A Legal Study on the Promotion of the In-Flight Security Officers System

The ICAO stipulates in Annex 17 that IFSO must be specially selected and trained government personnel and the in-flight deployment of IFSO must be kept confidential. The Federal Air Marshals (FAM) in the U.S. execute the laws that regulate the security in airports and civilian aircraft, such as aircraft terrorism/ hijacking and passenger disturbances such as assault and violent language (Jin, 2011).

In South Korea, the Aviation Security Act (Article 2) stipulates that “IFSO” refers to a judicial police officer in charge of duties to prevent any act of unlawful interference on the aircraft or any person designated by an aircraft operator to perform such duties. Based on this law, the IFSO job delegated to the airline companies is applied the same as the U.S. FAM, and in addition, it is stipulated to perform the security inspection in the aircraft before the passenger boarding, and perform the security patrol duty on board during the flight. South Korea has been maintaining a peculiar way, which is difficult to find in other countries: airline cabin crew also work as IFSOs, performing both the in-flight security work and passenger service work in parallel.

In many countries around the world, including the U.K., Australia, Canada, Japan, China, Singapore, and India, the governments, not the airlines, operate the IFSOs following the recommendation of the ICAO, modeled after the U.S. FAM (Jin, 2011).

The operational differences between the U.S. FAM and South Korea’s IFSO are clearly visible, as shown in Table 1. The biggest differences between these countries lie in their status, the organization they belong to, and the education/ training period. In the U.S., the government employees under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) perform the role of air marshal, whereas in South Korea, the cabin crew of airlines, which are private companies, are responsible for the duties of IFSO. In terms of education, the U.S. has a 16-week long-term training system for FAM, whereas South Korea grants the IFSO eligibility upon completion of an 8-hour initial training. Furthermore, there is a regulation restricting the age of FAM to between 21 and 57 years, but there is no age restriction in South Korea. For FAM, flights are specifically designated and limited, but in South Korea, there are IFSOs in every international/ domestic flight.

Among the countries that operate IFSO, South Korea is peculiar in that airline cabin crew are eligible to be IFSO. According to the Operational Guidelines of IFSO of Airline Operators (Article 5) in South Korea, the airline operators select IFSO from those who have at least two-year experience as a purser or cabin crew member, considering the age and gender. In South Korean airlines, a two-year cabin crew experience requirement may mean that new flight attendants who have completed the internships are qualified. It is questionable whether cabin crew members who just completed the internships will be able to deal with aircraft terrorism and hijacking effectively if they are given the qualification for handling the in-flight security. The background for having a two-year experience as the baseline is attributed to the lack of experienced flight attendants in low-cost airlines that have short histories in South Korea. In a study on qualifications of aviation security workers, Hwang (2015) suggested implementing a government-accredited qualification system of cabin crew to recruit and train them. In many countries around the world, the IFSO eligibility is given to those selected by the government, which is different from the method of South Korea, as shown in Table 2.

Since in-flight security personnel experience difficulties in performing the duty due to work stress and physical/psychological burden, the gender and educational level should be considered for selection and recruitment (Yarandi et al., 2020). Therefore, if the regulations cannot be amended to appoint government personnel as IFSO according to the recommendation of the ICAO, the IFSO eligibility criteria should be changed to raise the bar in terms of the career experience to at least five years from the current two years, which can be obtained upon completion of the internship. Furthermore, the cabin crew position rank system can be used to place the deputy cabin crew manager position as the lower limit. This way, a work environment can be created to let the IFSO perform the leading role in practical aviation security and perform the IFSO job responsibly.

The IFSO training of South Korean airlines is an 8-hour initial training, and the regular training is specified to be three hours long. The scope of training content that has to be completed by IFSO is insufficient due to the limited training time and is difficult to implement fully. The 3-hour regular training is focused on the use of a Taser gun, a weapon on board, and dealing with in-flight disturbance of passengers. Meanwhile, training on unarmed attack and defense techniques that can be used to subdue terrorists and methods of conveying information with flight crew have been neglected. For example, the training program contents include the recognition of explosive hazards and location and the duties and responsibilities of flight attendants. However, they can be performed by ordinary cabin crew, and do not fit the duties of IFSO.

The U.S. FAMs are trained long-term for 16 weeks, even though professionals with security experiences are specially recruited, and the training includes marksmanship, arrest technique, physical training, self-defense, and criminal law related to investigation and arrest (Park and Moon, 2017). It is interesting to note that the training is conducted in a real-life simulation environment using a practical training room of an in-flight model.

As an improvement of the IFSO training in South Korea, the training time should be extended from the current three hours to eight hours per day to strengthen the programs on physical training, self-defense, negotiation skills, etc. Furthermore, education on criminal law knowledge is required to prevent problems such as human right violation when the IFSO exercises the right to arrest (Park et al., 2019).

There is a problem that the relationship between the IFSO and the captain is not clearly stated in the current laws and guidelines, which may cause confusion when the IFSO performs the job (Jin, 2011). According to the “Act on the Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officers and the Scope of Their Duties (Article 7 Clause 2)”, the captain and flight crew perform the duties of the judicial police officer for crimes occurring in the aircraft according to Clause 1. Here, the judicial police officer refers to the cabin crew member who is delegated by the captain according to the Aviation Security Act. The current Aviation Security Act does not include regulations on the relationship between the IFSO and the captain.

The Aviation Security Act has a provision that the crew member delegated with power by the captain must follow the command of the captain. On the other hand, there is no specific regulation on whether the IFSO is under the command of the captain. “The Operational Guidelines for In-flight Security Officers of Airline Operators” provides the method of communicating information about cabin situations between the IFSO and flight crew in the education and training, but does not define the relationship. Furthermore, the Aviation Safety Act (Article 62: Authority of Pilot in Command)” stipulates that the captain is responsible for the flight safety of the aircraft and directs/ supervises the crew of the aircraft, but there is no provision for the relationship with the IFSO.

To prevent effectively and respond quickly to aircraft security incidents, including aircraft terrorisms, relevant rules need to be prepared for the role relationship between the IFSO and the captain. With the independent status and right, the FAM is in a mutually cooperating relationship with the captain.

Considering that the IFSO is a cabin crew member, the Aviation Security Act needs to be revised regarding the relationship with the captain by referencing the laws and regulations on judicial police duties.