Given at a Full Committee Hearing:
Aviation Security
Tuesday, June 22 2004 - 9:30 AM - SR - 253
Adobe .pdf version of this document
The Testimony of
Ms. Patricia Friend
International President, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
Senator McCain, Ranking Member Hollings, Members of the Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Pat Friend and I am a flight attendant and the International President of the Association of Flight Attendants - CWA. AFA is the representative of 45,000 flight attendants at 26 carriers. Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony on the crucial matter of flight attendant security training.
The job of a flight attendant is first to protect the flying public. It is a job that we love and one that we do with pride and care. 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.
Congress has taken many actions to improve the overall safety of the aviation system. Screeners have been federalized and are receiving updated training. Screening procedures have been tightened. Flight deck doors are now reinforced, many pilots carry guns, and armed federal air marshals are on select flights. There are new procedures in place for many aspects of aviation security. We have supported these efforts and will continue to support all efforts that make our aviation system, and our workplace, more secure. However there is still one crucial link missing. We remain frustrated and troubled that the needs of flight attendants in order to adequately perform their roles in making the aviation system more secure have been delayed, denied and ignored. Our skies are not safe and they will not be safe until flight attendants receive the training necessary to protect our passengers from another September 11.
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.
Flight attendants are the front line safety personnel on the aircraft, as recognized by the 9-11 Commission. We are truly the first and last line of defense in the aircraft cabin. We recognized the problems with our security training immediately following September 11th and have been trying diligently since then to get the federal government to realize this fact and take the appropriate action to guarantee that we receive adequate and necessary security training.
I know that the members of this Committee and a majority of Congress realize that flight attendants need updated and meaningful flight attendant security training. On three separate occasions Congress has specifically acknowledged the need for this training; the Air Transportation Security Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the 2003 FAA reauthorization bill. Yet, these many attempts to provide flight attendants with meaningful security training have not been successful.
The legislative history and struggles to enact security training are well known to the members of this Committee, but for the sake of the record, I would like to reiterate them. Immediately following the attacks of September 11th, AFA began to call on Congress to direct the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to update flight attendant security training. As the 9-11 Commission made clear, the anti-hijacking training provided to flight attendants prior to the September 11th attacks did not reflect the reality of the new threats posed to the domestic aviation system. Terrorists were no longer looking for hostages to trade for political demands. Instead, terrorists now have an evil goal to use our workplace, the aircraft, as a weapon of mass destruction. It was only logical and clear to the flight attendants of this country that our training needed to be updated in order for us to effectively fulfill our role to protect the safety and security of passengers.
That is why AFA worked closely with Members of Congress to update and expand required flight attendant security training through the Air Transportation Security Act (ATSA) in the fall of 2001. The final legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by the President included a number of provisions in section 44918 that required the FAA to update and improve currently existing flight attendant security training requirements. These provisions called on the FAA to require that carrier flight attendant security training programs be updated and changed to reflect the current security and threats that flight attendants may face onboard the aircraft. It was the intention of AFA that with the FAA approving these updated programs, all carriers across the industry would implement similar if not identical training programs.
However, in the immediate months after passage of ATSA it became abundantly clear that the security training programs being implemented by the carriers and approved by the FAA were not adequate or consistent. There was a wide variance in the type of training and the hours spent on the training. Some carriers were showing flight attendants a twenty-minute video, while others were conducting two full days of voluntary, hands-on training. Even more amazing was the fact that all of these programs received approval from their FAA Principle Security Inspectors (PSIs). Actions such as these only highlighted to us the fact that the FAA was not adequately prepared to handle supervision of the security training programs.
Security training discrepancies in the aviation system led to many flight attendants unprepared for any future terrorist attack onboard an aircraft. We at AFA strongly stated repeatedly that all flight attendants, regardless of the carrier employing them, must receive the same level of adequate security training. The system would not be effective if it was simply a patchwork quilt of programs that varied significantly from carrier to carrier.
It was at this time that AFA began to lobby Congress to implement requirements for flight attendant security training that included a set number of hours for the training programs. These mandates would have to be enforced so that all carriers were providing the same basic level of security training for all flight attendants in the US aviation system.
During the spring of 2002, as legislation began moving in the House and Senate that would allow pilots to carry firearms, AFA again lobbied Congress to mandate 28 hours of detailed flight attendant security training at all carriers, with the training program to be develop by the security experts at the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). AFA arrived at this proposal after consulting with numerous security and training experts and after experts completed 5 months of instructional system design work with various groups of flight attendants and pilots.
This ideal legislative language was approved in an amendment to the Homeland Security Bill by an overwhelming, bi-partisan vote in the Senate of 87 – 6 on September 5th, 2002.
