Excellence in crew security training

Scott GrahamMEC Security ChairpersonAir Line Pilots Association

Vicki JurgensMEC Safety, Health & Security Chairperson

Association of Flight Attendants

The Challenge The Tools - SIRC The solution - Flight 291 The end result

2

3

Keeping crew security training interesting and current

AssumptionsContinuous repetition of mandatory subject leads to low

retention rate

Sharing real life experiences makes the class more interesting and improves retention rate.

As an Airline manages its day to day affairs its Corporate Security Department needs information

in order to effectively manage risk and vulnerability.

Information comes fromGovernment agencies

AuditsIntelligence reports

(and most importantly) Employee Reports

SIRC provides a process in which Corporate and Union Security Counterparts work

together to

providePrompt responses to the employee

Evaluation of the employees concerns or issues

Continuous improvement feedback to the operating units.

Integration of scenarios into training that Emphasizes varying points of view of a single

event Allow for variation and escalation of the event

to provide multiple teaching scenarios Use real examples, and stories of real crew

members to maintain interest and maximize retention

6

We chose Flight 291

7

Flight: 291

Date: 2007

Routing: IAD SMF

Aircraft: A320

Pilots 2

F/A’s 3

FAMS: No

FFDO’s: No

Level 4 Divert to FAR Normal landing, within

weight constraints for FAR Authorities boarded

aircraft on landing PAX removed by

authorities Flight safely continued on

to SMF

Passenger appeared to be emotionally upsetCrew considered his behavior as strange but not

threatening, he had flown a segment already.Passengers behavior grew more erratic as the

flight progressed. Entered lavatory and partially disrobed

Made statements about dying and going to hellBecame upset on viewing in-flight movie

(Transformers)Flight attendants solicited assistance of able

bodied passengers

Passenger suddenly started screaming and rushed the cockpit

Flight Attendants actions Flight attendants struggled with passengerAble bodied passengers did not immediately assist

Purser moved galley cart in front of cockpit door Galley cart slammed into cockpit door

Purser notified Captain of need to get the aircraft on the ground

Flight Deck actionsBased on presumed intent of passenger and the obvious sounds of the

struggle combined with the impact on the door, captain initially believed someone was trying to breach the flight deck

Crew displayed exceptional teamwork. Safety of other passengers was prime

consideration while also focusing on the subject who they realized was sick and needed help (as

opposed to being a terrorist)

Dispatch initiated communication with Domestic Events Network (DEN).

DEN tracked flight but based on information provided via UAL dispatch did not launch fighters

DEN complemented UAL dispatch for their handling of the matter

Acting in accordance with published policy dispatch sent a request to “confirm ops

normal” to the fleetProper response followed by all aircraft

Passenger response differed from conventional wisdom in the post 9/11

environmentAble bodied passengers did not respond as

expectedDirect instructions shouted by a FA did get a

response by some but not all able bodied passengers

Passengers allowed children in the aisle to observe the events

Adjustments in crew training Emphasize that passengers may not respond as quickly

or in the manner we expectBenefits of communicating escalating events

Use of restraints provided in the onboard kitsTaped interview with the crew

Dispatch communication with DEN played in background

AN EXCELLENT PRODUCT

Scott Graham

Scott.graham@alpa.org

Vicki Jurgens

safety@unitedafa.org

16