“Wanting to travel the world is not enough…You need to be an empathetic caring individual who genuinely wants to help people”. Cabincrew.com
What happened
It is an unfortunate reality that life’s fragility can manifest even within the structured confines of international air travel. On the 24th of February, an incident aboard a Qatar Airways flight from Melbourne to Venice (through Doha) underscored this stark truth when a passenger, after visiting the lavatory, collapsed in the aisle and could not be revived despite the concerted efforts of the cabin crew.
It is reported that the couple seated near the deceased, Mitchell Ring and Jennifer Colin, bore witness to the tragic event. Mr. Ring, reflecting on the incident, described it as deeply distressing. In an effort to manage the situation with the utmost dignity and sensitivity, the cabin crew endeavored to relocate the passenger. A specialized chair was brought forth to transfer her towards business class; however, due to the constraints of the aircraft’s aisle and the passenger’s physical stature, this attempt was unsuccessful.
Recognizing the necessity of situating the deceased in an appropriate location for the remainder of the flight, the crew sought available seating nearby. With vacant seats adjacent to the couple, Mr. Ring was asked to reposition himself, making space for the deceased to be placed beside him. The body was then covered with blankets, allowing for discretion and respect during the remaining four hours of the journey to Doha.
For Ms. Colin, a nervous flyer by her own admission, the ordeal was particularly distressing. The abruptness of the situation left her in disbelief, particularly when she was urged by her husband to move. She recounted her initial shock, questioning whether the deceased was indeed to be placed in such proximity. The cabin crew, perhaps overwhelmed by the unfolding event, did not initially extend an offer to relocate Ms. Colin further away from the scene. However, a compassionate fellow passenger, recognizing her discomfort, invited her to occupy an alternative seat elsewhere in the cabin.
The incident serves as a somber reminder of the unpredictability inherent in air travel. While aviation personnel are trained for a multitude of emergency scenarios, the human element of such occurrences inevitably presents challenges that require both procedural adherence and profound sensitivity. This case exemplifies the delicate balance between operational efficiency and humane consideration that must be maintained in such extraordinary circumstances.
IATA Guidelines
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) – an international association of airlines – has issued guidelines for airline staff on board on measures to be taken in the event of a death of a person on board. According to IATA the captain must be advised forthwith, as it is incumbent upon them to initiate communication with the destination airport through established company protocols, thereby ensuring that the appropriate authorities are in readiness to receive the flight upon arrival. In circumstances where a passenger requires relocation, an available seat in proximity to fewer individuals should be sought. Should the aircraft be at full capacity, it remains at the crew’s discretion to determine an alternative seating arrangement, provided that it does not obstruct an aisle or emergency exit. Particular care must be exercised in transferring the passenger, with due sensitivity extended to their companions and fellow travelers who may be affected by the situation.
Where the carrier provides body bags, the individual should be placed therein with the zipper secured up to the neck. In the absence of such provisions, the person must be restrained using the seat belt or other appropriate means, ensuring stability. The eyes should be gently closed, and the body respectfully covered with a blanket up to the neck. It is imperative to obtain the contact details of any accompanying travelers to facilitate subsequent coordination.
Upon arrival at the destination, other passengers should be allowed to disembark first, with due consideration given to the bereaved. Family members must remain with the deceased until such time as the designated local authority assumes responsibility for the body. Under no circumstances should the body be removed from the aircraft prior to the arrival of the appropriate personnel, ensuring that all requisite protocols are diligently observed and that ground personnel are in place to extend the necessary assistance to the grieving family.
Issues Involved
From what is reported so far on the passenger death of 24 February, the airline crew had seemingly acted with prudence. The first priority when a death occurs on board is to remove the corpse away from other passengers, most likely to the back of the aircraft if there is space to accommodate the cadaver. In the event that space constraints preclude such an arrangement, the deceased may be kept in a seated position on a seat until the aircraft reaches its destination. Upon landing, coordination with the appropriate authorities is initiated to ensure that proper procedures are adhered to in respect of the remains.
