Airlines not reporting unruly behaviour of passengers, says DGCA
Pointing to increasing number of cases where passengers' rage or unruly behaviour posed a threat to the safety of the flight, other passengers and crew, the aviation regulator reiterated its earlier instructions that such incidents should be reported within 12 hours via email to the Chief of Flight Safety/Director Cabin Safety (In-flight services) and a detailed information be submitted to the DGCA within 24 hours of landing of the flight.
The DGCA said the norms are applicable to all scheduled and non-scheduled operators and other operators who carried cabin crew on board an aircraft. The aviation watchdog had in its earlier circulars reminded pilots, cabin crew and director of In-flight services of their responsibilities under the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) on dealing with unruly passengers.
The latest advisory comes against the backdrop of several instances of unruly behaviour of passengers under the influence of alcoholic beverages, scuffle among passengers after heated arguments, sexual harassment of women passengers on board and even incidents with a potential to compromise the safety of aircraft operations.
Going by the provisions of CAR, there are three categories of unruly behaviour: Level-1 refers to behaviour that is verbally unruly, and calls for debarment up to 3 months; Level-2 indicates physical unruliness and can lead to the passenger being debarred from flying for up to 6 months; and Level-3 relates to life-threatening behaviour where the debarment would be for at least two years.
Besides legal action against cognisable offences reported in flights by respective law-enforcing agencies, guidelines were issued in 2017, which stated that complaints of unruly behaviour would be examined by an internal committee. It would take a decision on the matter within 30 days and also specify the duration of ban on the unruly passenger. During the period of pendency of such inquiry, the concerned airline may impose a ban on the passenger. For every subsequent offence, the ban would be twice the period of previous ban.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Empowering state police to enforce drone regulations: A legislative need in India's Evolving space
In the current age of multifarious technological evolution and some significant ongoing warfare, drones have emerged as one of the biggest challenges for state. Recognizing the growing use and potential risks associated with drones, the Government of India enacted the Drone Rules, 2021 under the authority of The Aircraft Act, 1934. However, recent incidents across India involving unregistered, unauthorized, and even hostile drones have highlighted a critical gap in enforcement mechanism in the Aircraft Act with respect to Drones in particular. Alarmingly certain recent events have shown the usage of categorized drones by non-state and criminal actors for disruption of public safety causing damage to mankind and critical infrastructure. While the Central Government and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) have the primary regulatory role, State Police and state law enforcement agencies currently lack the statutory authority to act effectively and independently against drone-related violations. This legal void and statutory silence have implications for national security, civil safety, and privacy rights. Need for statutory empowerment of state police There have been multiple incidences in recent past loudly exposing the enforcement void. Under the present statue these frameworks do not empower State Police explicitly, nor do they prescribe procedures for local enforcement leaving authorities on the ground with little recourse when encountering unauthorized drones. Some of such incidences are mentioned below - A. Misuse of Drones by non-state actors 1. Jammu Airport Drone Attack (2021) In a first of its kind incident, drones dropped explosives at the Air Force Station, Jammu, injuring personnel and damaging property. The attack exposed a glaring vulnerability with no defined role for local police to neutralize or investigate rogue drones, especially near high-value assets. 2. Drone Flight near Oil Refinery – Mumbai (2022) A drone was spotted hovering near the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) refinery in Mumbai. Refineries are classified as "critical infrastructure," and drone activity could potentially aid planning of sabotage or attacks. Mumbai Police could not arrest the concerned due to absence of direct enforcement powers under present statue. 3. Oil Depot Survey Attempt – Chennai (2023) A drone was seized while it was filming the periphery of a petroleum depot in North Chennai. It was alleged to be used for illicit surveillance for potential vandalism or intelligence gathering. Operator fled; police were unable to prosecute under Aircraft Act and Drone Rules due to lack of clear seizure protocol and state powers. B. Urban Drone Misuse: Multiple City Incidents 1. Mumbai (2022) – Unauthorized drones were spotted over Mantralaya and Bombay High Court, raising alarms of potential surveillance on government premises. Mumbai Police had to depend on the DGCA for post-facto verification, delaying enforcement. 2. Bengaluru (2023) – Drones flown near the Kempegowda International Airport triggered disruptions and led to flight diversions. CISF and airport authorities were unable to take immediate action due to the lack of real-time tracking and police authority under current laws. 3. Hyderabad (2023) – Commercial drone operators were found filming over private gated communities and industrial estates without consent or permits. Local police cited lack of clarity under the Aircraft Act to prosecute for aerial trespass. C. Drones in Naxal Territories: Emerging Internal Security Risk 1. Chhattisgarh (2022) – Security forces discovered a drone crash site used by Naxalites for surveillance of CRPF camps. The drone was unregistered, but local police lacked the jurisdiction to prosecute under Aircraft Act. 2. Odisha (2022) – Drones were reported scouting forested areas near Malkangiri and Kandhamal, suspected to be used for arms drops. The local police confiscated equipment but faced no clear legal procedure for seizure, examination, or prosecution. IV. Global Approaches to Local Enforcement Across the world, democratic nations are facing rise in drone usage and thus associated risks. Many of them have decentralized enforcement powers, recognizing that ground-level response is essential for public safety, national security, and privacy protection. The following international models offer useful precedents for India: 1. United States of America Under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018, the Local and state law enforcement agencies are empowered to detain drones, question operators, and initiate enforcement actions. 