‘Nonsensical’ Air Ruling Riles
By Kaven Baker-Voakes, www.blacklocks.ca
Federal regulators in a decision one MP called “nonsensical” have ruled scooter batteries run afoul of Dangerous Goods Regulations. The judgment came in the case of a disabled Winnipeg woman ordered to ship her back-up battery as cargo.
“It is a nonsensical answer, but that’s where we are at,” said MP Mike Sullivan, New Democrat critic for disability issues. “They have taken a very narrow view of their mandate.”
The Canadian Transportation Agency rejected a complaint from passenger Linda Ross, who cited two airlines for refusing to allow her to carry a back-up battery as carry-on luggage. Ross noted that airlines agreed to ship her scooter with its attached battery as perfectly safe, but deemed her second dry cell battery an in-flight peril.
In her submission to the agency, Ross argued that having a second battery was essential to her “safety and well-being”, and that being billed to ship a back-up power unit as cargo on a separate flight amounted to discrimination on the basis of disability. “Ross submits that if it is safe to transport a battery when it is attached to the scooter, then it is the responsibility of the regulatory agency and the carrier to determine a way to carry an identical back-up battery on the same flight as the passenger,” the agency noted.
Authorities acknowledged Ross’ scooter might run out of power without a back-up battery – the units have seven hours’ use between charges – but concluded it was not the agency’s problem once she left the airport. Ross “did not explain or provide any evidence of how her scooter running out of power while travelling within the federal transportation network could be life-threatening or result in a possibility of injury,” the regulator wrote.
“What is the resolution for this woman?” said Sullivan, MP for York South-Weston, Ont.; “It is unfortunate the Canadian Transportation Agency doesn’t agree that having a spare battery is essential for a person with a disability. It is impossible to travel without them.”
The Association of Canadian Travel Agencies said regulators should give some leeway to disabled passengers. “It is unfortunate an exception was not granted in this case,” said Heather Craig-Peddie, vice president.
“I would think lenience would be granted to those who require a second battery in order to continue their journey beyond the federal transportation network,” Craig-Peddie said. “These dry cell batteries are not spillable and in my opinion shouldn’t be considered hazardous goods. If the airlines must work under the guidelines of the International Civil Aviation Organization, then clearly the rules need to be updated to reflect the growing demands of persons with disabilities.”
The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority permits disabled travellers to carry a spare battery providing advance notice is given to airlines, according to its Safety Requirements Applicable To The Carriage Of Electronic Mobility Aids. Ross said Air Canada allowed her to carry a battery once – the airline called it an “error” – but was barred on a flight from Vancouver to Winnipeg last April 21, and a separate WestJet flight from Honolulu to Vancouver.
WestJet in submissions said it was merely following federal regulations: “WestJet asserts this is a regulatory obligation for air carriers and thus it is not WestJet’s policies and procedures that constitute an ‘undue hardship’.”