|
Monday, June 16, 2008 How airports deal with
problem passengers Procedures and training, identifying unusual behavior,
security and more By Mark Chivers Aviation.com
In tense situations, actions by airports and
airlines to provide customer-oriented service can douse the flames of confrontation
and prevent disruptive passengers from causing incidents. Every experienced
traveler has a story about disruptive passengers, as do most front-line airport
staff, making them almost the stuff of legend — and an ongoing challenge
for the air transport industry. The term ‘air rage’ was first used in the late
1990s to describe the increasing number of incidents involving unruly
passengers on flights. Sadly, it is still a familiar phrase today, as a number
of men and women continue to behave badly onboard aircraft. But while many of the more headline-grabbing incidents
have occurred in the air, there is no shortage of horror stories on the ground,
reports Routes News. Recently a passenger transiting Nuremberg Airport in
Germany nearly died after drinking a bottle of vodka at a security checkpoint
rather than surrendering it under the new liquids and gels (LAGs) rules. Police
and medical staff were forced to intervene and the man was hospitalized. Even minor disruptions can potentially be costly. In a
situation where a security checkpoint is temporarily closed down, lines can
quickly build, leading to service and operational issues. In more extreme
scenarios entire terminals are evacuated or the airfield gets locked down. Craig Bradbrook, director of security and facilitation
for the Airports Council International (ACI), says the consequences depend on
the circumstances. Although a problem caused by a single passenger can normally
be contained fairly swiftly, things can easily escalate if numbers of
passengers are involved. “There have been incidents where an aircraft has
developed a technical problem prior to push back, resulting in the cancellation
of the flight, and the passengers have refused to disembark until they have
negotiated compensation terms with the airline,” said Bradbrook. “Similarly, there have been ‘sit-in’
protests in airport lounges of disgruntled passengers. Flights may be delayed
if a problem passenger is denied boarding at the last moment and their baggage
has to be off-loaded.” Who should take responsibility? The challenge starts with identifying who should take
responsibility for an incident. David Herriman, head of safety management at
Düsseldorf Airport — which reported just five incidents in 2007 against a
total passenger throughput of 17.8 million — says problem passengers on
the ground are an issue for both airlines and airports. “Both are interested in avoiding difficulties on
the ground as well as in the air,” said Herriman. “And in
Düsseldorf, the airlines, the airport, the police and other parties involved
work together very closely. For example, we have developed a common procedure
to inform the stakeholders about a problem passenger: a standardized reporting
channel.” ACI’s Bradbrook believes every case has to be
judged individually. “If, for example, the problem passenger is
disgruntled about being off-loaded or bumped off a flight, it is technically a
contractual dispute between the airline and passenger,” he said. “The airport and the police would not normally get
involved, provided that there is no 'breach of the peace.' However, if the
passenger becomes disorderly, then police would get involved to maintain order
and the airport duty staff would also probably get involved to ensure that this
incident did not impact on other terminal operations,” said Bradbrook. The muddied waters of responsibility are no surprise,
given they reflect a bewildering array of possible causes for the disruption.
These range from the ever-present threat of terrorism to the rather more
mundane pangs of nicotine withdrawal. Other factors at play include drunkenness, medical
conditions and travel-related stress. Is a passenger appearing to be
‘disruptive’ simply one unfamiliar with the airport environment,
unsure of security requirements, unaware of gate locations and oblivious to
boarding protocol? Perhaps they are simply jet-lagged. One person’s
problem passenger may be another’s nervous flyer. Procedures and training for dealing with problems Given such diversity, it is difficult to define a
comprehensive system for dealing with the problem. “From my experience,
airports, security organizations, airlines and police do have their own
procedures for dealing with such incidents,” said Bradbrook. “There is close co-operation between the
stakeholders at major airports in managing the response to 'problem' passengers
and I believe that the procedures are fairly standard from one airport to
another," he said. "The police do train with the airport, airline
front-line staff and supervisors to practice their response to a variety of
security and safety incidents.” This raises the bigger issue of the quality of the
training provided to staff, which in turn, impacts competence in implementing agreed
procedures. ACI’s security chief believes one stone that should not be
left unturned is training in identifying potential problems before they have
the chance to crystallize. “We see value in airports and airlines training
staff to recognize behaviors,” he said. “If one works in an airport
terminal every day, one can recognize what behavior is normal and what is not.
Staff should be trained to take action in circumstances where they observe
someone behaving abnormally.” Although the action may be very simple — perhaps
just notifying security or police and keeping the person under observation
until enforcement officials arrive — even these small steps need to be
drilled home. “By nature, many people do not like confrontation
or do not like to get involved in things which are not directly their
business,” said Bradbrook. “But that is the message that we need to
get across to all airport and airline staff — security is everybody's
business.” Security is also big business these days and a number of
ideas, machines and improved training methods are helping to make the
disruptive-passenger problem less of an issue. Identifying unusual behavior patterns Identifying unusual behavior patterns is certainly one
security element that’s proving very effective at the Houston Airport
System (HAS), particularly in mitigating ‘minor’ disturbances,
according to Frank Haley, interim deputy director for public safety and
technology. Haley recalls an officer correctly identifying a
distressed passenger before she became too much of a problem. “It saved a
lot of time and hassle for the other passengers,” he claimed.
