Frenzied passengers on BMI charter flight at palma

[vectors]

I heard reports of an incident on a bmi charter flight from palma to belfast on july19th. It appears that 1 passenger got very nervous about the condensation mist from the air con, he got up of his seat during take off roll and started shouting about smoke in the cabin, this then prompted about 12 more pax to leave their seats and some of them were banging on the flight deck door to alert the crew during the rotation. Needless to say the flight deck and cabin crew were not amused.

[ukdean]

"Needless to say the flight deck and cabin crew were not amused". I find what you have stated as quite alarming. Its obvious that the pax where very worried indeed and whilst we might know what the problem was, an lnfrequent flyer might fear the worst. I suggest you take stock and if you think pax or for that matter crew should keep quite if they suspect a problem just remember the jet out of lhr that came down in staines, again people/crew not saying anything. So are you saying you would keep quite.

[Shack37]

Yes UKDean, they should have kept quite quiet during what was a very critical manouvre. Now I'm off before the professionals arrive who belong on this part of the forum.
s37

[A4]

So, do BMI not do "packs off" take-offs? Or do they run them from the APU? Thought we were all trying to save fuel? Got to admit, when it is particularly humid I always mention the "smoke" during my welcome PA to prevent such an occurance. Happened to colleague at IBZ as well, except it was the overwing exit on stand........:ugh::rolleyes:

A4

UKD.... are you refering to the Stanes Trident? What did that have to do with pax/crew not speaking up? Wasn't it an unauthorised selection of slat to zero to "teach" the (unpopular) Captain a lesson?

4

[vectors]

I think it should be standard practice to include the possibility of this occuring during the first PA announcement.

[rhythm method]

Is he getting confused with people not speaking up on the LHR-BFS flight which ended up in Kegworth? (Wrong engine shut down)

[morton]

One of the points to come out of the Kegworth disaster was passengers telling cabin staff about the problem engine. The cabin staff failed to pass this information on to the Flight Crew and another opportunity to change a disaster into an incident was lost. Advances in CRM should now prevent a similar situation occurring again. In the mean time don’t write off all SLF as no nothing hysterical ballast – sometimes they will spot things that pressurised Cabin and Flight Crew do not.

[virgo]

A4......"to teach the unpopular captain a lesson "

That's a rather stupid thing to say..........as if anybody's going to set up a fatal accident "to teach a lesson" !!!!!

(The LE flaps were erroneously retracted by the first officer, thinking he'd selected the TE flaps)

[lomapaseo]

criminey we're back to the passengers aboard the train/tram pulling the cord to be let off.

This is a very bad move and is sure to cause many more accidents then it saves.

I know that nothing can/should be done about verbal concerns, but leaving one's seat when told to sit down presents the offending passenger as a missile against other passengers.

[wheelie my boeing]

Hmm, banging on the FD door? Bonkers! Still, there are many nervous flyers out there. That doesn't however warrant behaving like a prat. If the pax could see it then the cabin crew would have been able to. If it was then indeed a serious risk, the cabin crew would have informed the flight deck. Those passengers actually endangered their own lives by standing up. Imagine what they would look like had the pilots rejected the t/o!
BEFORE you start telling me this and that about Kegworth etc, we have come a long way since then. Given the circumstances it was a bad decision to leave their seats.

[Pontius Navigator]

Morton is quite right. When I drew the cabin staff's attention to a crack in the wing they did not appreciate what I was saying although they did ask that I remain behind to show the captain.

She thanked me and said she would tell maintenance.

I had made a value judgement that the crack was not a safety of flight matter and could be left until we were safely on the ground.

[layinlow]

May the answer is to require an intelligence test prior to issuing a ticket. As Ron White says; Doctors can't fix stupid.

[seacue]

The thread has drifted off to other things, but my very first airline flight was on a Martin 202 (or 404) and the cabin filled with "smoke". Fortunately the cabin crew immediately explained it as condensation. The flight was from DCA to LGA, presumably Eastern Airlines. We then took the helicopter service across to EWR. Ancient history.

[Haven't a clue]

Install train type communication cords/panic buttons at every seat with a placard advising GBP 10,000 penalty for improper use..... (credit card data required prior to activation)

Damn - a certain Irish airline might just snap up this money raising scheme before I have the chance to take out a patent:E

[PaperTiger]

At least they didn't pull the plug.
OCCURRENCE REPORT (http://www.icao.int/anb/aig/testing1/files/2003/03040740.htm)

(Hot start BTW)

[Sunfish]

What? 16 posts and only three abusing the customers for their unfounded fears? Gentlemen, you are slipping!

Of course really good crews anticipate these types of events and defuse the developing situation in advance, often without the Customer even knowing they have been spotted as a white knuckle flier by CC and targeted for reassurance.

767 electric hyd. pump start up and the usual bangs and thumps still makes some people jump.

[RYRnick]

If I was in that situation, then I probably would of done the same. If a passenger shouted "Smoke in the cabin" and then 11 others got up, I probably would of done the same - being the 12th.

It sounds stupid, but I don't want to find myself in a situation at 37,000FT which I could loose my life, and that of my families.

I also would of thought the crew, might of said it's totally normal or something to calm them down.

[A2QFI]

As a passenger, what can you realistically do at 37,000 to 'save your life'? Best thing to do is stay calm and seated unless instructed otherwise by those in charge and who have the training and knowledge to deal with the situation. 12 passengers, out of their seats and storming the flight deck aren't going to be sorted out with a few soothing words!

[sispanys ria]

I suggest to include "banging on the door during rotation" tests during interview's sim rides in order to eliminate all the potentially dangerous pilots that may have panicked and crashed the plane. Another solution would be to open the door during TO to prevent such incidents and to close it in cruise to prevent hijacking or even to recruit deaf pilots to conduct rotations.

[Doors to Automatic]

Had this happened at Lexington, Kentucky in August 2006 50 lives would possibly have ben saved.

Comair Flight 191 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comair_Flight_5191)

[Skipness One Echo]

Thid thread has degenerted into a bunch of smart alecs peering down their nose at a bunch of thickos that should know their place in the scheme of things. I know of more than one accident report where more strenuous passeneger action could have / did save lives.
One wonders at the apprent inability of the cabin crew to nip this in the bud quickly. I'd bet that instead if explaining what it was they reverted to "do as you're told" and when people have a real and obvious concern, in this case smoke in the cabin, and that's not helpful.