The Montreal Convention of 1999 stands as the preeminent instrument governing the liability of carriers in instances where a passenger’s demise occurs during international air travel. In this regard, Article 17 unequivocally establishes that the carrier bears strict liability for death or bodily injury sustained by a passenger if the accident that caused the death or injury occurred while onboard the aircraft or in the course of embarkation or disembarkation. In keeping with the principle of automatic liability, the airline is obligated to provide compensation up to the threshold of 128,821 Special Drawing Rights, approximately equivalent to $170,000 USD, without the necessity of proving fault. However, should a claim exceed this quantum, the carrier is afforded an avenue of defense, whereby it may exonerate itself from further liability by demonstrating the absence of negligence or asserting that the death resulted from the passenger’s pre-existing medical condition.
The question of liability becomes particularly salient in cases where a passenger succumbs to natural causes mid-flight, such as a cardiac event. In such circumstances, airlines are, as a general rule, not held accountable unless the aggrieved party can substantiate a claim that the carrier’s negligence—perhaps in failing to render adequate medical assistance—was a contributing factor to the passenger’s death. Where, however, the fatality arises due to an omission on the part of the crew, such as the refusal to divert the aircraft in a situation that would have warranted such a measure, liability may be ascribed to the airline, and an action in damages may ensue.
The operational exigencies of air transport dictate that a carrier is not per se bound to effectuate a diversion merely because a medical emergency has arisen. The decision to reroute an aircraft is necessarily a complex one, predicated upon several considerations, including the assessment of the passenger’s condition by the crew, the availability of a medical professional onboard, the proximity to an alternate aerodrome, and the extent to which other passengers may be placed at risk.
Airline crew receive instruction in emergency medical interventions, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the deployment of an automated external defibrillator, yet their training does not extend to the full competencies of licensed medical practitioners. The vast majority of in-flight deaths are attributable to natural causes, and carriers, under the Montreal Convention, are not generally exposed to liability absent a showing of fault. While the treaty permits claims for compensation, significant pecuniary awards remain infrequent unless a demonstrable lapse in duty can be established. The decision to divert a flight remains a multifaceted determination, balancing the imperatives of medical urgency against the operational and logistical constraints inherent in air transport.
My Take
The sad death on board Qatar Airways – an airline reputed for its empathetic and excellent in-flight service – got me thinking of a contentious issue that is going round in aviation circles: that of the potential introduction of aircraft with no human pilot on board. In that context one wonders whether algorithms alone would suffice in the event of a death on board and whether androrithms (human behaviour; human-like reasoning; behaviour adaptation) should be obviated totally from the flight deck where the pilot in command is the ultimate decision maker.
As aviation moves toward increasing automation, striking a balance between algorithms and androrithms is crucial. Overreliance on algorithms risks eliminating the flexibility and ethical discretion necessary for effective decision-making, while excessive dependence on androrithms may compromise consistency and efficiency. The optimal approach lies in the seamless integration of both, ensuring that structured logic guides operations while human insight governs complex, value-laden decisions. In air law, this synthesis ensures that legal frameworks remain adaptable, just, and responsive to the evolving landscape of global aviation. The future of aviation and air law will be shaped by this dynamic interplay, where structured algorithms and human-centered androrithms coexist to uphold safety, equity, and progress.
As for cabin crew, one of the most compelling and touching stories reported is the kindness of a cabin crew member to an old man who was taking the ashes of his wife on a plane. He had been married to his wife for 50 years. The old man was trying to fit the urn carrying his wife’s ashes in the overhead cabin when a cabin crew member had approached him and said: “the seat next to you is empty; would you like to have your companion sit next to you?” There was a tear in the old man’s eye when he welcomed this suggestion. During the flight, the cabin crew attendant had brought two of everything for the man – drinks, serviettes – whereby the old man had told the cabin crew member at the end of the flight: “we were able to have a final trip together, just the two of us”.
In yet another anecdote, where two old married passengers were on board, a cabin crew member had noticed the man fast asleep and the woman next to him sobbing. Upon inquiry, the woman had said that her husband of 51 years had just passed away. At this point, where the cabin crew are expected to remove the body away from passengers, the staff concerned had knelt by the woman and listened to her story: her wonderful years with her husband. The cabin crew member had brought the woman a hot beverage and comforted her and had not removed the corpse away from passengers for the rest of the flight. Upon landing, the crew member had advised the captain of the death on board. The captain could well have reported the lapse of protocol of the cabin crew member but had instead told her “ I should report you but I won’t. We’ll forget the incident”
From the cabin crew member’s perspective were these words: “As flight attendants, we not only need to be vigilant to scan passengers for any potential threats, but also for people who may be at a very low point in their lives. Not all passengers are on holidays or business/work trips”.
