I refer to the widely publicised incident involving a family travelling with a child with cerebral palsy who were off-loaded from an aircraft before departure in Singapore.
As the matter was of significant public interest, I wrote extensively on the incident from the perspective of passenger carriage by air. My comments were based solely on information shared by the complainant on Facebook, which was subsequently reported by numerous newspapers and featured in prime-time news broadcasts.
I have since received additional information from reliable sources that was not previously made public.
In the first instance, the family and their special-needs child were checked in by the ground handling agent, SATS Ltd, at Changi Airport, rather than by airline staff, as is typically the case at airports outside an airline’s home base.
The child’s seat, which functioned similarly to a personal wheelchair, was initially accepted during the check-in process and brought to the aircraft.
However, acceptance at check-in does not necessarily mean that a wheelchair or child seat will ultimately be permitted in the aircraft cabin. Such equipment may be required to be stowed in the cargo hold, depending on operational and safety requirements.
Upon arrival at the aircraft, a senior cabin crew member observed that the child’s seat was too large to be used as a Child Restraint Device (CRD).
Subsequent checks by ground staff revealed that the CRD was not approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and therefore could not be used on board. This differs from the account initially presented by the complainant.
The SATS ground staff then suggested that the CRD be checked into the cargo hold. However, the child’s mother maintained that the child required the seat during the flight. As a result, the SATS ground staff made the decision to off-load the family.
The decision was not made by the aircraft commander. The captain was informed of the off-loading only after the decision had already been taken.
I understand that the captain involved was a highly experienced pilot who had previously served in the Air Force and, at one time, with the national airline.
Based on this information, it is evident that there are two sides to the story.
In matters of public interest, particularly those involving aviation safety and passenger carriage procedures, it is important that all relevant facts are made known, as such incidents can have implications for future policies and operational practices.
This case also highlights two important points:
For a Child Restraint Device (CRD) to be used on board an aircraft, it must be approved by the relevant aviation authority.
Prior to the commencement of a flight, certain operational decisions may be made by ground personnel without the direct involvement of the aircraft commander.
Regardless of one’s view of the incident, public discussion should be based on a complete and accurate account of the facts.
For my part, my earlier comments were based entirely on the information publicly available at the time and were made without malice towards any party.
If subsequent facts indicate otherwise, I extend my apologies to any parties who may have been unfairly affected by my earlier comments. – June 7, 2026
Captain Mohd Kamil Abu Bakar is a former director of Flight Operations, Malaysia Airlines