Boeing 737 series 700 and 800 emergency exit rows.

[Chief Chook]

My understanding is that overwing seats are regarded as exit rows, and thus have the usual restrictions on who occupies which seats - able-bodied persons, no babies, no children under 15 years of age.
Are these the only exit rows on the 700 and 800 series aircraft?

[56P]

The exit rows are clearly marked and your restrictions are correct.

[Chief Chook]

I was being type specific wrt to the Boeing 737 700 and 800.

Are any other rows. besides the overwing ones considered as exit rows on those types?

[Cloud Cutter]

You will probably find the aisle seats up the front i.e. closest to the front main doors are regarded as exit seats for the purposes you mention.

Don't know about the NGs but on the 300's I’ve dealt with, there are 10 over wing exit seats (the row of 4 in line with the doors and the row of 6 behind them). The placement of exit seats may not be immediately apparent just by looking at the doors so I wouldn't say they are 'clearly marked' (of course the exits themselves are).

[737opsguy]

As Cloud Clutter has mentioned on some aircraft the front row may also be classified as an emergency exit row - it depends on the configuration of the aircraft.

On Qantas aircraft there is a bulkhead between the forward doors and the first row of seats and thus the front row is not classified as an emergency exit row.

On almost all Virgin Blue aircraft is there no bulkhead between the forward left door (L1) and the first row of seats (1ABC) and thus these are classified as an emergency exit row. Accordingly the same restrictions would apply to these seats as for the overwing emergency exit rows.

[Buster Hyman]

Sorry if this is rather anal, but aren't the overwing exit restrictions specific to those seats due to the fact that the FA's won't be the first to access the exit? I would've thought that, say, row 1 on a DJ 737 would not be as "restrictive" as the overwing exits due to a FA being present (assumedly) at any event. As I often sit in the overwing exit, due my height, I'm only ever asked if I'm willing and able to assist the crew by operating the door over the wing. Would a PAX in row 1 be asked the same question?

Now, I do recall that on the 747's the exit rows, regardless of location, held similar restrictions, ie kids, disabilities etc but that's more to stop the exit being blocked I imagine, not because they "expect" you to operate the door (although, you'd have a hard time stopping people in certain circumstances!)

For the record, I saw an ad for the 737-900 and there's 2 overwing exits & an additional small door aft of the wing & forward of the rear door!:ok:

[Pseudonymn]

Buster, you wrote:

As I often sit in the overwing exit, due my height, I'm only ever asked if I'm willing and able to assist the crew by operating the door over the wing. Would a PAX in row 1 be asked the same question?

I am unsure about QANTAS, but when sitting in 1A on a DJ flight, yes you are indeed asked that question.

I am also one that manages to be allocated the exit rows, occassionally we ask for them, more often than not they look at my husbands' ASIC which is produced as ID, and we are given the exit row, quick-smart. :)

[Buster Hyman]

Cheers Pseudonymn, that clears that up for DJ then. So, do you have a card or are you briefed on how to operate the door?

[Pseudonymn]

Buster, there is a small side pocket on the wall/fuse just infront of 1A for the inflight magazines and safety cards.

[HI'er]

"You MAY be asked to ASSIST, in the unlikely event of an emergency".

That doesn't necessarily entail having to :-
(i) Check the door is in the "armed" mode, prior to opening it;
(ii) Actually opening the door (sounds easy, doesn't it? It's actually an annual recurrent check requirement of F/A's, to demonstrate they CAN in fact do it;
(iii) Deploying the slide manually, in case it fails to drop (good luck with that one!!);
(iv) Blocking the exit and redirecting pax to the nearest usable exit;
(v) Launching the slide raft, in the case of a ditching;
(vi) Ensuring evacuating pax inflate their life jackets after exiting;
(vii) Checking that pax are NOT wearing - high heels ;) carrying sharp objects, carrying excessive hand carry, attempting to disembark incorrectly;
(viii) Ensure the pax disembark expeditiously...................
...does it???????????

"You MAY be asked to ASSIST, in the unlikely event of an emergency"....and held legally responsible afterwards, because you agreed???

[scrambler]

Buster Hyman

When I have flow DJ and sat in an Exit row they have given an individual briefing on the door operation, as well as having the card there.

:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Ahh, in fairness then, I suppose when asked by the crew, I've always indicated that I'm familiar with the procedure for the overwing exit.

