Does illegally opening the aircraft cabin door constitute a crime? The new plan by the "Two Supreme Courts" sets the criteria for criminalizing "aircraft disturbances"

Whether “air-rage” conduct such as illegally opening an airliner’s cockpit door, fighting and brawling inside the cabin of a commercial aircraft, and similar acts constitutes an administrative violation or rises to a criminal offense often sparks controversy.

On April 8, the Supreme People’s Court held a press conference, jointly with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, to release the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law to Criminal Cases Endangering Flight Safety in Civil Aviation (hereinafter the “Interpretation”), clarifying the boundary between crimes and non-crimes, and between criminal penalties and administrative penalties.

Luo Guoliang, the head of the Criminal Division IV of the Supreme People’s Court, introduced that the “Interpretation” contains seven articles. First, it clearly defines the offenses and the standards for conviction for “air-rage” conduct such as illegally opening emergency exit doors of civil aviation aircraft, fighting and brawling in the cabin of civil aviation aircraft, assaulting others, and the like.

On the one hand, the “Interpretation” clarifies that not all acts of illegally opening emergency exit doors on civil aviation aircraft constitute criminal offenses. Only where, during the period when a civil aviation aircraft is moving relying on its own power, or during airborne flight, it is illegally opened in a way that is sufficient to trigger a danger to public safety, may it be convicted and punished as the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. For acts of illegally opening doors before the aircraft has begun moving under its own power, they may be subject to administrative penalties in accordance with relevant provisions, and the actor shall also bear corresponding civil liability for damages.

On the other hand, the “Interpretation” adopts an enumeration approach and sets out the standards for conviction and sentencing for the crime of using violence to endanger flight safety by committing violent acts on civil aviation aircraft in flight. It specifically clarifies that acts of using violence against civil aviation cabin crew may constitute the crime of using violence to endanger flight safety. “In addition, the ‘Interpretation’ also provides guiding provisions on criminal punishment for offenses that, in practice, involve disrupting civil aviation computer information systems and crimes that interfere with the management order of civil aviation radio communications.” Luo Guoliang said.

At the same time, the “Interpretation” emphasizes严惩 (severely punishing) conduct involving fabricating and intentionally disseminating false terrorist information related to civil aviation flight safety. It provides that where the actor’s conduct affects the operation of civil aviation flights or the normal operations of civil airports, or causes departments such as public security, the armed police, fire and rescue, and health quarantine to take response measures, the conduct shall be handled as a crime; where it causes serious social impacts or major economic losses, it falls under causing serious consequences and is punishable by fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years.

The “Interpretation” also makes clear that whether the actor fabricates and intentionally disseminates false terrorist information related to civil aviation flight safety by an overt or implicit方式, if the relevant conditions are met, the conduct may constitute the crime of fabricating and intentionally disseminating false terrorist information, so as to facilitate the correct understanding and grasp of the elements of the crime in practice.

In addition, the “Interpretation” further clarifies the principle of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases endangering civil aviation flight safety. “In criminal cases occurring on civil aviation aircraft, if the actor is captured during the flight of the civil aviation aircraft, jurisdiction lies with the people’s court of the place where the civil aviation aircraft makes its first landing after the act occurs; when necessary, jurisdiction may also be exercised by the people’s courts of the place where the civil aviation aircraft departs, the place of any stopover, or the destination, in order to avoid disputes over jurisdiction that may arise in practice.” Luo Guoliang said.

The newly revised Civil Aviation Law will take effect on July 1 of this year. It adds a special chapter on security and protection, further strengthening legal provisions on security and protection in civil aviation. It provides that acts that endanger civil aviation security or disrupt order in civil aviation constitute administrative violations, for which public security authorities shall, in accordance with law, impose administrative penalties for administration of public security. If the acts constitute a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with law.

Luo Guoliang said that in this situation, it is necessary to further clarify the specific standards for identifying offenses in the Criminal Law that are related to the work of security and protection in civil aviation, and to ensure an organic connection with laws and regulations such as the Civil Aviation Law and the Law on Penalties for Administration of Public Security.

Si Mingdeng, deputy head of Criminal Division IV of the Supreme People’s Court, introduced that the newly revised Civil Aviation Law lists twelve common categories of “air-rage” behaviors, including actions such as抢座位 (抢抢座位)—taking seats by force—fighting for space on baggage racks, and similar acts, as well as acts such as unlawfully opening an aircraft’s emergency doors and entering the cockpit without authorization. By clearly prohibiting specific acts, it increases the public’s awareness of the harms of “air-rage” conduct.

“The relevant provisions of the Law on Penalties for Administration of Public Security and the Criminal Law and the ‘Interpretation’ establish, based on the severity of harm of ‘air-rage’ conduct, the standards for imposing public security administrative penalties or pursuing criminal responsibility, thereby enhancing the deterrent effect and the precision of crackdowns. In addition, according to relevant civil legal provisions, where “air-rage” conduct constitutes a tort, the actor must also bear civil liability for damages. By coordinating civil, administrative, and criminal measures—achieving seamless alignment from civil tort liability to public security administration and finally to criminal responsibility—we can reduce ‘air-rage’ incidents at the source.” Si Mingdeng said.