In our opinion, the final language that emerged from the conference committee working out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation eventually took a step back from the original Senate language in that it did not mandate a specific number of hours for training. It did however call on the TSA to issue a rule mandating a set number of hours for extensively detailed flight attendant security training that would be implemented by all carriers and mandatory for all flight attendants.
I must admit that this was not our ideal language, for we have learned that if Congress is not specific in spelling out details, the FAA and now the TSA have been susceptible to pressure from the airline industry in weakening meaningful and comprehensive requirements. However, we began to cooperate with TSA under the framework of the legislation and with those tasked by TSA to develop this rule in order to guarantee that the training requirements and the final rule issued by the TSA would be as effective and comprehensive as possible. We were also pleased to read on November 19th, a letter from TSA Under Secretary Admiral James Loy in response to an October 10th letter from Representative Peter DeFazio asking him about the position of having 28 hours of training, which stated "We (TSA) generally agree that, as an additional ring of security, flight attendants, well trained in first line defense techniques, will enhance the overall security of the aircraft while in flight. Additionally, we believe that the proposed 28 hours of security training time is reasonable to ensure basic skills are learned and adequately maintained over time."
We were optimistic that the TSA working groups designed to develop the security training would do the right thing. However, we underestimated the opposition by our employers, the nation's air carriers to implementing comprehensive security training. They made repeated back door legislative efforts to gut the requirements in the Homeland Security Act that would have required them to abide by any industry wide training standards. It appears to have been their goal, through these repeated legislative efforts, to make security training for flight attendants voluntary, make the flight attendants pay for the training themselves and prevent any industry wide standards for such security training.
As Congress began work on the FAA Reauthorization legislation, the air carriers continued their efforts to eliminate meaningful flight attendant security training. Finally, AFA and other flight attendant labor unions met with airline representatives to see if it was possible to reach some common ground on flight attendant security training requirements. In the end, the language included in the final House version of the FAA Reauthorization split flight attendant security training into two parts. A basic, mandatory level of security training that included a number of provisions such as crew communication and coordination, psychology of a terrorist and basic moves to defend oneself. The second tier of training was a more comprehensive, voluntary level of training which would include more aggressive methods of self-defense and be more physical. We believed that the intention of this second tier would be the flight attendant equivalent of the voluntary FFDO program. Yet I will remind the Committee that it is not voluntary that we are on the other side of the locked flight deck door.
This language was not ideal for AFA, but it did at least create a basic, mandatory level of security training with the requirement that TSA must develop regulations and guidelines for that training. We felt strongly that this basic, mandatory level would be industry wide, and that TSA would issue those guidelines and regulations. All interested parties had agreed that the TSA "shall" issue those regulations, and the original legislative language reflected that intention.
It was reported to AFA, and subsequently confirmed by numerous sources, that at this point Continental Airlines, through last minute, back-room legislative machinations was successful in changing the language regarding basic, mandatory flight attendant security training from "TSA shall issue guidelines" to "TSA may issue guidelines". By changing this one word, the ability to force TSA to issue these industry-wide guidelines was removed. By changing the mandate, TSA, which has proven to be under the pressure of the carriers, would now not be required or mandated to issue those regulations for the crucial, mandatory flight attendant security training.
Since passage of the FAA Reauthorization, it has become clear to AFA and other interested parties, that the TSA has stopped working on developing those guidelines for basic, mandatory flight attendant security training. In fact, some of the individuals that were tasked at TSA with developing the program as called for under the Homeland Security Act have had their positions eliminated and work on developing these regulations and guidelines has been shelved. Without a mandate from Congress directing that TSA shall issue those guidelines, it is my belief that TSA will continue to remain under the pressure of the airlines to not issue those guidelines.
At this time the security training programs at each airline have only become worse. The programs have been simply watered down more and more over time as it becomes a race to the bottom to see which airlines can get away with the cheapest and easiest program. Flight attendants and the safety and security of the flying public are the ones suffering the most from this race to the bottom.
I continue to be baffled by the obstinate opposition by some air carriers to comprehensive, mandatory flight attendant security training programs. We also have never received a clear answer from them on why they have fought every attempt to make our aviation system the most secure in the world. The only arguments we have heard are that it is too costly for them to train their flight attendants and that security training goes against their corporate culture. Let me say that I and my members would be the first to wish that our world hadn't changed so dramatically on September 11th. But unfortunately that is the reality of the situation today and like it or not, corporate culture must also change. Like it or not, flight attendants are the eyes, ears and first line defenders in the cabin of the aircraft. We did not wish for this position, it's the reality of our world today. To continue to ignore and fight that reality only puts many more lives in jeopardy.