Scrambler Was that for an overwing exit or row 1? I'm curious to know what you get told in row 1 as it's a vastly different exit.:ok:

[HI'er]

Agreed Buster - the likelihood of the main entry door (L1) being used in a ground evacuation is much higher than an overwing exit.
Out of interest, scrambler, how comprehensive was the briefing?
Did it include showing you how to open the door?
Or was it simply a case of something like, "You stand here and help the pax out."?

[Moniker]

HI'er You MAY be asked to ASSIST, in the unlikely event of an emergency"....and held legally responsible afterwards, because you agreed are you asking or telling?

[scrambler]

It was on an overwing exit,
the Briefing was, here is the briefing card, there is the exit and some veryh basic opeinging instructions. Was also asked a second time if I was ok with sitting in an exit row.

[Buster Hyman]

Well, in any event, I've still got that "Follow me when I'm screaming" t-shirt in my carry on!:ok:

[flygirlnz]

I work as a Customer Service Agent for Air NZ and always evaluate and ask questions when putting people into exit rows.

I even evaluate their use of the english language so that they can understand what is expected of them.

I remember one elderly couple who were most indignant when I refused to put them into an exit row. They were somewhat frail.

flygirlnz

[Signature]

I was taught about the 'newer' generation of overwing exits at uni. I understand the the 739's and maybe 76's carries them, they retract/extend out and above the exit "hole". The older style, that I'm used to seeing on DJ/QF flights are 'plug type'.

Former you pull the red stick, then get out. The later, pull the red stick, pull a bit of window out, peg it out the side of the plane and then get out.

Anyway, I have flown emergency exits with both 73' carriers, and the briefings varied every single time. Normally your asked if you are willing to assist. Sometimes told where the exit is. Once told where the handle was (red stick). Being a plug type, never told what to do with said plug.

[Chief Chook]

Now it's looking really good!
Yes!
No?

How do airlines brief the pax in the emergency rows, apart from telling them "You MIGHT be asked to assist.......in the unlikely event of a blah blah".

If it REALLY is so important to have specific people assigned to emergency row exits, then the Civil Aviation authority needs to predicate some specific pre-flight briefing of a RESPONSIBLE nature, to the airlines.

Likewise, the airlines need to realise that because BY LAW, they are required to vet who occuppies designated emergency exit rows, that "in the unlkely event of an emergency", those "designated occupants" have been made LEGALLY responsible for the SAFE evacuation of the fare-paying pax.

(I'm available for further consultation via my PPRuNe Pm's)

[Dehavillanddriver]

signature,

The over wing exits on the Virgin 737's and the QF NG's are the "new" type as you put it.

They are hinged at the top and open up.

I have sat in the exit row on QF on many occasions and never been asked if I am willing to assist.

I don't believe that if you sit there that you are legally responsible

[surfnsun]

I very rarely travel DJ, but on my last trip with them, was assigned 1A. Was asked if prepared to assist in addition to being given a briefing.

Also, when travelling with QF, pax in overwing exit rows are also asked if willing to assist and are given a briefing. The quantity of the briefings sometimes vary.

This is a bit of a 'pet' of mine and very happy that this occurs, although I am concerned that most non-industry pax treat this with a degree of 'lip service', assuming it is only to meet some regulatory requirement.

History shows that if the proverbial hits the air circulating device, things will happen very quickly. Always assume the potential incapacitation of one or more F/A's.

[Capt Claret]

surfnsun

I've found that of recent times, when seated in an overwing exit row I've been asked if I'm happy to assist, and "do I understand the briefing card?". That's been the extent of the special attention.

Surprisingly there was a guy next to me who was so big he sought my assistance to do his seat belt up. He couldn't have assisted because of his physical size, which was such that I doubt he'd have been able to exit the aircraft, other than through the normal doors.

[HI'er]

"happy to assist"
Happy to assist, doing what?
Opening the exit(s)? Were you shown how?
Restraining over zealous pax?

As crew are in uniform, they are easily identified by passengers, and are more likely to be taken notice of by passengers during an emergency, than by someone indistinguishable from the rest of the melee.
So perhaps our "designated helpers" in these emergency rows, should be given more comprehensive briefings, and there should be quick don, high visibilty vests stored either in the o'head locker, or under their seats, that make them readily identifiable as an asistant.
http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/catalog_images/8633610.jpg http://www.med-uniform.com/images/hvwear.jpg

In my opinion, I believe there's only lip service given to this Civil Aviation Authority requirement (of every country) of airlines to allocate certain people (and deny others) to emergency exit row seats, at this point in time.

