SoPs

DGCA gives airlines 3 months to implement Revised DGCA CAR dated 28 Feb 2014

After a spate of incidents involving discrimination, maltreatment of passengers with disabilities at the hands of airlines, security forces and aerodrome operators, Ministry of Civil Aviation/ DGCA has now revised its guidelines on the Carriage of Persons with Disability by Air vide its latest version dated 28 Feb 2014 to ensure better services and facilities. (Click here to open the guideline on Google Drive). Visit DGCA Website for the Guidelines.

The regulator DGCA has asked all airlines and airports to provide required facilities and assistance to meet the needs of disabled fliers and upload related information on their websites within three months.

After years of appeals by NGOs as well as some government agencies, the DGCA had released on February 28 a report with a set of compulsory guidelines for all carriers flying in India. The government has now come out with a set of civil aviation requirements (CAR), which formally activates the process.

The guidelines allow guide dogs, a mode of assistance widely adopted in western countries.

Till now, airlines had individual set of guidelines on dealing with differently-abled passengers. Many a time, such passengers were either harassed or, in some cases, not allowed to fly by airlines on one pretext or the other.

“No airline shall refuse to carry persons with disability or reduced mobility and their assistive aids/devices, escorts and guide dogs, including their presence in the cabin, provided such persons or their representatives, at the time of booking, inform the airline of their requirements,” the DGCA report said.

The DGCA has said that airlines need to obtain necessary information about the specific requirements of such passengers at the time of ticketing, which could be through online booking process or call centres. “Once the ticket is confirmed, no further enquires shall be made,” it said.

The airlines shall incorporate appropriate provisions on their websites within three months from the date of issue of the CAR, so that while making bookings, passengers with disability have the option to select the required facilities, which he/she will require during the journey, it added.

Listing instructions on guide dogs, the DGCA said that airlines should develop procedures for carriage of guide dogs, if required, inside the cabin.

“The guide dogs may be permitted in the cabin, subject to the condition that they are properly trained, remain on the floor at the passenger’s feet, properly harnessed and vaccinated. Passengers carrying guide dogs shall be required to produce a written proof to the airlines that their guide dog has been trained from an appropriate institution, vaccinated and medicated,” the statement said.

Airlines also have been asked to develop emergency evacuation procedures and handling of persons with disability or reduced mobility and include the information in their safety and emergency procedures (SEP) manual.

The DGCA said that it would, however, be the responsibility of the persons with disability or reduced mobility to notify their needs at least 48 hours before the scheduled time of departure so that the airline can make necessary arrangements. The arrangements may include the nature and level of special assistance required while embarking, disembarking and on board the flight.

According to the aviation regulator, the airlines as well as airport operators need to conduct training programmes for their staff engaged in passenger handling for sensitisation and developing awareness for assisting persons with disability or reduced mobility and to ensure that the staff are well-briefed on their legal responsibilities.

“The contents and duration of the training programme shall be in accordance with the guidelines issued by the department of disability affairs, the ministry of social justice and empowerment,” the DGCA added.

Related News: 

The Telegraph: 3 Months for airlines to fulfil disabled flier's rights

Memorandum from Disability Sector to DGCA on Civil Aviation Policy

An Activist with Disability Harassed by Security at Hyderabad Airport

At most international airports, for eg. Bangkok, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Seol, etc, flyers with disabilities are scanned along with their wheelchairs/ assistive devices. However, our security forces at the Airports in India continue to ask flyers with disabilities to strip, take off their orthosis/prosthesis in the name of frisking for security threats. 

The activist harassed this time is  none other than a specialist MD doctor at GTB hospital - the largest government hospital in East Delhi. He made all attempts to explain to the rigid security agencies the  difference between artificial limb, prosthesis and orthosis but they did not budge unless they were threatened that in case the flight was missed, the concerned airlines and the security staff would be responsible to organise the travel expenses. And the trick worked as soon the passenger was scanned and certified "Harmless". But not before leaving a bad taste and uncertainty of detainment in the name of security.

Though, the security concerns are not to be undermined, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) and DGCA need to put Standard Operating Procedures in place to ensure that such issues are handled with  utmost sensitivity. 

Let there be use of technology with training of security personnel  besides SOPs so that there is no repeat of such sporadic incidences bringing not only bad name to the establishment but also infringing on the dignity, respect and fundamental rights of persons with disabilities.

Times of India

DU professor with disability harassed at Hyderabad airport

TNN | Feb 25, 2014, 06.42 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Yet another disabled passenger was harassed at the airport on Friday. Satendra Singh, who was travelling from Hyderabad to Delhi, was asked by security at Hyderabad's Rajiv Gandhi International Airport to remove his leg brace during frisking. Singh, who teaches at the University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi University, has post-polio residual paralysis and uses a knee-foot-ankle-orthosis (KFAO) also called a caliper or brace, for support. 

The confrontation with security officials — the latest in a string of such encounters between differently-abled passengers and airport officials — lasted about 20 minutes before the officials capitulated. "They wanted me to remove the caliper and run it through the x-ray machine," says Singh, "In my case that's quite difficult as it goes up to the thigh. I would've had to remove my trousers to take the caliper off. It was humiliating. I wanted them to carry out an Explosive Trace Detector (ETD) test and was willing to let them frisk me." 

Singh, ironically, was returning from a conference on "Evidence in Global Disability and Health" in Hyderabad. Employees of the airline were also called but a senior officer finally permitted a ETD. Singh also had to explain that what he uses isn't a prosthetic limb but an orthosis into which he has to place his leg for support. 

"We are merely implementing guidelines issued by the Bureau Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). Our officers have been trained and briefed on how to deal with differently-abled passengers and we make sure nobody is harassed unnecessarily," said Hemendra Kumar, spokesperson, CISF. Singh, however, adds that he flies within India frequently but has never had to face this before. 

Aviation security officials say people with medical implants won't face any trouble and simply need to show a medial certificate. However, there is no standard rule for those with external aides and a doctor's certificate may not be enough to clear security. 

"The screening officer has to be satisfied that the external aides are for genuine use. For this, profiling is done and if the screening officer is not satisfied, he or she may ask for the aides to be taken off and screened. In the 1980s, a Delhi-Srinagar flight was hijacked by a person who hid weapons inside his plaster and carried a doctor's certificate for the same to clear security. We cannot take chances as a medical certificate can be easily obtained. We regret the inconvenience caused to anyone," said an official.

The Hindu

Harassed at Hyderabad airport, says disability activist

After having felt “harassed and humiliated” by security personnel at the Hyderabad airport this past Sunday, disability rights activist Satendra Singh, who has post-polio residual paralysis, has urged the Civil Aviation Ministry and Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to ensure that persons with disability (PwD) are treated with dignity at airports and on flights.

Dr. Singh said he was shocked when a CISF official asked him to remove the callipers he uses for walking. “I explained gently that I cannot remove it and suggested that they could carryout an Explosives Trace Detector Test (ETD). The official refused and became adamant. I even explained the anatomy of the callipers but all in vain. Even the aircraft officials explained their helplessness citing security issues,” explained the doctor.

“I was invited to speak at the International Conference on Evidence in Global Disability and Health’ jointly organised by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Public Health Foundation of India at Hyderabad and was shocked by the lack of empathy of the security staff at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport,” said Dr. Singh, who works at the University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital.

The physician added that this is not the first time that PwDs have been humiliated. “I was the last one to board my flight and was distraught after being humiliated at the airport. I have now written to the senior officials asking for their intervention.”