It also has been said that flight attendants do not need extensive security training as the passengers will come to their aid. While that may seem to be the case, it may not always prove to be reality. It is a false hope that we cannot rely on. Recently, a flight attendant for a major airline was attacked by an abusive passenger. The passenger lunged at the flight attendant. He was attempting to grab her. Not one passenger came to her assistance. It was only because of the fact that she had taken basic self-defense classes in college, and remembered that training, was she able to break free from the attacking passenger.
The other argument we have heard against this is cost. However, if through this training only one life is saved, there is no price that can be put on it that is not worth paying. We have also attempted to work with the carriers in order to try and find a way that the federal government may step in to assist in paying for this added cost associated with protecting our countries aircraft. We have been rebuffed every time.
Where does that leave flight attendants today in their ability to respond to another terrorist attack onboard aircraft? Well, as I pointed out earlier, we are no better prepared than we were on September 11th. Security training at the airlines, where it even exists, is meaningless. Why do I say, "where it even exists"? Because I can report from one of our members at one major airline who recently completed his recurrent training, which should have included a review of his initial security training, that no time was spent on security training. The carrier did spend over an hour however on a program entitled "corporate ethics" where the flight attendants were trained on important topics like how taking an opened, half bottle of water, was considered theft of company property. When the flight attendant asked the company why there was no time devoted to the important topic of security training, he was told that "there wasn't enough time".
We've received reports from another major carrier, that they have included security training in their recurrent training. However, for all intents and purposes, their security training has been given only as an afterthought. This carrier showed a six-minute video followed by a few minutes of questions and discussion. Another major carrier devotes approximately one hour, which includes watching a fifteen minute video. The class does however spend an hour devoted to a course entitled "Equal Treatment of Customers".
It appears that the carriers are getting around the requirements for security training by including important security procedures in home study packets. Flight attendants are given the information in booklets, which they are supposed to read on their own time at home. As we've learned from the examples I have outlined, there is clearly no further discussion of the security principles. We remain concerned that important security training procedures could potentially be circulated to the general public and any potential hijackers in training via these home study packets.
What recourse do we have to address these problems? Unfortunately, we do not have many tools available to correct these deficiencies in training. However, section 603 (6) of the Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act as passed last year provides that TSA shall monitor air carrier training programs. It states: "In determining when an air carrier's training program should be reviewed….the Under Secretary shall consider complaints from crew members." AFA has received thousands of letters from our members directed to TSA urging the agency to conduct an audit of their carrier's training programs due to the fact that they feel the programs are insufficient. I urge the Members of this Committee to take the actions necessary to make sure that the TSA lives up to the requirements of this section and conducts thorough and meaningful audits of the carrier training programs to ensure that they are meeting the requirements outlined in the law.
Recently, the TSA stated in a letter to the Chairman of this committee that they have been making progress on developing the guidelines for the advanced, voluntary security training outlined in the Vision 100 Act. Is it logical that TSA would develop an advanced security training program, when they have yet to develop even the basic, mandatory level of training called for in the Act?
It is clear that the airlines will continue to provide inadequate and weak training programs until the TSA does its job and issues regulations that require a standardized, industry-wide, meaningful security -training program. These regulations should guarantee that airline training programs incorporate topics such as, but not limited to, psychology of a terrorist, verbal commands, items readily available onboard to assist in self-defense, physical means to defend oneself and more importantly crew communication and coordination. This last part is vitally important if all three parts of the onboard aviation security team; the pilots, air marshals, if present, and flight attendants all know how the other groups have been trained to react. Our members need to know how to slow down the hijackers long enough for those with deadly weapons to stop the terrorist or for a pilot to land the aircraft.
I, and my members need your help. We refuse to shirk our responsibility to the flying public but we have been trying for almost three years to get our employers to give us what we need. It is evident that is not going to happen without your diligent oversight of TSA and directing them to stop the delays. It may be necessary for this Congress to once again pass legislation that makes the federal government do what it should have done immediately after September 11th.
It is only with your insistence that we will get the tools we need and want to fulfill our job to protect our passengers. Please help us in our quest for a minimum, clear, consistent, industry-wide standardized security training developed by TSA - one that will truly close the "aviation security gap". In closing, I would like to leave you with one thought: The only people who were successful in saving lives on September 11 were those flight attendants who actually abandoned their training. With the help of their passengers they prevented Flight 93 from being used as a missile. Despite their training to acquiesce, they fought back. Yes, they still lost their lives, but they lost them saving the lives of countless others – most likely the lives of those of you sitting here in this Committee room. Do not allow the lesson they taught us be in vain. Mandate appropriate, industry-wide security training for flight attendants.