[water wings]

The job of a passenger seated in the emergency exit row is to open the hatch and get the f**K out of the way ie get out. They are not their to assist other passengers, that is the job of the crew. The whole able body person comes from being able to open the hatch and get out quickly, not necessarily assisting other people.

[Buster Hyman]

I don't mind the vests, but there's no way I'm growing a moustache like that!

surfnsun Did the crew, or the card, clearly show you how to open the door & understand if the door was armed? Did it show you what to look for prior to opening it? I'm just curious 'tis all.

I recall, many moons ago, that you never got asked these questions at overwing exits & on the jumbos it definately never happened (of course, crew sit there!). Perhaps, as Chief Cook points out, this is an exercise in shifting liability.

[Chief Chook]

Those questions you ask surfnsun, are ones I would like answered too.

I'm not so much concerned with airlines trying to shift liability, but I believe that if a "nominated person", who accepts the responsibility, does harm people or persons as a direct result of their actions during an evacuation, they may well become liable for damages action. Do the airlines cover them, legally and financially, in this case?

The job of a passenger seated in the emergency exit row is to open the hatch and get the f**K out of the way ie get out.Well that is certainly not my understanding. Those "nominated persons" may also be asked to assist with the actual evacuation of some pax who might have trouble evacuating eg. the infirmed and elderly, or injured.
The "nominated person" might also be used to restrain pax from overcrowding the exit in use, or be used to stop pax from evacuating through an unusable exit.

As a previous poster said, only "lip service" is currently given to what may potentially be a life-threatening position for the "nominated people", and the passengers on board, as well as the Flight Attendant who supposedly briefed the emergency exit row occupants.

Do the airlines care?
They will once the lawsuits start!

Do the F/A's care?
They will, once they are made responsible for the lack of information given to those "nominated persons"!

[SydGirl]

Interesting points raised.

Statistically, in emergency situations it is the self-help exits (which are usually overwing exits) that are most often opened. This is because passengers are not educated in how to check safe and assess prior to opening the exit and then also what exactly to do once the exit is opened. I do not believe, and think any reasonable person would agree, that a pax should be expected to know this information - this is why crew are on board and receive the relevant training.

So therefore, if a pax did open an overwing exit in an emergency situation and by doing this ended up harming people because of this action, would not be considered liable.

The exit row briefing is to ascertain that the people sitting in the exit row are both able and willing to ASSIST in the event of an emergency. The briefing does not constitute a "training" of the pax so therefore I do not believe there is any liability.

If you were seated in an exit row and did not receive a briefing, then I believe you need to speak up (manage upwards!) and insist your row is briefed - it could save your life.


Just MHO
SG
:}

[Flying Frypan]

CASA defines an exit seat as any seat that is in a row of seats adjoining an exit.
On the 737-700 and 800, that is any seat in the emergency exit row/s and on DJ aircraft where there is no bulkhead, seats 1ABC.

The following is copied from CASA's website.

CASA does not currently have any regulations, (other than for passengers who are handicapped and for infants), specifically related to who may be seated at an over-wing exit row on an aircraft.
CASA does, however, recognise that a passenger seated in an emergency exit row may be called upon to assist crew members in the unlikely event of an emergency evacuation and provides advice to airlines on the criteria for appropriate passengers to be seated in over-wing exit rows.
This includes:
able-bodied
a minimum of 15 years old
can understand and converse in English
are not travelling with an infant
are not travelling with someone who requires their assistance in an emergency
are willing to provide assistance to cabin crew and other passengers in the event of an emergency.
Cabin crew can move a passenger if they do not meet the criteria and passengers can also asked to be moved to another seat if they are uncomfortable with the requirements of being an over-wing exit row passenger.
CASA is currently drafting new regulations in Part 121, which will contain specific regulations regarding exit rows.

Airlines therefore have their own policies regarding who can/can not be seated in an exit seat.