[manrow]

This thread worries me intensely.

The passengers react in whatever manner they consider appropriate because they consider they know better than the crew?

Can someone please list the occasions when passengers knew better how to deal with the problem than the crew paid to do so?

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Skipness One Echo:
One wonders at the apprent inability of the cabin crew to nip this in the bud quickly. I'd bet that instead if explaining what it was they reverted to "do as you're told" and when people have a real and obvious concern, in this case smoke in the cabin, and that's not helpful.

Assuming the original report is an accurate and reasonably balanced account of what happened, I think you have made the most pertinent (maybe the only pertinent) point in this thread so far, SKP1E. Worrying, if true.

How many times must the "cabin manager" have seen this regular phenomenon before, and had he/she ever asked a flight crew to explain it, in case junior crew or passengers ever got worried? And when did he/she last have to make a PA without reading it from a card?

[Sunfish]

Manrow:

The passengers react in whatever manner they consider appropriate because they consider they know better than the crew?

Can someone please list the occasions when passengers knew better how to deal with the problem than the crew paid to do so?

Your thinking is slightly flawed. Unless the crew show LEADERSHIP then the customers are perfectly entitled to assume they are the same sort of bored, know nothing, jobsworths encountered in security screening.

As for the customers knowing better then the Cabin crew, I suggest that applies most times there is a medical emergency and a doctor happens to be on board.

In my experience as a passenger, there is a vast difference in perceived authority levels between various airline cabin crews.

To put it another way, it doesn't matter what the cabin crew think they know, unless they can exemplify it to the passengers.

In an airborne emergency I'd much rather be flying with a crew of QF hard bitten "Old Boilers" than the much more delicate and decorative crew from other airlines, because I know the QF old boilers know their stuff, and exhibit a natural authority that is apparent in the way they handle passengers and events.

To put it another way, I blame the cabin crew, not the passengers.

[PETTIFOGGER]

Definitely the cabin crew at fault here, and to some extent the flight deck crew for not briefing cc properly.

Concerning manrow's second question, no, I cannot provide a list, although there is some research on this somewhere, and I will post it if I can find it. But the question is not relevant to the circumstances as described in this incident; there was no action to demonstrate that the pax 'knew better', they just wanted to make sure the flight deck were aware of the situation and in doing so compromised safety, something that could have been prevented by a short announcement from one of the cabin crew, as others have said.

[NSEU]

The passengers react in whatever manner they consider appropriate because they consider they know better than the crew?

Can someone please list the occasions when passengers knew better how to deal with the problem than the crew paid to do so?

What if the pax is an aircraft engineer on vacation? ;) Cabin crew are not paid to diagnose aircraft defects, but are expected to assume the responsiblity of doing so?

Then there are stories of cabin crew unable to make the pilots understand the nature of the problem. e.g. The cabin crew of an old 747 report that a probe (not sure of the exact words they used) on the wingtip is adrift/dangling down. The pilots somehow thought that the cabin crew meant one of the static probes (wicks). They actually mean the rather heavy, 6 foot HF antenna. I heard it fell off, but luckily no one was underneath at the time.

[Oceanz]

I wonder how any air marshal onboard would react to pax racing up and banging on the FD door.

[lomapaseo]

Passengers need to understand before getting out of their seats that the aircraft is designed to fly safely based on annunciations of critical faults to a crew trained to address them.Part of the CRM process also includes the cabin crew who can contact the cockpit via phone etc.

Passengers can notify the cabin crew of their concerns but should not become the more serious problem by disobeying orders to sit down.

So as passengers you can scream yell and wave your arms to attract attention, but realize that the cockpit crew has got to fly the aircraft by virtue of the warning lights and displays in the cockpit designed for the purpose.

[Brian Abraham]

Can someone please list the occasions when passengers knew better how to deal with the problem than the crew paid to do so
Not examples of the passengers knowing better, but examples of how they may have saved the day but didn't, to the cost of many lives.

Aloha 243, Boeing 737, April 28 1988. The famous roof torn off incident. From the report. A woman passenger in the process of boarding noticed a crack which appeared to run through a row of rivets just aft of the door. Believing the airline must know what it was doing and that she would only be humoured and regarded with disdain if she "made a fuss about it", she made no mention of it to the airline's ground staff or to the cabin crew.

Air Ontario F-28, March 10 1989. Crash on take off, contaminated wings (snow and ice), causing the death of 21 of 65 passengers and 3 of 4 crew members. From the report. F/A felt concern immediately after the cabin door was closed and thought it would be de-iced. While walking through the cabin she overheard passengers expressing their concern. One passenger expressed his concern and asked her what the crew were going to do about it. On previous occasions she had gone to the flight deck with safety concerns, only to be told not to worry - even though the pilots conducted no checks to verify her concerns. Of two dead heading Captains on board the aircraft, one said, "professional courtesy precluded an off duty air line pilot from drawing the attention of the flight crew to a safety concern".

An F-86 crashed following take off when the pilot ejected after reporting smoke in the cockpit. The ejection was outside the seat parameters and he did not survive. The "smoke" was found to be condensation from the air conditioning. The pilot had just gained his "wings" and was in the early stages of his F-86 check out.

[Sunfish]

lomapaseo:

So as passengers you can scream yell and wave your arms to attract attention, but realize that the cockpit crew has got to fly the aircraft by virtue of the warning lights and displays in the cockpit designed for the purpose.

Why would any uninformed first time passenger realise anything of the sort?

Even as a simple PPL, a major part of my test was exactly how I dealt with my passengers and what I told them, and when, so as to manage their expectations. And any time I take a passenger with me, I go to considerable lengths to brief them about what is going to happen, and when, including some, but not all, of the emergency actions, and what their role will be in such situations.

Sitting back on ones fat behind sneering at people whose reactions are perfectly normal given the absence of knowledge that would tell them they were not encountering an emergency when their eyes told them different, is not a tenable position.

The crew stuffed up, not the pax.

[Final 3 Greens]

Condensation "smoke" can obviously cause concern for those who don't understand it.

Even more the sound of ice in the aircon system (e.g. rattling around on takeoff.)

I think the problem here is that society used to trust professionals (in all walks of life) and let them get on with their jobs.

As a result of high profile professional negligence (not in the airline sector), investigative journalism, consumer TV programmes stressing "rights" and postive action, society now has a tendency to be sceptic and to challenge,

I am in no way condoning the alleged actions of the passengers on this flight, just trying to understand the social psychology behind their behaviours.