2. United Kingdom Following the 2018 Gatwick Airport drone disruption, the UK amended the Air Navigation Order 2016 and the Police Act to empower law enforcement with the authority to land, seize, and inspect drones. It provides the police with powers to issue on-the-spot fines up to £1,000 for registration and permission breaches. 3. France France enforces strict drone regulations under the Code de l'Aviation Civile (Civil Aviation Code) 1958. Under the code, Municipal police are empowered to inspect drones and question operators. In Paris, drone surveillance and enforcement are handled jointly by Police and Directorate General of Civil Aviation. 4. Germany Germany's Luftverkehrs-Ordnung (Air Traffic Regulation) 1964 empowers State Police to detain unlicensed drones and initiate proceedings under aviation safety and privacy laws. 5. Australia Under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 1998, Australia empowers State and Territory Police to enforce no-fly zones, register violations, and confiscate rogue drones. V. Existing Legal Framework: Aircraft Act 1934 & Drone Rules 2021 Drones are Unmanned Arial Vehicles which is a type of Unmanned Aircraft System that falls under the ambit of Aircraft as per section 2(1) of the Aircraft Act 1934. Drones are thus governed by The Aircraft Act, 1934 and The Drones Rules, 2021. Under the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Central Government is empowered to regulate the manufacture, possession, operation, and safety of aircraft. The Drone Rules, 2021, notified under this Act, introduced a streamlined framework for drone classification, registration, pilot certification, and operation permissions. In case of any violations of Drone Rules, Rule no. 50 of Drone Rules 2021 states levying penalty up to Rs 1 lakh by the DGCA or any other authority authorized by central government in accordance with provisions of section 10A of Aircraft Act which mentions about adjudication of penalties. As far as cognizance of offence is concerned, as per section 12B of the Aircraft Act, no courts can take cognizance without a complaint made by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) or Director General of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (DGBCAS) or Director General of Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (DGAIIB). This clearly shows that state police have no statutory authority to register a FIR in case of violation of the Drone Rules under The Aircraft Act. Suggested Legislative Amendments The need to empower State Police and law enforcement agencies to act against unauthorized drone activity cannot be realized without clear statutory backing. While current law i.e. The Aircraft Act 1934 centralize enforcement under DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, they lack a federalist structure for operational enforcement. The following suggested amendments aim to create an enabling legislative framework: 1. Insertion of a new sub section under section 12 of The Aircraft Act 1934 Since Section 12 (B) of the Act clearly mandates prior sanction for any cognizance to be taken against unauthorized Drones by DGCA or DGBCAS or DGAAIB, it gives no autonomous authority to state police/state enforcement agencies for acting against offences committed by unmanned aerial vehicles endangering public safety. Therefore Section 12 can be enhanced with a new sub section – 'c' providing for autonomous powers and rights to the local police to address unauthorized arial activities. The new sub section may include the following to ensure strict implementation of Drone Rules: (a) Any police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector shall have the authority to: * Intercept, search, and seize any unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and associated devices, including drones, found operating in contravention of this Act or any rules made thereunder. * Require any drone operator to produce a valid Unique Identification Number (UIN), flight authorization, remote pilot license, and other necessary permits. (b) State Police shall have the jurisdiction to register FIR against anyone responsible for violating drone rules, conduct investigations, and initiate legal proceedings as per the procedure established by law for offences punishable under the Aircraft Act 1934 and Drone Rules 2021 without mandatory requirement of complaint made by DGCA, DGBCAS or DGAAIB. Justification: This provision will create statutory recognition of police powers and ensures lawful drone seizure, investigation, and prosecution without requiring prior approval from central authorities—essential for time-sensitive security interventions. 2. Insertion of a new clause under sub section 5(2) of The Aircraft Act 1934 An amendment can be made under section 5(2) of The Aircraft Act by adding a new clause 'r' making central government duty bound to provide for rules regarding localized scheme of enforcement prescribing the powers, functions, responsibilities, and standard operating procedures for enforcement of drone-related laws by State Governments and their police. Justification: At present, no delegated legislation exists to support drone law enforcement by States. This amendment provides the statutory hook for the Centre to issue rules that support decentralized implementation. A written standard operating procedure for States will also rule out all sorts of ambiguity amongst police of different states with respect to addressing drone rules violations. 3. Purpose of arial activity should be intimated To curb Drone missuses, the Drone Rules 2021 should be amended requiring operators to pre-register the purpose of their arial activity on the Digital Sky platform, with full access granted to police. This will help address security and individual's privacy concerns. For operationalizing the proposed legislative framework, a structured, multi-phase roadmap must be adopted. The implementation plan must account for legal preparedness, inter-agency coordination, infrastructure, and technical capacity-building at the State level. VII. Conclusion As India's airspace becomes increasingly populated with drones, it is imperative that enforcement should be decentralized. While the DGCA and Ministry of Civil Aviation remain the principal regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies particularly police being the first responder to any adversary must be empowered to register a criminal case autonomously against unauthorized or dangerous drone operations protecting mankind and infrsastructure. Empowering State Police through clear legislative amendments will bridge the existing enforcement vacuum, enhance national security and urban safety, create accountability at both operational and regulatory levels. Therefore it's need of the hour that India must adopt a dual-layer enforcement model comprising of central regulation with decentralized enforcement mirroring global best practices to ensure persistent security. (Writer is a lawyer practising in Supreme Court of India, Allahabad High Court & tribunals) Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Doctor's Day 2025 , messages and quotes!