At Virgin Blue, pax allocated an overwing seat are asked at check-in if they are willing to assist cabin crew in an emergency. If they agree to this and they meet the coy's policy they are then allocated a seat. Once on board the cabin crew will ask a series of scripted questions to confirm that
a) they were told they are sitting in an emergency row;
b) that they are willing to help open exits in the unlikely event of an emergency;
c) they have read the safety instruction card and are familiar with the operation of exit;
d) they are asked if they have any questions.
We do not individually brief the pax in 1ABC.

However, if it is known that there will be an emergency landing, cabin crew will assign ABP's to each exit and a more detailed brief will take place. This includes scenarios for an incapacitated crew member, checking whether or not the exit is safe to use, how to operate the exit (both door and window exits), their features (slides etc) and also how to evacuate safely.

I agree with SydGirl, if you're not briefed and you are sitting in an emergency exit, speak up.
I hope this helps answer some questions.

[Rabid Dog]

I only fly on QF, and when in cattle, always ask for an overwing exit seat.
On my recent QF flights, I have noted that the exit is of the push up variety.
Prior to take-off, the crew checked with pax in the rows if they understood the exit information card that was placed on the seat; that we were able and willing to open the exit; and then explained the circumstances under which the exit was no to be opened.
As noted above, I too get a little nervous when I see pax that should not be sitting in exit seats/rows. The extra space is to allow the ready evacuation of passengers in teh event of an emergency, not to allow some fat b*stard/women with screaming kid etc. to travel in a bit more luxury.
I. of course. do not fit into these categories, so I SHOULD be given the row each time i fly!

[Chief Chook]

"However, if it is KNOWN that there will be an emergency landing,"

Most emergencies to date have been UNplanned.

CASA does, however, recognise that a passenger seated in an emergency exit row may be called upon to assist crew members - this means not only opening the emergency exit, but also assisting with other duties, such as I have outlined above, eg. restrain pax from overcrowding the exit in use, or be used to stop pax from evacuating through an unusable exit.

CASA are placing the responsibility on the airline.
The airline is placing the responsibilty on the F/A's.
The F/A's are then advising exit row pax that THEY may be responsible in an emergency situation. This applies especially to overwing exit pax, as F/A's are seated ONLY fore and aft, and are unlikely to be able to get through the melee of pax, following an accident!

[surfnsun]

Capt Claret

Re the pax next to you, it is disappointing that either the person allocating them the seat, or the F/A's, did not seek to seat him somewhere else. Seems that they may have done so more for the person's convenience, given his size. Disappointing. A CAIR report, or similar, might not have gone astray.



I'm not saying the system is perfect but it does raise, in those passengers minds, a degree of awareness that they may actually have to open the exit should the worst happen.

It's not long ago that there weren't any specific exit row briefings given to pax. Save for a complex briefing pre-flight, including an overview of human factors covering a person's reaction in times of stress, etc, etc, I'm not sure how else this should be best managed.

One option might be for the airlines adopt a voluntary system of identifying, through FF programs, pax who are also aircrew, in consideration of their 20:11, CRM, TEM, etc., training. These pax could then be given preference for exit row seating. Not sure how this would be received though.

Flying Frypan

Just re-read your post. I note your comment that DJ do not give a brief for pax in 1ABC. My colleague and I received one anyway on a flight ex ML some weeks ago. Obviously a little extra that was noted and appreciated.

Buster Hymen

Re the DJ flight, if I recall correctly, the card showed how to open the exit, but doesn't indicate if it is armed. A non-aviation pax probably wouldn't know what is meant by 'armed'. Opening the door deploys the slide, therefore it is assumed it is used in an armed condition.

[CD]

Interesting discussion relating to the liability aspects of exit row briefings. Certainly, it would appear that there are lawyers out there looking to capitalize on incidents and accidents that may choose to explore this as yet another source of revenue. ;)

The only published work relating to this topic that I am aware of is an article found in the Journal of Air Law and Commerce from 2003 titled Taking exit row seating seriously. However, the article was looking more at the fact that most passengers in exit rows ignore the safety information presented to them (either by way of briefing, placard or safety features card) and the potential legal implications for the passenger. The author suggested that, "...holding exit row passengers liable for damages resulting from their inattention to safety materials would deter exit row passengers from ignoring safety information and compensate those victims harmed..." (Gerwick, 2003).

Putting aside for the moment the supposed legal implications, there are many years of safety studies that have demonstrated the importance of safety briefings in successful evacuations.