I travel very frequently and see "smoke" from the aircon frm time to time, it is rarely mentioned in a PA.

On the occasions it was mentioned (FD), the company was a charter operator, possibly aware that many of their customers are "once a year flyers."

Perhaps not a bad idea to let the CC add a short explanation to the welcome brief if condensation is occuring.

[Firestorm]

In these days of mass low cost travel, and the availability of cheap credit the average IQ of both cabin crew and passengers isn't a s high as it once was. The result is that cabin crew are less able to give satisfactory answers to questions from passengers when something such as condensation appears from the punka louvres. Another result is that cabin crew are less able to describe, and communicate the observed symptoms of a problem in the cabin in a way that the pilots can understand. So you end up with passengers shouting at cabin crew because they can't make themselves understood, or banging on the flight deck door because they don't understand the answers that they are given.

[sispanys ria]

Looks like this job is really getting dangerous with all those stupid passengers... it might be safer to work in a post office.

[Virginia]

The good news is the days of low cost travel are long gone :ok: Only people with high IQ's will take to the skies once more!

[A4]

@ Virgo

A4......"to teach the unpopular captain a lesson "

That's a rather stupid thing to say..........as if anybody's going to set up a fatal accident "to teach a lesson" !!!!!

Why is it a stupid thing to say? I'm not saying I think it was a good idea! I recall reading reports/articles that the Captain was, allegedly, a particularly bombastic, unpopular character. There had been a "blazing row" in the crewroom prior to the flight and one theory was that the it was a deliberate action to retract the slats early - obviously not fully appreciating the consequences - which may have caused the accident.

I also read that this Captain was so unpopular amoungst the FO community that a lot of graffiti was found about "getting him" and "what are we going to do about him?" I don't know if this annecdotal - but it added to the deliberate retraction theory.

Regards

A4

[42psi]

"This thread worries me intensely.

The passengers react in whatever manner they consider appropriate because they consider they know better than the crew?"




This post worries me .....

I may think the pax reaction innapropriate but I can at least credit that folks who have a belief that their lives are in immediate danger may well behave this way.....

Part of training and practicing how to react to the unexpected and possible life threatening scenarios is about overcoming the "fight or flight" instinct and replacing it with one of familiarity/routine to enable more rational and thoughtful processes.......


These people were apparently convinced in their own minds that there was a fire in the cabin ..... the cabin crew failed to reassure them (if they actually had much oppurtunity to)...........



So what would you do if convinced there was a fire in the cabin and the crew were not aware? Sit tight and pray?

[Rainboe]

RYRNick, you must stop writing like this!:
I also would of thought the crew, might of said it's totally normal or something to calm them down.
Why can't these idiots ASK the crew if it's OK? Instead of launching off into a panic. It only takes one twerp to freak to start others off, but this condensation doesn't just start with take-off. There was time to ask before.

[A2QFI]

What did the 'smoke' that got the SLF storming the flight deck actually smell of? Panic stricken over-reaction, probably assisted by a few pre flight bevvies I'd guess

[One9iner]

Manrow .... what a ridiculous point to make ... " passangers dont know anything .. can anyone list an event when the passengers knew more than us, plus we get paid for it" grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Brian Abraham]

The good news is the days of low cost travel are long gone. Only people with high IQ's will take to the skies once more!
You wish. A great proportion of the "moneyed up" I see run a little short in the IQ department.

[Nearly There]

Smoke lingers , air con mist disappears, like in restaurants,bars,cars, shops in fact most places you see an air con unit!

Smoke smells, air con mist doesnt smell like smoke.:ugh:

Some people:rolleyes:

[brakedwell]

How about only hiring deaf pilots? :eek:

[sispanys ria]

Smoke lingers , air con mist disappears, like in restaurants,bars,cars, shops in fact most places you see an air con unit!

Smoke smells, air con mist doesnt smell like smoke.:ugh:

Some people:rolleyes:

Good to know you have good experience with A/C systems. You would spend less time in restaurants,bars,cars and shops and more in planes you would get another type of experience telling you how to deal with passengers, I mean if that's your job.
Captains are sometimes generously paid for their "responsibilities" in regard to the number of souls on board, logically it should be their responsibility to prevent such situations with a proper cabin crew briefing.

[p7lot]

I think I'm with Rainboe on this one.

I would not allow anyone without eight bar epaulettes to bang on our flightdeck door because there are seven bars in there already.

If the crew allowed this to occur I think I would relegate them to PAX.

Rotation is a critical manouvre and if if we cant hear "pos climb...gear up"
we wont be going very far.

Just my two bobs worth of course.

[Dont Hang Up]

Commercial aviation prides itself on the "no-blame" culture as the best means of continuous improvement in flying safety. This should extend to passengers (at least to the sober, non-violent ones).

The incident occurred. It was reported. Recommendations should follow that reduce the risk of it happening again.

[fireflybob]

Presumably mist from the air con only occurs during certain specific ambient temperature/humidity combinations? Could these not be established and a timely warning issued in the safety briefing?

No excuse for pax getting out of their seats really in this situation I feel but this is a symptom of our culture now which knows little about rules and regulations and follows the "anything goes" chav mindset.

[HotDog]

Rainboe, have a look at RYRNick's location. I think it explains a lot.:ok:

[Topslide6]

There's a common theme running here.

The passengers on this flight appear to be morons. A large number of the posts in this thread appear to be by people on the same intellectual plain.

Just what exactly do you expect crew to do during a take off roll if a passenger stands up? The sheer ignorance on display here perfectly highlights the kind of attitude these idiots must have had. Thousands of people fly on these aircraft every single day and being bmi, the crew were without question highly trained and amongst the best in the business.

So what would you do if convinced there was a fire in the cabin and the crew were not aware? Sit tight and pray?

Quite simply i'd point it out as soon as was appropriate and let the crew get on with their jobs. You know, the ones they're trained for and are checked on at least twice a year. I might even offer to help. What I would not do (and assuming this report is accurate), having a modicum of intelligence, would be stand up, start shouting about fire and bang on the flight deck door during a take off roll.

Like I said, bloody idiots.

[Groundloop]

A4......"to teach the unpopular captain a lesson "

That's a rather stupid thing to say..........as if anybody's going to set up a fatal accident "to teach a lesson" !!!!!