NDTV
a day ago
- NDTV
Air India Delhi-Vienna Flight Plunged 900 Feet Mid-Air, Days After Ahmedabad Crash
New Delhi: An Air India flight took off from Delhi's Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport for Vienna on June 14. However, soon after takeoff, it lost altitude - the plane dropped 900 feet mid-air. Both pilots have now been off-rostered pending the outcome of the investigation, the airline said. The incident happened two days after an Air India flight crashed in Ahmedabad minutes after takeoff, killing all but one person on board. The action was taken after the matter was disclosed to the aviation watchdog Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in "accordance with regulations", Air India said in a statement. "Upon receipt of the pilot's report, the matter was disclosed to DGCA in accordance with regulations. Subsequently, upon receipt of data from the aircraft's recorders, further investigation was initiated. The pilots have been off-rostered pending the outcome of the investigation," an Air India spokesperson. The Boeing 777 landed safely in Vienna after a flight of 9 hours and 8 minutes. Meanwhile, a parliamentary panel led by JDU MP Sanjay Jha is all set to review recent air crashes and also manpower gaps in the aviation sector. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, chaired by Mr Jha, will meet on June 23 to take up aviation safety as a top priority, in the wake of the Ahmedabad Air India crash and the recent helicopter accident in Uttarakhand, sources told NDTV. Ahmedabad Plane Crash The London-bound Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed moments after takeoff from India's Ahmedabad city on June 12, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and several people on the ground. The black boxes of the plane - the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) - were recovered in the days that followed, one from the rooftop of a building at the crash site on June 13, and the other from the debris on June 16. A preliminary probe report on the Air India crash is expected to be released by July 11. The report will be crucial as it may provide the possible causes of the fatal crash.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- The Hindu
Airlines not reporting unruly behaviour of passengers, says DGCA
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has said that airline operators either substantially delayed reporting to it incidents of passenger misconduct or unruly behaviour or not reported them at all. Pointing to increasing number of cases where passengers' rage or unruly behaviour posed a threat to the safety of the flight, other passengers and crew, the aviation regulator reiterated its earlier instructions that such incidents should be reported within 12 hours via email to the Chief of Flight Safety/Director Cabin Safety (In-flight services) and a detailed information be submitted to the DGCA within 24 hours of landing of the flight. The DGCA said the norms are applicable to all scheduled and non-scheduled operators and other operators who carried cabin crew on board an aircraft. The aviation watchdog had in its earlier circulars reminded pilots, cabin crew and director of In-flight services of their responsibilities under the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) on dealing with unruly passengers. The latest advisory comes against the backdrop of several instances of unruly behaviour of passengers under the influence of alcoholic beverages, scuffle among passengers after heated arguments, sexual harassment of women passengers on board and even incidents with a potential to compromise the safety of aircraft operations. Going by the provisions of CAR, there are three categories of unruly behaviour: Level-1 refers to behaviour that is verbally unruly, and calls for debarment up to 3 months; Level-2 indicates physical unruliness and can lead to the passenger being debarred from flying for up to 6 months; and Level-3 relates to life-threatening behaviour where the debarment would be for at least two years. Besides legal action against cognisable offences reported in flights by respective law-enforcing agencies, guidelines were issued in 2017, which stated that complaints of unruly behaviour would be examined by an internal committee. It would take a decision on the matter within 30 days and also specify the duration of ban on the unruly passenger. During the period of pendency of such inquiry, the concerned airline may impose a ban on the passenger. For every subsequent offence, the ban would be twice the period of previous ban.
