The Travelling Para

A recent incident involving disability advocate Shane Hryhorec and Virgin Australia has highlighted something wheelchair users know only too well: when airline procedures, dangerous-goods requirements and staff understanding do not line up, it is often the passenger with disability who pays the price.

According to reporting by the ABC, Shane, an Adelaide-based disability advocate with C5 incomplete quadriplegia, was removed from a Virgin Australia flight from Sydney to Adelaide following a dispute about where his SmartDrive portable wheelchair motor could be stored in the cabin.

What makes the situation particularly concerning is that Shane had reportedly travelled on three Virgin Australia flights earlier that same week with the same equipment without experiencing the same problem.

On those flights, he said his SmartDrive had been permitted to travel in an overhead locker.

On this flight, things unfolded very differently.

What happened?

Shane travels with a manual wheelchair fitted with a SmartDrive power-assist system, as well as his service dog.

After boarding the Sydney to Adelaide flight, cabin crew reportedly instructed him to store the SmartDrive beneath the seat.

The problem was that there was not enough suitable space in his allocated row.

Putting the device alongside his service dog was understandably not an acceptable option either.

Shane and the crew discussed possible alternatives, including storing the device elsewhere or relocating him to another seat. However, because his service dog was required to remain in the third row, those options apparently could not be resolved.

Eventually, Shane was removed from the aircraft.

He later described the experience as humiliating.

And it is not difficult to understand why.

Imagine having already transferred from your wheelchair into an aircraft seat, only for your wheelchair to then be brought back to the aircraft, transferring again, and being taken off in front of a cabin full of passengers.

According to Shane, an announcement was also made apologising to the other passengers for the delay while he was being removed.

For a wheelchair user, that is far more than a travel inconvenience.

Virgin Australia says the SmartDrive was incorrectly assessed

There is an important part of Virgin Australia’s response that should not be overlooked.

The airline subsequently acknowledged that the SmartDrive had been incorrectly assessed primarily as a lithium battery rather than as a battery-powered mobility aid.

That distinction matters.

Virgin Australia said the relevant provisions applying to the mobility device were therefore not applied and apologised for the confusion and frustration caused.

The airline also said the device had not been declared before boarding so that its dangerous-goods requirements could be verified.

Virgin Australia has said it is reviewing the circumstances of the incident, including how the device was assessed and how the applicable classification and stowage requirements can be made clearer to staff.

I also understand that Virgin Australia is reconsidering how these types of devices are handled following this incident.

If that review results in clearer and more consistent guidance for passengers and staff, that would be a positive outcome.

However, until any changes are formally announced, wheelchair users should not assume that a new policy has already been introduced.

My own experience travelling with a SmartDrive

I also travel with a SmartDrive, so this story immediately caught my attention.

Personally, I have never experienced the same situation Shane faced.

When I fly, I generally travel on my own and I do not have a service dog with me, so my circumstances are different.

I also carry my SmartDrive in its own dedicated travel bag.

Importantly, I always declare that I am travelling with the SmartDrive and I carry the relevant paperwork with me, including the battery information and watt-hour details.

For me, that preparation is simply part of travelling with mobility equipment.

So far, that approach has worked well for me.

However, I am also very conscious that airline procedures and dangerous-goods requirements can change.

My own previous experiences should therefore not be taken as confirmation of what Virgin Australia, or any other airline, currently permits.

That is why I believe passengers travelling with a SmartDrive or similar power-assist device should check the airline’s current requirements before every trip, declare the equipment as required, and have the relevant battery specifications readily available.

What concerns me most about Shane’s experience is not simply that his circumstances were different from mine.

It is the apparent inconsistency.

He had reportedly travelled successfully on three Virgin Australia flights earlier that same week with the same equipment, only to encounter a completely different interpretation on his next flight.

That is exactly the kind of uncertainty wheelchair users should not have to face.

We should be able to know before boarding how our mobility equipment will be classified, what documentation is required and where it can safely be stowed.

A SmartDrive is not simply another piece of luggage

This is something the aviation industry needs to understand clearly.

A SmartDrive is not a convenience item.

It is a mobility device.

For many manual wheelchair users, a SmartDrive or similar power-assist system can significantly increase independence and reduce the physical effort required to move around.

Treating such a device as though somebody has simply turned up at the gate carrying a large lithium battery misses the purpose of the equipment entirely.

At the same time, lithium batteries do present legitimate aviation safety considerations.

Those requirements matter.

Wheelchair users should not expect airlines to ignore dangerous-goods regulations, and airlines should never be criticised simply for applying genuine safety requirements.

The issue is whether those requirements are being understood and applied correctly and consistently.

Safety and accessibility should not be competing objectives.

A well-designed aviation system should be capable of delivering both.

The real problem is inconsistency

As a wheelchair user, former aircraft engineer and someone who spends a considerable amount of time advocating for better accessible air travel, I believe inconsistency remains one of the biggest problems we face.

A wheelchair user can prepare carefully, speak to the airline, declare the equipment, provide the requested information and successfully complete several flights.

Then, on the next sector, somebody interprets the same equipment differently.

That creates enormous uncertainty.

