Pilot's Dilemma

The role of a pilot is not limited to steering a plane through the skies; it carries a significant responsibility for the safety and well-being of all passengers aboard.

Once the plane doors are closed, the pilot-in-command has various powers, including the option to restrain unruly passengers who threaten flight safety or others. Likewise, pilots can refuse boarding to passengers whose behaviour may constitute a risk, whether due to drink, drugs, or threatening conduct.

However, there are situations when pilots are confronted with profound ethical dilemmas that transcend the boundaries of their usual duties, placing them in a moral quagmire. 

One such scenario is when a pilot is asked to carry a deportee on their flight. This issue is becoming more focused as the U.K.'s Rwanda policy comes into effect. Even after clearing several legal hurdles, the practical aspects of moving deportees may disrupt the policy.

This blog post will explore why an aircraft operator or pilot may refuse to carry deportees on their plane.

As signatories to the various ICAO conventions, states must enact the standards in Annex 9 and follow the guidance given in Document 8973 (Aviation Security Manual) Chapter 12 on deportees.

Annex 9 deals with facilitation and is reproduced in Annex 17 on aviation security. It states, "The aircraft operator and/or the pilot-in-command shall have the option to refuse to transport deportees on a specific flight when reasonable concerns relating to the safety and security of the flight in question exist."

In addition, assorted international laws and regulations also bind aircraft operators.

In my earlier career, I had the opportunity to assist on several flights that were part of a repatriation programme, returning Vietnamese migrants to Hanoi. This initiative gained momentum in the 1990s, and I witnessed first-hand the complexities and challenges involved in such operations. 

it is easy to envisage a situation where a deportee becomes aggressive and threatens either self-harm or violence to others.

Hong Kong struggled to secure an airline that was willing to assist. Various contracted planes were deployed, including a cargo Hercules that tragically crashed after completing a round trip and taking off from Kai Tak to head home. This incident highlighted the inherent risks and challenges in such operations. 

A few returnees needed coaxing onto the planes, and several resisted the deportation exercise. However, with a large contingent of police present to ensure security, they didn't present a risk that would warrant the pilot's refusal to carry them. 

Yet, it is easy to envisage a situation where a deportee becomes aggressive and threatens either self-harm or violence to others. In such an instance, a pilot may refuse boarding or remove a boarded deportee.

Other 'reasonable concerns' that could lead to a pilot's refusal include health conditions that could pose a risk during the flight or the lack of documentation for the deportee's entry into the destination country.

These are just a few examples of the potential risks and challenges that pilots and aircraft operators may face when transporting deportees. 

For aircraft operators and pilots, the decision to decline the transportation of a deportee is not a simple one.

Even before the decision to carry a deportee is made, an aircraft operator may hesitate, considering the potential damage to their reputation. The public perception of their involvement in such operations could lead to a significant backlash, especially if it's seen as contributing to the potential harm or injustice deportees could face upon arrival.

In one notable instance in October 2018, passengers on a flight from Heathrow successfully prevented the deportation of a criminal by demanding he removed from their flight.

For aircraft operators and pilots, the decision to decline the transportation of a deportee is not a simple one. It is a complex issue, influenced by a range of factors, including humanitarian concerns, safety considerations, legal and ethical conflicts, and professional integrity, making it a decision that carries significant weight. 

As the debate around deporting people to Rwanda continues, many factors may stall the policy. A raft of judicial reviews and other legal actions could hamper or stop the process.

The UK is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which recognises seeking asylum as a fundamental human right. This convention establishes the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting the expulsion or return of refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened.

Against this background, aircraft operators may be reluctant to assist the British government as it grapples with the illegal migrant crisis, not least because of brand damage but also because they could face sanctions in other jurisdictions.

Anyway, before any aircraft operator decides to take up this role, they will need a risk assessment and the cooperation of their pilots.  

In the end, the U.K. may need to resort to RAF transports to achieve its policy aims.