Why is it a stupid thing to say?

Of course it was a stupid thing to say! No self respecting pilot would carry out a very dangerous action to teach another one "a lesson". Key's may have been unpopular but that would not have been the way to show it to him.

(The LE flaps were erroneously retracted by the first officer, thinking he'd selected the TE flaps)

Unfortunately, Virgo, the first part of your post (above) was correct the second is not. It was NEVER established who selected the LE "droops" up. This was in the days before CVRs.

[JohnRayner]

Like I said, bloody idiots.

Lots of posters blaming the cabin crew here.

I have the (questionable) pleasure of seeing a large cross-section of the Great British population in times of stress, and am used to how they react.

Sadly folks, there is a small but noticeable percentage who will make up their minds based on nothing more than a room temperature IQ and a LARRRGE collection of misconceptions, and who will also, when presented with anything other than validation of their own point of view, will do anything, upto and including verbal/physical violence, to avoid accepting the alternative.

These people almost invariably also believe normal rules don't apply to them, and are perfectly capable of e.g. standing up during a take-off role.

Past a certain point you can't actually manage them however hard you try, and they won't be educated, so what do you do?

[R04stb33f]

Is this what you're talking about?? Harldy looks threatening... :ugh:

http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t328/rosbif_2000/ACCondensation.jpg

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Topslide6:
The passengers on this flight appear to be morons. A large number of the posts in this thread appear to be by people on the same intellectual plain. (sic)

I've not checked your profile, but very much hope you are not cabin crew, Topslide6.

There has always been a minority of flight attendants that are incapable of looking at situations from a passenger viewpoint, and I fear this may be increasing since 9/11.

If the first passenger to cry fire had never seen a cloud of condensing water vapour from an air conditioning system before, then his/her action would have been rational, if unfortunately timed.

The senior cabin crew member, on the other hand, would have experienced it many times before. It does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to predict that someone off the street might mistake it for smoke on one of his/her flights.

Quote:
Just what exactly do you expect crew to do during a take off roll if a passenger stands up? The sheer ignorance on display here perfectly highlights the kind of attitude these idiots must have had.

The rational thing would have been to keep in mind a form of words that could be used in a PA, like "L & G, the cloud in the cabin is only water vapour from the air conditioning. We often see it. No cause for concern. Kindly sit down." It seems that this was not done.

Passengers are normal human beings in an unfamiliar environment. The cabin crew are there to guide and assist them, not to treat them like morons or potential terrorists. They are the meal ticket.

[Basil-Fawlty]

I think this have to be the funnest incident by pax ever! :rolleyes:
can you imagin the rest of the pax seeing those Plonkers shouting smoke....:bored:. I would love to see them reacting to transit in DXB:ooh:

Safe and happy flying to all from Sybil, Poly and Manuel:ok:

BF

[lexxity]

like "L & G, the cloud in the cabin is only water vapour from the air conditioning. We often see it. No cause for concern. Kindly sit down."

Did you ever consider that maybe the above PA was made, but the pax invloved didn't want to listen? I know pax are perfectly capable of being decent humanbeings, I also know they can be bloody minded and stubborn. A lot of blaming the crew here with very little actual facts.

[Bearcat]

any one hear of the aer lingus capt that got a punch from a pax for diverting in to luton on orders from co.??

[DenhamPPL]

You guys who fly the aeroplane please take a step back for a moment and consider that some people do not enjoy flying particularly and any unusual distraction that could threaten their well-being will frighten them.

I love flyng and I have a current PPL(A). I have flown on lots of commercial flghts as SLF as well but have never seen the A/C mist as described earlier or shown in the pic. I wouldn't jump up screaming about it but I would consider asking cabin crew what it was in case it was harmful.

I think a little more friendly information from the flight deck as well as those awful automated safety briefings (which no one appears to watch/listen to) could also help to alliviate these sort of problems and calm potentially nervous passengers.

[Teevee]

Brilliant - let's have the professional just dismiss us pax as morons, stupid, ignorant ... whatever any way to hide the fact that they were all just very probably extremely frightened people who felt trapped in a situation which was going to cost them their lives. In a situation like that you're not thinking rationally, not acting rationally and the flight impulse (as in away from the perceived danger) takes over. We haven't had years of training, we haven't had tests to see how we cope with the pressure of the situation. We're coming across something that we've never experienced before, have not by the sound of things, been prepared for by the 'trained professionals' and the colour of our underwear is probably changing. We need someone to take control and allay our raging fears. If that wsn't done then a few 'highly trained' people ought to sit down and work how this situation can be avoided in the future.
(This situation would have had me frozen in my seat but then as a terrified flyer I spend 90% of a flight with my eyes closed and grasping my seat with no intention of letting go ...)

[pax britanica]

As a very regualr pax but witha keen interest in civial aviation I did find this interesting because of two things that happened to me.
One occason was just theorectical after I posted some comments about what happened to me on a thread about Sept 11 . I was on a flight that turned back and was held for about 6 hours overhead Lands End. I commented on the fuel dumping and unusual long noisy bumpy return to LGW with lots of flap and gear dangling all the way from Lands End.to Gatwick saying the engines seemed close to climb power. I got flamed seriously, told numerous times I was an diot , got ti all wrong, mistook what i saw and heard etc until a reply came in from the FO /PF on my trip. No he said what i described was exactly what happened-very unusual yes but an unusual event. Perhaps some of those who had a go at me were pilots but there was a srrong sense of what could you know as just a passenger.

Second time was for real- Off on holiday in the 90s Gatwick to Faro with Ambassador?? long defunct on a 737-200 . I am sitting by the wing leading edge-and they do not extend the leading edges. On and on we taxy towards the holding point and still no leading edge extension. Now we are at the hold and frankly I am pretty scared since I doubt we will fly far without the leading edge flaps but what do I do? Say something to a 20 y/o FA and be told to mind my own business or just sit there , I know the crew probably cannot see the actual wings and well it is a rather dirty shabby example of a 73 so maybe they have a false indication up there. A few minutes go by at the holding point whle I agonise and finally just as we start to move slowly towards the runway down go the leading edges. I was worried, I think rightlly so but in the end I never said anyhting, I suppose because I did trust the crew and presumeably they had there reason for the late slat extension.
(Mind you the appraoch and landing in Faro made me wonder whether I had been right to trust them -LoL)

Anyway I do thnk it s a bit unfair to dismiss pax as idiots-sure some-maybe many are and the scene on the BMI flight appears inexcusable. However,and I know this varies from crew to crew. it seems to me that sometimes a few words from up front go a long long way to making sure the folks in back are relaxed and on a humid day mentionng such phenomena is surely a good idea. I used to fly on BA Cityflyer 146s with there noisy musical flap extensions sounds whch did make people sit up and stare when nothing was said. Several crews hwever realised that the 146 is different and notceably so in this respect from most peoples previous experiences and always mentioned it in a seensible downbeat often gently humourous way and when the noise duly appeared no one batted an eyelid compared to the swivelling heads and widening eyes common when no warning was given.

