flight deck and airline crews in the middle of the action, and as a primary source of information to airline corporate security offices, Ops Desks, and LEOs.” “Many carriers’ corporate security departments are staffed with former law enforcement personnel who understandably have a tendency not to share information or engage the crews with threat information, given their past ways of working”, Vorzimmer continued, although he also stated that “former law enforcement working in such roles is now less prevalent”. Geoffrey Askew, the former head of Qantas’ security and emergency management department and now Principal of his own consultancy company Askew and Associates, explains that “The composition of each airline’s corporate security department differs in size, skills, experience, capability and ultimately corporate and industry respect. The aim however should be to ensure that corporate security in every airline understands the working of its organisation’s operations, including, and in particular, flight operations. What should be encouraged is a commitment to communications and the sharing of experiences whether that is by formal regular meetings, and/ or the implementation of an exchange programme between corporate security and pilot groups.” Serious problems will exist as long as
there are yawning gaps in the information available to airline corporate security, police, FBI agents and flight crew. Since most law enforcement departments will never handle a hijacking or aviation threat, resources are not being put into educating the officers that are called out to these incidents. Vorzimmer makes the point that, “Most law enforcement agencies in the US never train with the crews that fly the actual planes. They are not informed about the different unseen hazards of each aircraft. As we know in aviation, each aircraft type comes with its own equipment, procedures and operational guidelines.” If those esoteric differences are unknown to law enforcement, unnecessary tragedies could result.
Askew adds that, “The industry, through industry associations, also has an obligation to ensure that all law enforcement agencies that could be called upon to respond to an aviation incident are educated and exercised with regard to the operations of the industry. This needs to occur not only at the command level, but also at the tactical/operations response level.”
June 2013 Aviationsecurityinternational
“…ensure that corporate security in every airline understands the working of its organisation’s operations, including, and in particular, flight operations…”
When Vorzimmer was asked if there
was resistance to adding former pilots to their ranks, he replied that, “I am not sure that is an industry priority, but pilots do have a certain knowledge that law enforcement do not have when it comes to aircraft. So, it is something that could be looked into.” Actually, my view is that this is a problem that really must be addressed. Corporate security in the airlines needs to be reaching out to the pilots to understand the culture of aviation in which they work. If these entities fail to coordinate with flight crews, they not only put the public at risk but also place their employers in a situation where they are legally liable when things go disastrously wrong. If legitimate public safety concerns, common sense, and the well-established principle of pilot-in-command do not get their attention, perhaps knowing they have placed their companies in legal jeopardy will. Vorzimmer pointed out that all Virgin pilots have gone through an eight-hour FAM-designed Basic Crew Member Self-Defence Training Course with the Federal Air Marshals, in addition to their classroom instruction. “That is one specific area where crews are working with law enforcement concepts. However, beyond that, it is not happening. Virgin America also uses five instructors that are or were law enforcement police academy instructors. This approach may foster better communication and understanding further down the line. Law enforcement has to make a greater
effort to communicate with the actual crews of the airlines when seeking professional input. When law enforcement calls an airline, often they do not actually speak with a pilot or operational employee. Due to the fact that the people in corporate security understandably represent the airline company, law enforcement has a tendency to assume that the people they are communicating with both have the knowledge and sufficient information to be able to provide pertinent data in order to facilitate the proper resolution of a given security situation.
Sullivan explained what happened after US1267 had been raided and the threat was determined to be a hoax. “That very same day we got immediate feedback from the pilot and chief pilot of US Airways.” This has now led to a whole new set of operating procedures for the Philadelphia police department during aviation incidents. They are now aware of the importance of communicating with the captain and crew of an aircraft that is dealing with a crisis or threat.
“It is something we just learned,” Sullivan explains. “Now we have the perspective of the individual who is ultimately responsible for the safety of that airliner and all the passengers in it.”
Sullivan and the chief pilot at US Airways have come together in a way not often seen between law enforcement and the aviation industry in the US. It is not that the Philadelphia Police were opposed to recognising the captain’s authority, rather that they have never been educated about the need to communicate with the crew in order to best understand the many unseen hazards that abound on the field. According to Sullivan, “Every officer on every shift has been or will be trained in the presentation the chief pilot of US Airways put together for our officers,” adding, “You have to have an all-inclusive working philosophy”. The chief pilot in Philadelphia has now been added to the department’s planning group. To those law enforcement agencies that have not taken such steps, or think the matter is unimportant, Sullivan has this comment: “I would highly recommend that my colleagues around the country sit down with pilots and the chief pilots of all the airlines that they serve and include them in their planning.” Or, perhaps one should go one step
further. A chief pilot is a definite help, because of their unique insight into the practicalities of flying and the fact that their lives are also on the line. But they are often not trained in security and may, therefore, tend to think along company lines. So, the best solution would be having a chief pilot who is also trained in security…
Andrew A. Downs is a 22-year veteran of the industry, having been an owner and operator of both air charter and ground handling operations. He is the producer of a documentary entitled ’58 November’ which tells the tale of the fateful hijacking of a Hawk Commander aircraft in 1971 during which Down’s father, Capt. Brent Downs, was killed. Andy Downs can be contacted at
andy@58november.com
www.asi-mag.com 43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52