Aviation Law Crime Regulatory Frameworks Safety

Aviation is a critical element to international travel and commerce. Since its founding in 1903, aviation has quickly become a pivotal element of worldwide infrastructure. Due in part to technological innovations and improvement aeronautical travel has quickly become one of the safest and quickest modes of travel. From a consumer perspective, air travel is also very cost competitive in relation to other forms of transportation. Due to these benefits, airlines are not only used to transport individuals, but also goods and services throughout the world. This has enabled international commerce and globalization through the exchange of goods across borders. With limiting geographical restrictions, the airline industry has help usher in an unprecedented level of prosperity throughout the world.

However, the industry has also be subject to large amount of crime and regulation. Many crimes against humanity have occurred because of airlines and those operating them. In the United States alone, the country has faced many crimes via airlines. This included the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 6TH, 1941 along with the September 11th terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Each of these crimes led to a litany of new regulations and legislation to help make the airline industry safer.

Aviation law has significantly advanced since the Air Navigation Act of 1920. As I noted above, a majority of the more recently laws pertain more so to consumer safety. This includes the Transport Safety Act of 2003 and the Civil Aviation Act of 1988. These acts expanded many consumer protections such as allowing pilots to use force when necessary or preventing certain aircraft or individuals from carrying dangerous goods.

To conclude, I found it interesting how the internal world has coalesced around many of the legal acts to keep consumers and society safe from aviation crime. In the Tokyo Convention for example, many international law makers where able to agree on delegation of jurisdictional power within their respective territories. Article 1 of the convention specifically address acts that could potentially jeopardize the safety of personnel onboard an aircraft.

Part 2 – What areas of law did the lecture consider

To begin, the lecture considered principles of criminal law. Here the nature of proceedings and the impact on the individuals where discussed. Elements of the law include intention or desire to commit a certain illegal act. The Civil Aviation Act of 1988 specifically addresses the concepts of recklessness under Section 20A. The Tokyo Convention also helped to establish standards relating to Negligence and Strict Liability as well.

In addition, the Montreal Convention, much like the Tokyo Convention helped to establish international rules and regulations as it relates to acts committed onboard an airline. This convention much like the Civil Aviation Act which would come nearly 17 years later in 1988 were aimed on protecting patrons onboard the aircraft. Here the convention along with the crime’s aviation act made it a crime to commit acts of violence against anyone on an airline that would threaten the safety of the aircraft. This act also provided provisions in which the actions of individuals onboard the aircraft outside of violence could be illegal. These acts included possession of a substance that is likely to destroy the aircraft, possession of substances designed to damage the aircraft, of knowingly providing false information that could endanger the safety of those on board.

These elements helped to reinforce the legal concept of absolute liability. Here, the intention, knowledge, and willingness to commit an illegal act can constitute a “Fault” as specified in the act.

Once case that was considered was that of Eastern Airlines vs. Floyd. Here, an Eastern Airlines traveling from Miami to the Bahamas suffered a systematic engine failure due to a jet engine losing pressure. In response, the crew shut down the engine and attempted to return to Miami. The flight crew notified the passengers at the time that the plan would land in the Atlantic Ocean as other engines had failed. However, the crew was able to start one of the engines and returned to Miami. Here, Rose Floyd sued the airline for mental distress caused by the sudden engine failure and the need to potentially land in the Atlantic Ocean. However, under the Warsaw Convention, a condition of liability is physical injury as oppose to mental injury. The case concluded with upholding of Article 17 of the Warsaw convention. Here Floyd was unsuccessful with Justice Thurgood Marshall stating that article 17 does not apply purely to mental injuries, but instead should apply to physical or bodily injuries. This according to Marshal was the intended purpose of Article 17 and the Warsaw Convention.