CSAs deal with passengers and try to ensure that their experience is a good one. Most CSAs have been exposed to little or no CRM training. Many companies use contractors, so the problems explained in the previous section (TCOs) apply here, but it is still worth examining how the specific motivations of CSAs might conflict with that of the crew.
The principle measurement of efficiency for most gate staff is on time departures, therefore the motivation of the CSA is to get the passengers on and the doors shut. Knowledge of what happens beyond the gate is very limited and there is some anecdotal suggestion that an understanding of the crew perspective is not always encouraged. In discussions, many gate staff expressed desire to know more about what happens once the passengers are on-board. They were keen to understand how they fitted into the ‘overall picture’. Below are some examples of the issues that can occur between crew and CSAs.
Case 1
This example happened to a long haul carrier operating from India to UK with UK and Indian crew. During boarding a very old frail Indian lady was brought to the aircraft door by the CSA. She spoke no English. The crewmember taking boarding cards at the door felt that this lady looked ill so she called the crew supervisor. When the supervisor arrived she spoke to passenger with the help of the CSA who interpreted. The supervisor spent some time questioning the frail passenger to determine if she was happy to fly. Throughout this exchange the CSA sought to re-assure the
supervisor that the lady was fit to fly and that she was telling him she was able to look after herself. There was another Indian crewmember close by who spoke Punjabi. She started to listen to the conversation and quickly realised that the CSA was not accurately interpreting. She challenged him on this, at which point he admitted that he was trying to get the crew to take her because he did not want the hassle of off loading her and the penalty of a late departure.
Case 2
This example happened on a UK charter operator, operating into Florida. The boarding door crewmember became concerned about the behaviour of a male passenger
queuing to board the aircraft because he appeared drunk and aggressive. She called the Cabin Supervisor who agreed with her assessment and asked the passenger not to board the aircraft, but to wait. At this point the passenger became aggressive and abusive. The supervisor called the gate and asked the gate staff to assist but was told that they had already assessed the passenger and were happy for him to fly. The supervisor told them she was not happy but the CSA supervisor said it was their policy that if they assessed a passenger was fit then they were fit. At this point the captain was called. He too assessed the passenger as being very intoxicated and not fit to fly. By now the passenger was becoming very aggressive and so the police were called. The passengers seated by the door witnessed the crew receive a sustained attack of foul-mouthed abuse before the passenger was eventually removed by the police. He was taken back to the gate area where he broke loose and ran amuck destroying some airport property. The airport SWAT team eventually subdued the passenger. The flight left on time. During the subsequent follow up, discussion between the airline and the handling agent revealed a lack of mutual understanding around decision- making and communications. The handling agent appeared uncompromising: if they assessed a passenger as being fit to fly, then they were fit to fly.
CAP 737 Section B, Part 1, Chapter 17: Working with external teams
Both these examples demonstrate a clash of culture and a possible failure of CSA management to recognise some important HF principles.
1. Culture: Understand your own culture and that of the crew and think about
how they might interact
2. Teamwork and leadership: It is a team effort to get an aircraft away safely
and on time.
3. Communication: Swift effective communication between crew and CSA
would have solved these problems almost immediately.
Airport Operations Staff
During the research that preceded the writing of this chapter, it was clear that the majority of airport operators and airport operations managers were familiar with human factors and keen to pursue HF training for their staff, though most seemed unsure how best to achieve this. The Airport Operators Association were open and helpful in compiling information about HF training for their staff.
Some airports are already conducting some HF training. This training would not
necessarily be recognised as being a traditional model, but seeks to address some key areas of HF training, as follows:
1. Teamwork and leadership 2. Interpersonal skills
3. Dealing with conflict 4. Managing change 5. Reporting and SMS
Most discussion with airport managers centred on ramp operations staff. Many appeared to have an excellent understanding of ramp practice and safety around aircraft, but a limited understanding of the pilot perspective. They appeared to have a strong knowledge of the technical side of the operation but a limited knowledge of non-technical issues. Further discussions revealed that in many cases staff had a low level of understanding of the SMS and in most cases did not view HF practices as being related to their role. Below is an example:
One small regional airport reported that there was frequently a problem with chocks being left on the ramp area presenting a safety hazard. When staff were challenged about this during a discussion on company culture and safety culture, a number of them said that it was common practice to observe someone walk past the offending chocks into the terminal and telephone the fire department to tell them that chocks needed to be removed. This story was not an isolated occurrence. Others reported
the same attitude towards foreign objects (FOD), i.e. that an individual would walk past the item and ask someone else to pick it up because it wasn’t their job.
Ramp reporting culture is very varied, but some organisations are making good progress with introducing SMS and just cultures, whereas others are not. The Ground Occurrence Reports (GOR) system is not as mature as the ASR or MOR system and the majority of reports contain little information beyond a short factual account of the occurrence. A CRM instructor tasked with preparing a joint HF session should approach his or her local airport operations team and ask for some anecdotal information about recent occurrences. He or she should have no difficulty using this information to facilitate a useful and lively session with both pilots and operations staff, which can form the foundation of a good HF learning session.
When questioned, most managers appeared keen to use the skills of the CRM instructor. Hence an approach from the local CRM instructor to the airport manager might initiate HF training for airport operations staff.