After 9-11, the consensus among folks I chatted with was that “cooperative” hijackings were a thing of the past. Nobody was going to believe that, if only they played nice, there would be a lot of posturing, some concessions made, and everyone (or most everyone) getting out alive. The assumption would instead be that everyone was headed toward a fiery death, and thus might as well put up a struggle.
Well, it’s still Old School Thinking in training for flight attendants, it seems. In Senate Testimony yesterday, Patricia Friend, President of the Association of Flight Attendants, stated:
We are trained to fight fires in the air, to administer first aid, to evacuate an aircraft in case of an accident, deal with abusive passengers and to give comfort. We receive comprehensive training in how to handle all these situations onboard the aircraft and are now officially recognized for these roles through FAA certification. Unbelievably, almost three years after the horrific events of September 11th, 2001 we still have not been trained to appropriately handle a security crisis onboard on our airplanes.
On September 11, 25 heroic flight attendants lost their lives trying to protect their passengers and the security of the flight deck. Their wrists were bound, their throats slashed, and they died with the knowledge they would no longer be there to help those whom they were entrusted to protect. We must not forget the heroic flight attendants we lost that tragic day. We all learned from the September 11th Commission report in January and heard first hand the phone call placed by flight attendant Betty Ong on American Airlines flight 11. Her calm demeanor and professionalism in the face of this attack was a true testament to her, and all flight attendants’, ability to put their training to good use. As one television commentator stated after hearing the presentation of her taped phone conversation, “She carried out her job professionally and reacted well to her training. Unfortunately, she had received the wrong kind of training.” I could not agree more and clearly the 9-11 Commission felt the same.
Following is a quote from the 9-11 Commission after the January 27th hearing which reiterates what we have been saying since September 11th: “We also learned how hijackers beat the last line of defense on the four flights, because the professionals had been trained to cooperate with hijackers, not fight them.” I agree completely with this statement and applaud the 9-11 Commission for highlighting this tragic oversight in our security training as it existed prior to September 11th. Unfortunately, I am here to report to you that nothing has changed since that horrible day. We are no better prepared today to handle a situation like that which occurred on September 11th and our training is still woefully inadequate.
Amazing.
Many steps can be taken to improve aviation security, but regardless of how many steps are taken, one must view the entire aviation system as a whole and make sure that each and every loophole has been closed. As you well know, loopholes remain and the most glaring is the continued delay in implementing industry-wide, comprehensive flight attendant security training. We know that potential weapons are still making it onboard the aircraft, as the GAO has reported, even though screening procedures have been improved. Not every commercial flight has a pilot with a gun, nor does it have a federal air marshal. But, with a few exceptions for very small aircraft, every commercial flight in this country has at least one flight attendant on board, in the cabin. It is that flight attendant, who properly trained, can be our best security asset to help protect against those weapons that are still clearly making it onboard.
Besides learning how to protect ourselves and to defend the passengers in the cabin, it has become clear that with the introduction of guns onboard the aircraft, another reason to be trained has made itself abundantly clear. We are told that trainees in the FFDO and the federal air marshal programs are sometimes told, if necessary, to shoot through a flight attendant. The Washington Post reported in December of 2002 that air marshals still shoot the flight attendant mock-up in their training simulations and are still graduating from the program. Doesn’t it make more sense to train that flight attendant to assist in a crisis rather than to be a human shield? In fact, both FFDO’s and air marshals have stated it would be their preference to have the flight attendant as a trained ally – one with the skills, the knowledge and the ability to foil a terrorist.
Congress has, with the AFA’s support, mandated the FAA to update flight attendant security training, but carriers have been slow to do anything about it — and the FAA has let them slide on it. The TSA has also been told to mandate hours of security training for flight attendants, but, again, the carriers have been reluctant to pony up for further training, and have been working (successfully) to dilute or revoke those mandates, and the TSA hasn’t seen fit to push for them anyway.
For shame, on both the government and industry folks. Developing big, flashy, law enforcement reorganization and high-tech gear are sexy and a great way to appeal to voters, but they’re not the only — or even most important — activities that should be happening.
(via the Flea)
However, as the passengers on the “shoe bomber” flight proved, they have learned to defend themselves and are willing to take steps to do so.
Well, there’s a bit in Friend’s testimony that indicates that relying upon the passengers may not be a foolproof idea.
Regardless, there’s no reason why everyone shouldn’t be ready to do whatever’s needful in case of any emergency. Relying on the passengers alone to take care of a hijacker is like depending on them to provide basic medical care in case of an emergency.