NBAA Panel: Ops, Security Must Improve Communications

Corporate flight and security departments need to communicate better to ensure that their mutual goals are met, industry experts concluded during a recent NBAA webinar, “Flight Operations, Company Security and Protection of Key Employees: A Unified Approach,” featuring members of the association’s Security Council.

Regulatory Toolbox CEO and session moderator Adam Hartley opened the webinar by stating that company security, executive protection, flight operations, and third-party providers each have the same goal but approach it with different perspectives. “They often start from very different playbooks.”

Robert Pocica, practice area lead of corporate security for Corporate Security Advisors, said he has found in the past that “there was a total lack of communication between the departments. There was also a lack of understanding of the missions.”

He worked to formalize processes, including establishing common terminology. “A risk to a pilot is something different than risk to a security professional.” Another step he would take is bringing the security and flight departments together, including having the security team visit the flight department hangar.

Tracie Carwile, v-p of global sales for GGT Worldwise, agreed, saying, “Those regular touch points after establishing that basis of language and communication is key. Regular touch points are definitely needed and not being done across the board.”

She also sees disconnects with timing and priorities. The flight operations team is more focused on executing and reporting quickly about their mission, while the security team is more focused on homing in on the mission. “Neither perspective is wrong.” But it comes down to communicating frequently.

Meanwhile, Greg Kulis, founder of Business Aviation Safety and Security, stressed the importance of integrating the flight department within the organizational structure and ensuring that it is recognized by all involved in security.

“The flight operation needs to be an extension of the corporate office, and that security perspective needs to be a shared culture. So, the aircraft is an extension of the CEO’s corporate office,” Kulis said.

Sharing intelligence is important both during the planning phase and during the trip “so everybody is receiving the same information from the start,” said Matt Burdette, director of global intelligence and compliance with GGT Worldwise. “It’s important that both sides are receiving that information.”

This is particularly true to have perspective on the scope of the risk to ward off unnecessary sudden decisions, Burdette said. “Decisions can get made that are more accurate to the realities on the ground and that benefit the organization.”

Carwile added that even with these security briefs, language is important. “Instead of something being high-risk, medium, or low, explain what that actually means,” she said. “It’s going to take everyone’s time to sit down to ensure you’re aligned on what that risk means.”

Trust is another key aspect, especially when something causes a deviation from the plan, Carwile further said. This ensures that as things pop up, especially if they’re mission-critical, the departments can be aligned on the actions.

Burdette agreed, noting that so much information comes out and everything comes across as a crisis. “It can be really easy to overreact to something and spin around,” but partners communicating can decide whether there is an actual problem before unnecessarily upsetting the passengers.

As far as acting on information, security is exploring the intelligence while flight operations is looking at everything from weather to ground infrastructure and potential diversions, Pocica noted. “They’re both planning that, but if something happens after you’re airborne, it really is the flight ops team that needs to take the lead because they’re in the air; they’ve got passengers in the back.”

In the end, the captain of the aircraft is the captain, he added.

Kulis further stated that who should have the final say depends on the stage of the operation. The flight crew should have clear responsibility until the aircraft is safely on the ground and is deplaned, and the security team should take over with ground transportation.

“That transfer authority is something that needs to be clearly defined from the beginning, so we’re not thinking about it when something happens along the route,” Hartley agreed.

As far as vetting vendors, from the aviation side, that tends to fall with flight crew, but ground transportation and protection may fall with security. Often companies have formal processes and checklists in place, Burdette said, adding the NBAA Security Council also has guidelines that are a useful resource in this area.

Kulis pointed out that the regional embassies may have information on what resources have been vetted for dignitaries.