NTSB/SS-85/09, Safety Study – Airline Passenger Safety Education: A Review of Methods Used to Present Safety Information (http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/ss/SS85-09.pdf)

NTSB/SS-00/01, Safety Study – Emergency Evacuation of Commercial Airplanes (http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/ss/SS00-01.pdf)

TSB SA9501 A Safety Study of Evacuations of Large, Passenger-Carrying Aircraft (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/studies/sa9501/sa9501.asp)

DOT/FAA/AM - Access-to-egress I: Interactive effects of factors that control the emergency evacuation of naïve passengers through the transport airplane Type-III overwing exit (http://www.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/cami/0216.pdf)

CAAP 253-2(0) Passenger safety information: Guidelines on content and standard of safety information to be provided to passengers by aircraft operators (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/253_2.pdf)

CBAAC 0181 - Passenger Seating Requirements (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/commerce/circulars/AC0181.htm)

CBAAC 0188 - Passenger Safety Briefings (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/commerce/circulars/AC0188.htm)

FODCOM 22/2001 - Briefing of Passengers at Type III Emergency Exits (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200122.pdf)

INCREASING THE SURVIVAL RATE IN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS impact protection, fire survivability and evacuation (http://www.etsc.be/documents/survival.pdf)

FSA Aug 2005 - "EVACUATE. EVACUATE. EVACUATE." (http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2005/aug/44-47.pdf)

FSF Cabin Crew Safety - Many Passengers in Exit Seats Benefit From Additional Briefings (http://www.flightsafety.org/members/serveme.cfm?path=ccs/ccs_may-june01.pdf)

FAR 121.585 - Exit Seating (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/8C8BFE565B506160852566EF006DAD15?OpenDocument&Highlight=121.585)

AC 121-24C - Passenger Safety Information Briefing and Briefing Cards (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/1ab39b4ed563b08985256a35006d56af/2026259a7a7247f986256d7a00508ba7/$FILE/AC121-24C.pdf)

[Chief Chook]

From one of CD's many (excellent) references:-

Each certificate holder shall include on passenger information cards, presented in the language in which briefings and oral commands are given by the crew, at each exit seat affected by this section, information that, in the event of an emergency in which a crewmember is not available to assist, a passenger occupying an exit seat may use if called upon to perform the following functions:
(1) Locate the emergency exit;
(2) Recognize the emergency exit opening mechanism;
(3) Comprehend the instructions for operating the emergency exit;
(4) Operate the emergency exit;
(5) Assess whether opening the emergency exit will increase the hazards to which passengers may be exposed;
(6) Follow oral directions and hand signals given by a crewmember;
(7) Stow or secure the emergency exit door so that it will not impede use of the exit;
(8) Assess the condition of an escape slide, activate the slide, and stabilize the slide after deployment to assist others in getting off the slide;
(9) Pass expeditiously through the emergency exit; and
(10) Assess, select, and follow a safe path away from the emergency exit.

[HI'er]

"Are you familiar with, and willing to accept, the requiremnents and responsibilities associated with occupying an emergency exit row seat?", at initial check-in seat allocation by check in staff, and again after boarding by an F/A.

[Ronnie Honker]

Is it true that Virgin Blue sell their exit row seats at $30 a pop, and call it the "Blue Zone"?

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Is it true that Virgin Blue sell their exit row seats at $30 a pop, and call it the "Blue Zone"?

Pacific Blue do - don't know about VB. I thought it was worth it for the guaranteed extra leg room. If I remember one of the conditions of sale was that they could refund you your money if, on check in, they decided you were not able to operate the doors.

UTR.

[Runway37]

It might sound silly to tell you to read the instructions (what man ever does that?), however on a recent trip in an MD80 the hostie asked if I was familiar with the operation of the door, to which I replied "no" because she was a hottie and I wanted her to explain it... to my surprise when she did explain, I was amazed to find the door was completely different to all others on anything I had travelled on before and it actually opened inwards!

Read the manual!

[king oath]

Virgin Blue do. The extra leg room is worth it believe me. Also no screaming kids beside you as nursing kids in the exit rows is banned.

Trust me.

[chornedsnorkack]

What has happened to passengers who do not comply with the safety instructions in emergency?

Example, the Toronto AF crash... No one died and a limited number of people received injuries.