Passengers can be left wondering:

• Will today’s staff interpret the requirements differently?
• Will my mobility equipment suddenly be classified differently?
• Will something I carried successfully yesterday be refused today?
• Will there be somewhere suitable to stow the equipment?
• Will I be moved from my allocated seat?
• Could I ultimately be prevented from travelling?

For most passengers, a disagreement over cabin baggage might mean inconvenience.

For somebody who relies on mobility equipment, it can determine whether they are able to travel at all.

“We don’t know what we don’t know”

One saying I use regularly through The Travelling Para is:

We don’t know what we don’t know.

I do not expect every check-in agent, gate agent, baggage handler or cabin crew member to automatically know every wheelchair, power-assist device and battery system on the market.

There are an enormous number of different mobility products.

That is precisely why airlines need strong systems, effective training and easily accessible information.

The answer is not simply to blame whichever staff member happens to be standing in front of the passenger.

Airlines need to give their people the tools to answer some basic questions quickly:

What is this device?

How is it classified?

What dangerous-goods requirements apply?

Where can it safely and legally be carried?

Who can provide an authoritative answer if there is uncertainty?

Those questions should ideally be resolved before the passenger is seated on the aircraft.

Passengers need clearer information before they travel

There is another lesson here as well.

Where airlines require battery-powered mobility equipment or detachable power-assist devices to be declared before travel, that requirement needs to be extremely clear and easy to follow.

Wheelchair users should not have to possess an aviation dangerous-goods qualification simply to understand what information their airline requires.

When a passenger advises an airline that they are travelling with mobility equipment, there should be a straightforward process for recording relevant information such as:

• the type of wheelchair or mobility device;
• make and model;
• battery chemistry;
• battery capacity and watt-hours where required;
• whether the battery is removable;
• whether a detachable power-assist system will travel in the cabin;
• weight and dimensions where relevant; and
• any special handling or stowage requirements.

Most importantly, that information should follow the passenger through the journey.

Having someone explain the same mobility equipment repeatedly at booking, check-in, the gate and the aircraft door simply creates more opportunities for misunderstandings.

This is why wheelchair users become anxious about flying

People sometimes ask why wheelchair users experience so much anxiety before flying.

Incidents like this help explain it.

That anxiety can begin well before we reach the airport.

We wonder whether our assistance request has been recorded.

Whether battery documentation will be accepted.

Whether ground handlers will understand how to handle our wheelchair.

Whether our chair will be damaged.

Whether transfers will be completed safely.

Whether information we were given before travelling will match what happens when we arrive at the airport.

And ultimately, whether we will be allowed to travel with the equipment that provides our independence.

That level of uncertainty should not be considered a normal part of air travel.

This should not become an airline-bashing exercise

It would be very easy to use this incident simply as another opportunity to attack Virgin Australia.

I do not think that achieves very much.

Virgin has acknowledged that Shane’s device was incorrectly assessed and has apologised for the confusion and frustration.

That acknowledgement is important.

The more important question now is:

What changes as a result?

Every serious accessibility incident should become an opportunity to improve the system.

If a review identifies a training gap, fix the training.

If classification guidance is unclear, clarify it.

If staff cannot easily access information about mobility equipment, give them that information.

If the booking process is not collecting the information operational staff need, improve the process.

And if the same piece of equipment is being treated differently from one flight to the next, understand why and fix it.

That is how aviation improves.

What wheelchair users can do now

Until there is greater consistency, preparation remains one of the best protections wheelchair users have.

From my own experience travelling with a SmartDrive, I would recommend:

• Always declare that you are travelling with the SmartDrive or other power-assist device.
• Contact the airline directly before flying.
• Tell them exactly what mobility equipment you are travelling with.
• Provide the SmartDrive make and model.
• Know the battery type, capacity and watt-hours.
• Carry the relevant paperwork with you.
• Ask whether the device needs prior dangerous-goods approval.
• Ask where the device is permitted to be carried or stowed.
• Keep any airline approval or confirmation you receive.
• Carry relevant manufacturer documentation.
• Keep important documents electronically and, where practical, as printed copies.
• Check the airline’s current policy again before each trip because requirements can change.

This is exactly what I do when I travel.

I declare my SmartDrive, I carry it in its own travel bag, and I have the paperwork showing the relevant battery information, including the watt-hours.

None of that guarantees that somebody at the airport will not interpret things differently.

And passengers should not have to become experts in airline procedures simply to travel with their own mobility equipment.

But until aviation systems become more consistent, good preparation can reduce the chances of problems.

There is a bigger opportunity here

Australia is currently having important conversations about improving aviation accessibility.

Cases like Shane’s should form part of those discussions.

We need better staff training.

We need clearer procedures.

We need consistent interpretation of dangerous-goods requirements.

We need better communication between passengers, airline accessibility teams, dangerous-goods specialists, ground handlers, gate staff and cabin crew.

And importantly, we need to learn from accessibility failures rather than treating every incident as an isolated event.

Because ultimately, this is not just a story about where one SmartDrive could or could not be stored.

It is about whether a passenger with disability can reasonably expect that the arrangements that allowed them to travel yesterday will still make sense tomorrow.

That should not be too much to ask.

Credit and further reading

This article is based on reporting by Matthew Ward Agius and Sophie Landau for ABC News, including comments from Shane Hryhorec and statements provided by Virgin Australia.

I encourage readers to read the original ABC News report and, where available, Shane’s own account of what happened.