So a difficult judgement I suppose but as in many things in life a little bit of ommunication and respect for customers can go a long long way. At the end of the day we are your customers and we do pay your wages as much as we should behave ourselves when on your plane.
PB( Ducks quickly)

[Chris Scott]

Hi lexxity,

Yes, it did occur to me (post #52) that a suitable PA may have been made, but I was responding to Topslide6's simplistic diatribe; and taking the original story on face value. I agree that we are labouring with limited information: situation normal on PPRuNe.

As an old fart, I think people may be less tolerant in public than in years gone by, and this probably applies to passengers and crews alike. But I think it's vital for the cabin crew to empathise with passengers – even the dodgy-looking ones – from the moment they board. As you settle the passengers down and – later – do the cabin checks for take-off, you have to inspire confidence, without being intimidating. A few minutes later, you will all be belting along a runway. And things can happen...

The one saving grace on take-off and landing is that the cabin crew have nothing to do other than watch and listen. A timely PA should have nipped this in the bud, unless the passengers were drunk and/or disorderly, which would have been spotted before or during boarding.

Chris

[bear11]

So, what kind of "few words" would work then with a bunch of panicked retards? Passengers have responsibilities as well as the rights they are so fond of quoting. This is not touchy-feely customer service stuff; it's beyond stupid to jump up out of your seat on a take off roll, panic other pax and go banging on the cockpit door - we're not exactly talking about using your cellphone despite being told to switch it off here. You have to ask yourself, if If you’re a seated pax on that flight and some guy jumps up screaming fire, we’re all going to die, and makes a run for the cockpit door, are you going to join him? Do you see queues of people lining up to go with the odd person who wigs out and tries to open an exit door? Are we going to end up reading a pre-tax takeoff list to pax for an hour over the intercom to cover the million potential eventualities that may concern them in their ignorance? Yes, we're sure the doors are locked, yes, we're sure the aircraft has been checked by a qualified engineer, we have enough fuel, yada yada. Do you think people like that would listen to a cc briefing on the intercom in the first place, or pay attention to the safety drill even? And if there is something genuine spotted by concerned pax, it's not best communicated by banging on the cockpit door, that's the kind of thing that could get you shot in the States as someone else pointed out, even if you're not on a takeoff roll.

What happened to these people after the event, have they been charged or will they be blacklisted?

[Getoutofmygalley]

Here is something that happened on one of my flights which shows that pax do NOT listen to the crew when you give them an instruction on the PA in what they perceive to be an emergency.

I am the SCCM on the flight and we are on final approach into MAD. The Landing gear was down and had been down for around about 1 minute, you could see through the window that we were very low. A pax presses a call bell at around about row 7, I picked up the PA and said "For the passenger who has just pressed the call bell, the cabin crew are not able to come to you at this time as they must be seated for the landing - once we have touched down on the runway a member of crew will come to you". Another call bell goes off a few seconds later and we are now no more than 30 seconds to touch down, I again repeated my PA saying we can not come but will do in less than 1 minute after the aircraft has landed.

Next thing I know there were several passengers standing up, looking fearful and shouting at myself and my crewmate working at the front of the aircraft to come over, I snatched up the PA again and said "Sit down immediately, the cabin crew CAN NOT attend you at this time, we are about to touch down on the runway YOU MUST SIT DOWN NOW or you risk being injured on the landing - Crew will immediately attend to you AS SOON as we have touched down", the standing pax still kept shouting at us to come over and more and more stood up, I am now screaming down the PA "SIT DOWN IMMEDIATELY, YOU RISK BEING SEVERELY INJURED IF YOU DO NOT", some other pax in the cabin assisted me by also shouting at them to sit down, the last pax sat down literally 2 seconds before touch down. The landing was rather bumpy and any pax standing would have been thrown off of their feet and more than likely would have been hurt.

What was the cause of the excitement in the cabin? Well it was a young woman who had feinted in her seat. It as a warm day and she was wearing around about 20 layers of clothing and due to the heat of her clothing she had feinted.

For those of you wondering why I did not contact the flight deck, well the aircraft was below 800feet and the A319 interphone does not allow communication with flight deck once you go below that level.

Once we were on stand I went over to the passengers and said to them "Do you realise the danger you put yourselves in by standing up?" they said that we should have attended the woman, I replied saying "I have to stay in my seat for landing for the same reasons that you do, if I am out of my seat and the landing is heavy I could get a nasty injury, possibly even killed" I went on to say that "If the pilots had heard my screaming at you to sit down they could have taken the aircraft back into the sky performing what is called a 'missed approach', if that happened and your friend needed urgent medical attention she would have had to wait possibly as long as 10-15 minutes before the aircraft could get back on the ground, and that could have had potentially fatal consequences however, as we were less than 1 minute to landing if she had been seriously ill we could easily get paramedic assistance within just a couple of minutes". I pointed out to them that we the crew are trained to look after the passengers and have the necessary experience to decide when it is best to wait or to do something and this was one of the occasions when you have to wait a few moments before taking any action. I said all of this in the nicest way that I could so that they wouldn't walk off of the aircraft feeling really stupid, angry or upset and they did apologise in the end for not having done what I had instructed, but they said that at the time they were too busy thinking of their friend and didn't even recall hearing what I had said to them over the PA and it was only when the people sat near them were shouting at them to sit down that they actually heard!

Now, this goes to show that even when the cabin crew do try to explain, some people just will not hear what has been said. It's like putting a pair of blinkers on someones head, things are happening around you but you can only see what is directly infront of you. Perhaps on this flight in question that the thread is originally about the cabin crew did give a decent explanation over the PA, but the pax were too involved in their perceived fear to actually HEAR what was being said and therefore their primal survival instincts took over and they felt that they had to take action themselves.