In an evacuation, the passengers are supposed not to take their cabin baggage, since it is liable to hinder evacuation. However, in the AF case, many did and many did not. Cabin luggage left behind burned while those who took their cabin baggage saved it.

Now, were the passengers found having baggage after evacuation punished for violation of safety instructions, did they have their baggage confiscated or something else? Are there any cases where surviving passengers of a crash are blamed afterwards for misbehaving in this or any other manner?

[Chief Chook]

99% of aircraft accidents are going to be unexpected.

As the pax seated in the emergency exit rows are UNLIKELY to receive instructions from the (dead) cockpit crew - and as the aircraft is likely to be:
(i) on fire;
(ii) in a very unusual attitude;
(iii) in a state of unrecognisable condition......
they now become the carrier's DESIGNATED PERSONNEL for that emergency EXIT.

Have they been FULLY briefed?
They are - after all - now FULLY RESPONSIBLE for handling the EMERGENCY EXIT adjacent to where they are seated, according to the blah-blah they were handed at check-in.

IF they open the exit, and it was UNSAFE to have done so, they must now wear the full LEGAL responsibility of their actions.
Will the airline cover these responsibilities (is THAT why VB charge their emergency row occupants the extra $30?).
Or does the airline itself FULLY ACCEPT the responsibility of the actions of emergency row pax in an emergency?

[surfnsun]

How did, what was a fairly simple and interesting discussion subject, turn into an emotional pseudo-legal conspiracy claptrap debate??

[SydGirl]

Chief Chook I'm afraid I disagree with you.

I am no legal-eagle by any means but a pre-flight briefing from a cabin crew member cannot possibly be interpreted as a training. There was no required competencies to meet and no assessment so the passenger cannot possibly be deemed as "competent" or "proficient", unlike the crew.

The crew have been deemed as proficient based on meeting the standards required in their emergency training.

The passenger seated there has only been asessed as "willing and able". The pax has a card to read, however they are not assessed on the information contained within. The only time they are ever likely to be assessed is if it all hits the fan!

So, how the heck can an individual Joe Blow who's normally an accountant be expected to know in depth how to operate an exit? Joe has only accepted that he is willing and able!

Therefore, it is my opinion that the airline and governing regulatory body take responsibility for a pax opening the exit when unsafe to do so.

If they want competent and proficient people to operate overwing exits, then they should have a designated and competent crew member seated next to the exit at all times.

Of course, we know they would never do that :E

SG
:}

[Chief Chook]

If they want competent and proficient people to operate overwing exits, then they should have a designated and competent crew member seated next to the exit at all times.You have hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head SG.

There is no doubt in my mind that airlines are using the allocation of "able-bodied (persons) with the ability to manoeuvre an 18kg emergency exit in the unlikely event of an emergency" (Virgin Blue's Blue Zone Conditions of Sale) as a replacement for competent crew members, to reduce the number of F/A's to the legal minimum, based solely on passenger numbers.

We shall see how emotive and "claptrap" this debate is, and how relevant it is to TODAY'S "sue 'em for anything and everything" society the next time there is an aircraft accident.
I still wonder how pax who accept these emergency exit rows are legally covered (for their actions), when that time comes?

[Dehavillanddriver]

I suppose chook you have a theory about the grassy knoll?

There is NO airline conspiracy to reduce costs by removing flight attendants from overwing exits and replacing them with unsuspecting but legally liable passengers.

There is not a B737 (or A318,19,20,21 or 707, 717,727,DC9, MD80, F28/F100, etc) built that has a flight attendant station at the overwing exits - the aeroplane is designed and certified to be operated without F/A's at the overwing.

With regards the other exits there are enough trained F/A's to man a door each AS A MINIMUM - the minimum crew compliment for a 737 IN AUSTRALIA is 4 which using my dubious mathematical skills translates to one per door.

Remember that we use 1:36 ratio for cabin crew to pax where the rest of the world uses 1:50.

The passengers seated at the overwing and at the front exit door passenger seats are NOT legally responsible for ANYTHING regardless of whether they are asked to do anything.

Now if you were to target the trans tasman mutual recongition bill as a means of reducing flight attendant numbers I would agree with you 100%, but trying to use the "Blue Zone" conditions of sale as a weapon is unlikely to arouse much sympathy or support.

