Special Report: Coping With a Crisis in the Cabin: 'Shoe Bomber' Flight Triggers Improved Response Procedures

Air Safety Week, July 22, 2002

'We are the final stand out there,' captain declares in call for more threat information

"Intelligent improvisation" may be the best description of the crew's actions to foil a terrorist who concealed a bomb in his shoes and to secure the airplane for the remainder of the trans-Atlantic flight. A videotape of the crew's recollections of the December 22, 2001, incident illustrates how policies and procedures were adopted, literally, "on the fly."

The crew's actions serve as a case study in intelligent improvisation under great stress. The experience serves also as a case study that any airline can use to better shape its crew training, its policies and procedures - all the way from the airplane to the operations center - as well as its overall preparedness for crisis response.

The incident involved American Airlines [AMR] Flight 63 and already has triggered numerous changes at the carrier in terms of policies, procedures, organization and training. Among them:

* A secure Internet website has been created whereby aircrews can obtain the kind of threat information the Flight 63 crew said it did not have, and should have had. This website, which may be unique to American Airlines, has been operational since July 1.

* A formal review team has been organized to glean lessons learned from any such incident in the future. In fact, this new debrief structure was created shortly after a videotape was produced by the Allied Pilots Association (APA) about the incident, and the Flight 63 crew, pilots and flight attendants alike, were the first to participate. The detailed debriefings were conducted this past March. All of the pertinent company divisions participated: safety, security, system operations center (SOC), airport services, and so forth.

* A pilot has been appointed to be in charge of flight crew security for the company, comparable to the pilot in charge of safety.

* A new set of responses has been developed for the SOC. Pre-scripted responses have been developed, depending upon the threat. These responses include instructions about diversions, which other airplanes - in the air and on the ground - should be notified, and which other officials and offices in the company should be notified.

* Even little changes, which have a big impact on morale, have been implemented. For example, the flight attendant who was bitten during the initial melee on Flight 63 went to the hospital after landing in Boston. She was escorted by one of the members of the ground station. In the future, however, any crewmember sent to the hospital after such an event will be accompanied also by a fellow crewmember, thereby alleviating any sense of abandonment or loneliness in a time of stress.

Capt. Paul Rancatore, who moderated the APA videotape, had high praise for the company's overall response, as well as for Bob Ames, vice president of the APA. It was Ames, he said, who initiated the crew debrief shortly after the incident. "Bob understood the timeliness for a safety debrief, and his approach formalized a process within the company," Rancatore said.

Rancatore reserved special praise for Tim Ahern, the airline's vice president for safety, security and environmental issues. "Tim has taken charge and has led the way implementing the many improvements triggered by the Flight 63 incident. As a result, good things have happened," Rancatore said (ASW note: We hope to present more details of changes made at American Airlines in the next issue).

While reading through the transcript that follows, keep these points in mind:

* Obviously, no air marshals were aboard.

* Note how the flight attendant used a cart loaded with duty-free goods to block access to the cockpit.

* Note the crew's apprehension that passenger Richard Reid's originallyperceived attempt to light a fire in the cabin was seen as a diversion for accomplices to spring into action.

* Note how the crew "profiled" at least three other passengers, which raises obvious questions about whether ground staff focused on them before boarding, and how apparently they were not subjected to any additional scrutiny by law enforcement personnel after landing.

* Observe the absence of an overall on-scene commander for the many law enforcement and other agencies involved in meeting the aircraft after it landed.

* The captain does not appear to have been given clear guidance, direction and advice from the company. One gets the impression of insensitivity at the corporate, supervisory level, during a major, life threatening situation. This shortcoming, sources say, has changed dramatically at American Airlines.

Video: Flight 63 Debrief (Edited for space and clarity)

Statement appearing at beginning:

This video is intended for the purposes of training and sharing information with other airline pilots and flight attendants. It is designed to share the experiences of certain flight professionals with their colleagues. We hope that passing this information along to others in the profession might be helpful or useful to others who might find themselves in a similar situation.