[Topslide6]

Teevee,

We're coming across something that we've never experienced before, have not by the sound of things, been prepared for by the 'trained professionals' and the colour of our underwear is probably changing. We need someone to take control and allay our raging fears.

Fair point. However, has it occured to you that there's not a great deal that can be done during a take off roll and the crew were doing exactly the safest thing, which is fly the aircraft safely first and foremost and deal with any issues once the safety of the aircraft is assured.

Lexxity makes a very valid point. The fact is that there is every chance the cabin crew made the PA that you've all suggesting they should have. I've witnessed first hand passengers calling cabin crew liars when they've been handed information of a similar nature. Many simply don't listen when told, and I would suggest that at least 50% couldn't point to their nearest emergency exit when asked as they hadn't listened to the safety brief. I stand by what I said. Anyone who stands up and starts shouting whilst an aircraft is taking off is an idiot. That's not said with a pilots hat on, it's called being an adult. If true, these people have acted like children. I would even suggest most children would act more responsibly.

Both bear11 and getoutofmygalley have summed it up perfectly. If they weren't, these passengers were very lucky not to be arrested.

[JohnRayner]

Hardly looks like 2 bints trying to open doors they weren't supposed to either! I think this was taken after the event when things had all calmed down.

Also, wasn't actually on this flight, was talking about other stuff

I stand by my (wordy) post. Arseholes exist. Fact. Not everyone's an arsehole though.

:ok:

[er340790]

This thread has degenerated into right / wrong camps, ignoring the fact that many instances fall somewhere between the two. The simple matter is that any real professional will listen to relevant information, no matter what the perceived source.....

Back in January I was SLF on an AC Jazz flight from T/Bay to Winnipeg. The a/c had been de-iced, but was delayed due to slush-clearing from the runways. From my window seat just behind the left wing, it was clear that snow and ice was reforming on the control surfaces during the intervening 20 minutes.

When the F/O announced push-back, I called the cabin attendant, informed her that I was a private pilot (20 years on bush planes) and asked her to advise the flightdeck that there was a visible fresh accumulation of snow/ice on the control surfaces. She called the flightdeck and within 15 seconds the FO announced there would be a very short delay while the a/c was de-iced again.

Should I have kept my mouth shut as a 'courtesy' to the flight crew? Maybe we would have been fine, but why try and save 5 minutes in this world to arrive decades too early in the next? I think this shows the crew considered third-party information for something they could not themselves see, judged it relevant and acted on it accordingly.

Everybody won.

[A2QFI]

You did exactly right! You calmly informed a CC member of your concerns. This bears no comparison with uninformed idiots storming the flight deck because they saw some odourless fumes in the passenger cabin.

[John R]

A lot of talk about "professionals doing their job" here.

Well, I'm sure it depends on the airline, but I have witnessed some pretty unprofessional behaviour by cabin crew on board an aircraft.

If you want to prevent these kinds of situations arising, deal with them when they arise in a professional, assertive manner.

That means: NOT pissing with laughter while you make a PA, NOT flirting with other members of the cabin crew and NOT muttering rude comments about the people on the flight deck which are clearly audible to the first row of passengers.

And don't be surprised when perfectly rational people get a little unsettled at seeing what they think is smoke in the cabin.

Finally, to flight deck and cabin crew, if you actually made your pre-flight PAs audible and spoke clearly, maybe more passengers would listen!

[vectors]

The captain made an announcement over the pa on this bmi charter flight whilst in the cruise , he made it clear that the aircraft was operating correctly and the only thing that risked the safety of the flight and all on board was the complete idiots who were out of their seats and running around during take off.

[bunkrest]

Well put Get out of my Galley.

I spent 8 years as cabin crew and passenger nervousness/fear is a powerful disabler of logic (and come to that hearing).

Yes a p.a. at the beginning of the flight to warn of possible 'smoke' would seem sensible. The pax would have been calm enough to understand assuming they are alert and not burried in the latest copy of Heat. (Which incidently seems to be the preferred method of receiving the safety demo).

I would say though that I always took notice of pax concerns - anything that they pointed out as unusual I would either be able to reassure (yes turbulence is normal) or double check with the chaps at the pointy end. CRM training hammers this point home - accidents are a result of a chain of events and that the observation of pax/cabin crew can remove a crucial link - even if I felt ridiculous pointing out something that was in all probablility normal.

Going back to this incident though - they were on the take off roll - there is a limit to how much you can do at this point - Hurtling down the runway is not the time to explain the finer points of mist/smoke differentials or get on the interphone to chat to the pilot as he calls V2. Shouting at the pax to sit down and issuing curt p.a.'s is about the limit.

I believe that more emphasis should be placed on the 'unexpected' realities of flight - be it misting, how bad turbulence can actually be - or how you actually check to see your o2 is flowing in a decompresion. The airlines general emphasis seems far to much skewed towards beer, peanuts and flowery music.

[Topslide6]

er340790,

You did exactly the right thing but the two situations are completely different. You had some knowledge to back up your question and you called the FA and asked her a question. This was done whilst on stand.

We are talking here about people running around, shouting and banging on doors during a safety critical phase of flight because they thought something might be wrong.

[sispanys ria]

A professional and experienced crew would have anticipated this very common issue. Airlines are fine to sell tickets to retards (which by the way are paying your salaries). Crews are used to show how to fasten and unfasten seat belts which for many of us look basic. Why explaining this smoke issue would be unacceptable ?
Crews are paid to carry out commercial operations, including services. The captain is responsible of this. It's part of professional crews to anticipate this kind of issue which is not new. Failure to do so can lead to such situations, but there is no point to blame passengers sincerely scared the **** out of their pants. This has nothing to do with those damn drunk tourists enjoying low costs flights to have booze and cheap girls and which would deserve to be banned for trying to open the doors in flight.
When you know passengers might be scared by the smoke, isn't it normal to inform them ? If not you are the retard. If you don't even know they might be scared, you're even more a retard.
Next time I will calm down a vapor scared passenger sitting next to me I'll send the bill to the airline since the crew missed it...

[Dream Buster]

Shortly after take off in a BAe 146 a few years back the # 1 called to say that ‘There’s a fire in the rear toilet’ – as best as she could see. The passenger cabin was filling with visible white smoke fumes.

The cockpit kept clear and we the pilots saw nothing.