[CD]

Remember that we use 1:36 ratio for cabin crew to pax where the rest of the world uses 1:50.
Just a point of information/clarification - Australia does have a cabin crew to pax ratio of 1:36. Canada has a cabin crew to pax ratio of 1:40. Most of the rest of the world has a cabin crew to seat ratio of 1:50. The main difference being that in Australia and Canada, the ratio is based on the number of passengers actually on board the aircraft whereas elsewhere the ratio is based on the number of seats, whether occupied or not.

As Dehavillanddriver indicates, Type III and Type IV exits are designed and certified to be operated by passengers. Part of that certification process is to verify that a naive person (untrained and not briefed) is capable of opening the exit within a specified period of time (I believe it is 10 seconds) using only the safety features card and placards to determine the method of operation.

Regarding the tasks that passengers at exits are expected to perform, the US NTSB made the following observations:

Exit Row Passenger Tasks

Passengers seated in an exit row may be called upon to assist in an evacuation. Upon crew command or a personal assessment of danger, these passengers must decide if their exit is safe to use and then open their exit hatch for use during an evacuation. These passengers must be ready to act quickly in an emergency. However, unlike the crew, these passengers receive no formal training on performing these tasks.

As required by the FAA, air carriers provide pictorial instructions on the safety briefing card and adjacent to the emergency exit. In addition, Federal regulations (14 CFR 121.585(b)) provide guidelines to the air carriers as to which passengers to restrict from exit row seating. These guidelines are reiterated on exit row briefing cards or on the general safety cards.

Federal regulations (14 CFR 121.585(d)) also require air carriers to list the tasks that an exit row passenger may be called upon to perform: the passenger must be able to locate and operate the emergency exit, assess conditions outside an exit, follow instructions of crewmembers, open and stow the exit hatch, assess the condition of and stabilize a slide, and pass quickly through an exit. Passengers who report that they are unable or unwilling to perform any of these tasks must be reseated in a nonexit row prior to airplane movement.

The Safety Board examined passenger performance in exit rows for the six cases for which the Board received information on the overwing exit operation. In these six cases, 42 passengers were seated in exit rows. Responses on the questionnaires indicate that the first task with which exit row passengers had difficulties was the decision to open the exit. In two cases, passengersopened overwing exits that should have remained closed. In one of those cases (case 16), an auxiliary power unit (APU) torched and passengers began to scream, “Fire.” The aft flight attendant reported that she instructed passengers to remain seated, yet passengers still opened the exit. In the other case (case 19), the flight crew ordered an evacuation using only the forward exits; however, the exit row passengers opened the overwing exits. In neither case had the flight crew lowered the flaps for safe egress off the wing, and in one of these cases, a child sustained a broken arm jumping off the wing.

The second task for which problems occurred for exit row passengers was assessing conditions outside of the exit. In one case, a passenger opened an overwing exit and smoke began billowing into the cabin (case 45). The passenger then had to jump through fire to get away from the airplane. Although his traveling companion was also able to safely egress using this route, the other two passengers who used this exit received severe burns. In a second case, one passenger stopped another passenger from opening an overwing exit on the fire side of an airplane (case 16).

As previously discussed, one reason for these difficulties was passenger inattention to the safety materials provided. The air carriers are required to ensure that all passengers seated in an exit row meet the requirements contained in regulations previously cited. Although no exit row passenger was younger than age 15, two passengers were older than age 70, one of whom was unable to open an exit (case 45). In addition, three passengers seated in exit rows did not speak the language in which briefings and oral commands were given by the crew.

Some of the air carriers make a point to individually brief passengers on the exit row tasks. In the six study cases for which the Safety Board received overwing exit operation information, 9 of the 42 exit row passengers reported receiving such a briefing. Four of these passengers reported examining their safety card. Twenty-four passengers reported receiving no briefing, and only two of these passengers had examined their briefing card. The two briefed passengers who opened overwing exits reported no difficulties. Four passengers who did not receive a briefing opened overwing exits. Two of these passengers reported no difficulty with the exit whereas the other two reported difficulties with their exit.

The benefit of exit row passengers’ receiving oral briefings from flight attendants is demonstrated in the runway collision in Los Angeles, California, on February 1, 1991. The Safety Board’s report of that accident contained the following information:

Passengers seated around row 10 stated that prior to departure, the flight attendant assigned to the R1 position interviewed a young passenger who was seated in 10D about whether he could fulfill the duties of an able-bodied person in the event of an emergency. The passenger advised the flight attendant that he was 17 years old. However, to be sure the youth understood his responsibilities, the flight attendant conducted a special oral briefing for the persons seated in and around row 10. Passengers stated that the instructions provided by the R1 flight attendant aided in their evacuation.