“There have also been plenty of instances of people needing medical assistance.” Such training is currently offered by a limited number of
specialized firms but isn’t overly time-consuming. Around 40 hours
training will give staff the basic skills and there are constant reinforcement
exercises after that. Haley reports that officers using the technique feel it
is very beneficial, though he stresses the HAS approach is a little bit
different from the norm. “We look at it from a customer service point of
view and not as another layer in the security system, although of course it
fulfils that role as well,” said Haley. Dealing with disruption at Houston also has a technical
side. George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) is testing a breach containment
system, deployed using closed circuit television (CCTV). Passengers suspected of causing a problem can be tracked
and their behavior scrutinized using video analytics. For example, if a
security checkpoint is breached the program can be launched over the CCTV
network and used to track and help contain the individual. IAH is the first gateway
in the U.S. to use the software as a commercial application. “This is about business continuity, because
otherwise a breach would cause checkpoints and aircraft operations to shut
down,” Haley emphasized. “That causes delays and could mean passengers
missing connecting flights. If we use it just once it will probably pay for
itself.” Security initiatives There are plenty of other security initiatives, but
perhaps the most important one in terms of the bigger picture of identifying
known offenders is Secure Flight, a Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) program that is taking some time to get off the ground. Secure Flight is a passenger screening program still
under development and is intended to replace the Computer Assisted Passenger
Presceening System (CAPPS) schemes. Essentially it compares passenger
information from Passenger Name Records (PNRs) against watch lists maintained
by the federal government. Secure Flight was introduced by the TSA in August 2004
after the agency abandoned plans for CAPPS II, in part due to privacy concerns.
TSA expects Secure Flight to begin operational testing at the end of 2008, with
full implementation scheduled for 2010. Currently, airlines are responsible for checking
passengers against government watch lists, but Secure Flight will transfer that
responsibility to the TSA. This should ensure a higher level of consistency and
will help remedy possible misidentifications. After it receives information for each passenger, the TSA
will then determine any matches of information with government watch lists and
transmit matching results back to aircraft operators. It is hoped Secure Flight will be combined with the
Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) to create a comprehensive detection
solution. While the ‘cures’ for problem passengers are
improving, a lot of collaborative work still has to take place. Giovanni
Bisignani, IATA's director general and CEO, calls aviation security “an
uncoordinated mess,” and it is true that harmonization would help reduce
the number of incidents caused by passengers unaware of local laws and
processes. Designs for reduced stress But there is also a big part to be played by preventative
measures, particularly at the sharp end of disruptive occurrences — those
passengers who get drunk or irate over a delay or who simply get lost in
today’s mega-terminals. Airport design and new self-service travel options are
critical and may provide a huge boon to easing tensions. Fentress Architects,
for example, describes Incheon International Airport in Seoul, South Korea as
affirming a feeling of warmth and welcome. “The design finds both overt and subtle ways to
make Incheon a memorable gateway to the region and a haven for weary travelers
by infusing the airport with the rich heritage of Korean culture,” said
Fentress of the award winning gateway. Reducing stress — and its potential to build up
into a volatile airport incident — can start at the passenger’s
home. Checking in online and even printing the boarding pass lowers the odds of
standing in a lengthy line at the airport. Clear travel information on the
airline and/or airport Web site can also help put a traveler at ease. The next piece of the jigsaw requires other stakeholder
involvement, but is no less crucial. Airport access has to be made as
straightforward as possible. Congested motorways are a huge source of stress
— particularly for business passengers, used to cutting it fine for
peak-time flights. Those airports that offer multi-modal connections create a
more relaxed ambience even before a passenger steps into the terminal. What airports can do Along the same lines, parking should be plentiful and
connections to the terminals efficient. These are all cogs in the wheel of a
problem-free airport experience. In the building itself, a number of factors come into the
equation. New simplified travel procedures again play their part. Everything
from Common Use Self Service (CUSS) kiosks to biometric immigration channels
can reduce waiting times and give a passenger confidence. Clear wayfinding signs, good retail outlets, well-lit
gate locations, clean restrooms and even high-street prices all make for a
comfortable journey. And the information should keep coming — not only
about delays but also warning passengers of the consequences of disruptive
behavior. Perhaps most important of all, service has to be
excellent. In a highly competitive world this is often the case anyway, but
real customer-oriented service can often pour water on the flames of
confrontation. Given today’s congested schedules, the effects and
costs of a disruptive passenger are huge. Trying to prevent such stress from
building up, recognizing when prevention might have failed and then
implementing the correct solution are all now permanent features of the modern
security landscape. It remains to be seen whether the air transport industry
as a whole is ready to engage — and pay for — some serious
landscape management. |