We landed back as soon as possible - after which it became clear that the smoke was caused by a dodgy bleed air valve, not from a fire in the rear toilet nor condensation.

The problem would appear to be allowing professional aircrew to differentiate between condensation and smoke in a quick, logical and accurate way.

Why is there is still no detection method for identifying the foul fumes that are occasionally introduced into the confined space from faulty bleed air systems; apart from the aircrews and passengers noses and eyes?

Bunkrest is right – discussion about this subject is not welcome and the long term health effects of the fumes very poorly understood; my health deteriorated rapidly after this event.......Don’t start me.

DB :mad:

[A4]

@ Groundloop

To put this to bed. I WAS NOT advocating "teaching a lesson" to Kay - and you are correct in that no self respecting pilot would ever knowingly jepodise his aircraft. I was merely relaying a theory that I have read elsewhere regarding the Stanes accident!!! So please don't shoot the messenger! Further, it wasn't me that bought a totally unrelated accident into this thread! :hmm: Nil further.

The scenario getoutof....... found themselves in is one I put to Commanders under training. I ask them what would they do if they became aware of a child running around the aisle at 500ft on the approach. As they think about it I count down 400, 300, 200 - to drive the point. If you go around you'll plant them in the rear galley (if they haven't wrapped themselves around seat legs etc in the process of tumbling down the aircraft). If you land, you'll probably plant them in the flight deck door/galley. Rock and a hard place?

What would you do?

A4

PS I had this a couple of weeks ago.........

[Pontius Navigator]

A4, given the position of the aircraft on appraoch and the positive sink rate and hence inertia of a large aircraft - land.

[Stubenfliege 2]

Hi ya,

Can someone please list the occasions when passengers knew better how to deal with the problem than the crew paid to do so

yes, I can list three occasions, where the passengers (and f/a) know it better:


Libyan Arab Airline B727 in 1973, where the occupants of the cabin know, that they was intercepted by IDF Phantoms, not by Egyptian Mig-21 (as the cockpit crew thought).

Air Ontario F-28 was mentioned before.

The Northwestern DC-10, which landed by mistake in Brussel and not in Frankfurt. The crew didn´t realized, that they were misguided by the ATC, but the occupants could follow the flight path on their cabin monitors.


Gross exceptions, indeed, but you never say never.....

Regards,

[PaperTiger]

The captain made an announcement over the pa on this bmi charter flight whilst in the cruiseExcellent timing there, Hoskins. Well done.

Horse. Barn door.

:hmm:

[Phil1980's]

@shack37.....If you are saying "a crucial part of..." Erm well if a pilot can't listen/not listen to warnings from PAX in any phase of flight then maybe they are not pilots...I agree with post No. 2...

[FrequentSLF]

So, what kind of "few words" would work then with a bunch of panicked retards?
Whilst I do agree that they panicked I do wonder why are they retarded!
Pilots and FA are trained for years and do deserve my respect, however calling SLFs "retard" it is too offensive.
The day you will stand down from your pedestal you might understand what is going on the real word.
We should ask to ourselves why people panicked on board on a fully functional a/c?
Did the FA and the pilots provide the correct info to the SLFs? Sometimes many of you forget that SLFs have brains (not like palets, that the reason why they can self load themselves) and might wonder what's going on. Eventually providing information might help
Regards

[Phil1980's]

Oh ManRow you are such an ignorant one...just like the other...Excuse me but how the hell would you react if you knew nothing about planes and saw smoke? WELL! Like you're going to know that the pilot knows it's alright! I'm sorry but if I was a PAX and they thought something was risking their life...I would get up...Why should I risk my life...the pilots have a responsibility for 300 people...we pay/paid your wages so shut up and eat up!

[Phil1980's]

A2qfi...Another from a 60+ year old that has no point of view from another's perspective...what is it with some! Odurless? oh that makes it ok then...Thank god Carbon monoxide Smells to hell! Thank goodness that Rohypnol smells of strawberrys...What's happened has happened...and it's happened for a reason...And it wasn't 1 person 11 cannot mean it was nothing to them! end of story

[avionic type]

No it wasn't retracting the slats to teach the Captain a lesson it was a brow beaten young first officer who made a mistake. Saw the printed read out of the Flt recorder in the "readout room "at base showing the slats were selected up not the gear it was very sorry reading and it not only affected aircrew but the people who signed for the "Check A"done the previous evening as a Stall recovery check was part of the check,it did bring about at least 1 nervous break down and several suspensions until all were exonerated weeks later by the board of enquiry
sorry about the tirade but the" mechs "were friends and workmates of mine

[DenhamPPL]

bear11 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/members/101042-bear11)

As much as you may hate it - these are your customers - regardless of whether they are paying £2 or £2000 for their seat in your aircraft.

Yes some may have had a few pints (or more), some may be louder than you would like but why not try some CRM (Cabin Resource Management?) and educate the b*("*&"£ a bit. Then their reactions may be a bit more relaxed due to the new found confidence in flying that you have instilled in them;)

[Sunfish]

I suspect there are a number of trolls and spotters here from the number of posts calling the pax "Idiots" and "Panicked retards" because I cannot believe anyone in aviation who aspires to being a professional would use those terms.

You must understand from your training that there are such things as white knuckle fliers who have no experience whatsoever of aviation apart from the sheer terror of forcing themselves, against their instincts, to sit in an aircraft in an attempt to get to a holiday destination.

To sneer at their obvious fears is unprofessional.

Furthermore, there are people here who assume a level of knowledge in the travelling public that is simply non existent.

Getoutofmy galley illustrates this perfectly:

"Do you realise the danger you put yourselves in by standing up?"

Obviously they didn't, or if they did, they weighed the danger to themselves against what appeared to be the necessity of getting immediate assistance to aid a young lady who was apparently, according to their knowledge, about to die.

As for the "levels of training" in CC, again, how the **** are passengers supposed to know that you are trained to do anything other than serve drinks and food? Why should they? Why would they?

As I said in my first post, good CC have a natural AUTHORITY that is obvious to anyone who has seen it in action. It's obvious that the CC in this incident didn't have it, and probably don't even know what I'm talking about.

And the best examples of this natural authority I've seen (although I hate to say it) are the older CC from Qantas.

