FC5388 (c) - Ground incident not reported to Captain by cabin crew

Initial Report

I was the last passenger to board through the rear door on a delayed flight due to wind strength.  When the cabin crew member attempted to close the rear door they could not move the door and requested assistance from the ground crew.  The aircraft stairs had moved position in the wind and were resting against the bottom of the door (as reported by ground crew on the stairs).  The ground crew asked the cabin crew to stand clear while the stairs were lowered, however the direction selected was incorrect and the stairs lifted into the bottom of the door causing slight movement to the aircraft.

I highlighted to the cabin crew member that as a Captain myself, this must be reported to the Captain.  He agreed and I believe spoke to a colleague on the interphone.  When seated and waiting for weather to allow departure I asked the SCCM if the Captain had been informed.  The SCCM was unaware of the incident.  I said the Captain must be informed before departure.  They spoke to a colleague and informed me that it was ‘fine’.

After landing I spoke to the Captain about what I had witnessed.  Both the Captain and the First Officer were unaware and had not been informed by any member of the cabin crew.  The Captain requested that I explain what happened and also said that there had not been any pressurisation warnings during the flight.  The Captain said the door would be checked for damage.

comments

CAA Comment

CHIRP Comment

CHIRP Cabin Crew Comment

Good communication between cabin crew and flight crew isn’t just a nice-to-have — it’s a safety essential. Cabin crew are an integral part of the safety chain, and their role in communicating with the flight crew is paramount. Whether it’s a passenger who has drunk too much, ice on the wing or as in this situation, a problem with the rear steps, anything that happens out of the norm, no matter how small, must be communicated to the flight crew as soon as possible. The flight crew expect the cabin crew to communicate any concerns to them.

Unfortunately, the incident described in this report highlights a significant lapse in that communication and despite the potential for structural damage (any impact to the aircraft structure needs immediate attention), the initial cabin crew member didn’t escalate the issue to the SSCM or the flight crew. What’s further alarming is that the SCCM when advised by the passenger also didn’t report these concerns to the flight crew which should have happened immediately. Assuming “it’s fine” is a risk no one should take.

CHIRP Flight Crew Comment

It’s really disappointing that an important safety message didn’t reach the flight crew until after the flight, especially when it was communicated clearly by someone who identified themselves as a credible witness. The reporter identifies the importance of effective communication between all crew, including ground handlers. The captain and first officer are unlikely to know directly of such incidents owing to the location of the rear steps and the busy cockpit work activities that are needed before push back and departure. Therefore, it is at times like these that teamwork is vital, and it is the eyes and ears of the cabin crew and ground handling teams that the flight deck relies upon. In a situation like this, cabin crew are also strongly encouraged to tell ground handlers and their supervisors, as well as communicating with the flight deck.

As Lieutenant General David Lindsay Morrison, AO, who served as Chief of Army in the Australian Army famously said: “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept”. In other words, if you allow something unacceptable to occur, you’re essentially setting a precedent for it to happen again. All credit to the reporter who was ‘off duty’ but still took the time to raise a valid safety concern, repeatedly and tenaciously, and then report it afterwards for the benefit of all.

For this incident, it was an observant passenger, who happened to be an aviation professional, that raised the alarm. The ground handling team in this circumstance were ultimately responsible for the safe positioning of the steps and consequently duty bound to report the incident to the captain as soon as it occurred. There is some doubt as to whether it had been wind that had caused the steps to contact the door, as commented by the reporter, but it may also have been a result of the aircraft settling after being loaded with fuel, passengers and bags. Irrespective of cause, the incident should have been reported immediately to the captain so that they could arrange for a qualified engineer’s inspection to be carried out.

The reporter suggests that the ground handling team witnessed the incident, but they don’t appear to have reported it to cabin crew or flight deck. The ground handlers are a critical part of the safety team and they have a vital responsibility. It is never acceptable to just ‘assume it will be ok’, whatever the pressure to get the aircraft off on time.

The cabin crew were also made aware of the incident, but did not pass on the information provided by the concerned passenger to the flight deck. The reason for this isn’t apparent on this occasion. It is appreciated that if every safety concern made by every passenger was passed unfiltered to the flight deck, then not many flights would take off on time. However, cabin crew are encouraged not to dismiss passengers concerns out of hand, rather to use best judgement in deciding what information to onwards transmit, based on what happened and the qualification and understanding of the person making the raising the alarm. It’s always worth putting yourselves in the shoes of the captain and considering ‘given the source, would I want to know this information?’; if there’s doubt, there’s no doubt and the information can always be discounted if necessary. Potentially it was a lack of confidence or sense of perceived pressure to achieve an on-time departure by cabin crew or ground handlers; this is covered by our CHIRP Comment above.

Finally, on learning of the incident after the flight, as well as arranging for the door to be checked for damage, it is hoped that the captain of the aircraft submitted an internal ASR highlighting the breaks in the chain on this occasion that led to safety critical information not being onwards communicated.