Exit procedures for emergency evacuations are critical and if not followed could lead to tragedy. The Safety Board concludes that most passengers seated in exit rows do not read the safety information provided to assist them in understanding the tasks they may need to perform in the event of an emergency evacuation, and they do not receive personal briefings from flight attendants even though personal briefings can aid passengers in their understanding of the tasks that they may be called upon to perform. Therefore, the Safety Board believes the FAA should require air carriers to provide all passengers seated in exit rows in which a qualified crewmember is not seated a preflight personal briefing on what to do in the event the exit may be needed.
NTSB Safety Recommendation A-00-72 through -91 (http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2000/A00_72_91.pdf)

FSA Cabin Crew - The Big Brief (http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2001/mar/39-40.pdf)

I still wonder how pax who accept these emergency exit rows are legally covered (for their actions), when that time comes?
That remains difficult to respond to as there do not appear to have been any instances where a suit has been brought against an exit row passenger. As I indicated on the previous page, the only article published so far relates to the potential liability where the passenger ignores the safety information presented to them - and that to me would include any person on board an aircraft, especially those that delay exiting during an emergency to collect their carry-on baggage. I suppose a link could be drawn between this potential liability, the concept of the "reasonable person" and the application of various good samaritan laws.

Standard of Care: The "Reasonable Man" (http://www.duhaime.org/Tort/ca-negl.aspx#man)
Reasonable Person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_man)
Good Samaritan laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law)

[chornedsnorkack]

So, there are a number of recorded cases where exit row passengers did misbehave:
one of those cases (case 16), an auxiliary power unit (APU) torched and passengers began to scream, “Fire.” The aft flight attendant reported that she instructed passengers to remain seated, yet passengers still opened the exit.
In the other case (case 19), the flight crew ordered an evacuation using only the forward exits; however, the exit row passengers opened the overwing exits. In neither case had the flight crew lowered the flaps for safe egress off the wing, and in one of these cases, a child sustained a broken arm jumping off the wing.

In one case, a passenger opened an overwing exit and smoke began billowing into the cabin (case 45). The passenger then had to jump through fire to get away from the airplane. Although his traveling companion was also able to safely egress using this route, the other two passengers who used this exit received severe burns.
In a second case, one passenger stopped another passenger from opening an overwing exit on the fire side of an airplane (case 16).

Although no exit row passenger was younger than age 15, two passengers were older than age 70, one of whom was unable to open an exit (case 45).

Does it seem that none of the exit row passengers who caused problems was blamed or prosecuted afterwards?

[Chief Chook]

Could it be that no-one had considered it until now?

Will the airlines wait for the horse to bolt, before deciding to close the stable door?

Will it take a case of one (or more) pax suing other pax seated at the emergency exit row, for causing injury due to not performing as they were (should have been) briefed, and before accepting the RESPONSIBILITY of accepting an emergency exit row seat?

It's only a matter of time - because times have changed.

[bashedcrab]

Well go figure DJ's rediculous policy of selling the emergency exit row seats. They will put a passenger (sorry guest) in the emergency row with a plane load of paxing, qualified crew sitting in the creche down the back of the plane. The policy is absolutely under no circumstances are crew to be given the emergency exit rows and I have sat there and seen crew sitting down the back with completely empty exit rows.

Would be interesting to see the legal ramifications of this if there was ever a crash. I know that it doesn't legally say crew must sit in those rows but what happens if there is a mishap on takeoff and there is 10 qualified crew sitting at the back and the "do do" in the emergency exit doesn't get get the exit open and people die or burn or are injured as a result of the paxing crew not getting to the exit in time. I would think that the company would have a duty of care to have the most qualified people in the most common sense of positions regardless of the regulations. I think that opens grounds for a class action should it be proven a duty of care existed and there were qualified crew available.

It's disheartning and frustrating to be in a position where you can help no one and the whole Jerry Springer show are the ones you are entrusting to open the door.....further goes to show the despise the current head clown has for his staff and how driven they are by the dollar to the detrement of safety.