[wiggy]

So is the concensus that we ( professional aircrew) should anticipate this issue and similar issues by mentioning it in our pre-Flight Annnouncement from the Flight Deck? If that is the case should we also include the possibilty of say, an Engine Surge / birdstrike on a wing leading edge / adjacent aircraft over the Atlantic and all the other frequent and infrequent, trivial and non-trivial events and occurrences which can cause alarm amongst passengers?

In truth the list is pretty much endless and the mandatory items in pre-flight announcements are long enough as it is ( in our Company). You do want to get airborne, don't you?

If we do get a significant event on takeoff which is likely to cause concern ( and believe you me an engine surge at night gets a lot of people concerned) we will make an announcement from the Flight Deck once circumstances allow, but that will not happen before the problem, major or minor, has been dealt with, and might even be as late as "in the cruise".

In the meantime running up the aisles when the seat belt sign is on is a "no no" - and that's already covered in the pre-Flight Announcements .

[Final 3 Greens]

So is the concensus that we ( professional aircrew) should anticipate this issue and similar issues by mentioning it in our pre-Flight Annnouncement from the Flight Deck?

I would have thought that it would be far more sensible for the CC to mention it it when necessary, as they can see it occuring and their workload already includes repeatedly issuing a "welcome, stow your hand luggagge etc" greeting to the pax.

All they would need to say is something to the effect "the captain has turned on the air conditioning system for your comfort and you may notice some white condensation coming out of the air vents, this is perfectly normal and will stop when we reach our cruising altitutde."

Sounds to me like a cabin crew training matter, not a flight deck matter.

[Getoutofmygalley]

Sunfish

My asking the pax concerned "Do you realise the danger you put yourselves in by standing up?" was not about assuming they have a level of knowledge, it was about educating them of the danger that they had put themselves and their surrounding pax in. I never assume that pax know anything about flying, which is why my PA's always go into more detail than the standard issued PA's by my airline.

I have had pax comment in the past that my PA's are very good as they explain everything that is going to happen / is happening / will be happening. Why do I do this?, well I think back to the days of when I first flew as a pax before I became crew. I used to sit there in that long tin can and not have a clue what was going on.

There was a saying that was taught to me many years ago, which is "In aviation never ASSUME anything, because if you do, you will make an ASS out of U and ME" and I live by that saying, hence myself always trying to be educational on my flights.

The key element of my previous posting was the paragraph which stated:

Now, this goes to show that even when the cabin crew do try to explain, some people just will not hear what has been said. It's like putting a pair of blinkers on someones head, things are happening around you but you can only see what is directly infront of you. Perhaps on this flight in question that the thread is originally about the cabin crew did give a decent explanation over the PA, but the pax were too involved in their perceived fear to actually HEAR what was being said and therefore their primal survival instincts took over and they felt that they had to take action themselves.

Read that paragraph again, what it is saying is that in a perceived emergency some pax will not do as they are told, because they can not hear what is being told to them, they are for all intent and purposes deaf and can only see the perceived danger and want to get away from it, or have someone assist with it.

My PA to the pax saying to sit down, crew will come in a few seconds when we are on the ground is all that I could do - I do honestly hope you don't think I had time to say or do anything else?

[wiggy]

Fair point and not unreasonable if the steaming is happening on boarding. OTOH it's possible that the A/C has been set up to avoid this ( e.g. only 2 packs on on a 3 pack aircraft) so the first time the steaming happens happens is perhaps packs on after a packs off take off...just a thought...

On my more general point - we live in an "instant information/ I have a right to know age": if our Customers reading this demand to be told instantly of the why's; wherefores and reasons every non-normal event that happens on a flight then we have got a heck of a lot of educating to do.

[John R]

This thread runs the risk of turning really nasty.

The attitudes that some of the so-called "professionals" are voicing here are deeply disturbing.

Has it occurred to you that:

a) many of your "pax" are a lot more educated than you, so cut out your patronising crap about "knowing better than these retards"

b) many are in what is for them an unfamiliar environment

c) your behaviour on board - which I have witnessed on a couple of occasions - does not always instill confidence that you know best.

If you really cannot see this, then you are deluded.

[Final 3 Greens]

Wiggy

Fair point and not unreasonable if the steaming is happening on boarding. OTOH it's possible that the A/C has been set up to avoid this ( e.g. only 2 packs on on a 3 pack aircraft) so the first time the steaming happens happens is perhaps packs on after a packs off take off...just a thought...

That's a very good point.

Perhaps the announcement in that case would be by the CC when the condensation started.

This might not work so well on wide bodies, with the bulkheads separating the cabin, but on most narrow bodies the crew has sight of the length of the cabin (until the business class curtains are pulled.)

On my more general point - we live in an "instant information/ I have a right to know age": if our Customers reading this demand to be told instantly of the why's; wherefores and reasons every non-normal event that happens on a flight then we have got a heck of a lot of educating to do.

Obviuosly, you cannot inform the pax of everything that happens.

Recently I was in an airbus that made an unusually steep descent (in my experience as a frequent flyer) early on final, the deck angle and ground rush was uncomfortable, but I wouldn't expect the crew to make an announcement explaining why, their focus needs to be on a safe approach and landing.

However, in this alleged Palma incident, it would appear that there was a very seroius incident and as part of the learning process so vital to safe aviation, I would have thought that this was a "quick win" in terms of CC training.

[wiggy]

Well I for one would like to apologise for some of my "colleagues" comments on here.

I'll not comment about crew behaviour on board- I'm usually locked in my office:bored:

I agree that an aircraft is an unfamiliar enviroment - so is my Doctor's and Dentist's surgery - that give's me the right to be nervous but it doesn't give me the right to try and kick his/her door down because I don't get an immediate response to a question.

You mentioned education - many of our Cabin Crew and Flight Crew are also well educated, there is even the odd graduate, post-graduate and even Doctor kicking around in crew members uniforms. They have all passed thorough training courses and regularly pass recurrent checks, so could they please be offered due respect by their Customers.

Rant Off. John, I suspect you are a "frequent flyer" so you must hold a view on this: do you expect to be told instantly details of any "non-normal events, or are you happy to wait until the professionals are able to give a sensible reasoned announcement?

[Final 3 Greens]

Please can we all stop taking a pop at each other?

Safety on board is everyone's resonsibility and we are all on the same team in this respect.

[TightSlot]

Address the issue - not the person please. The answer, as always, will lie between the extremes of opinion, and not at the ends.

If some of you persist in throwing rocks at each other, the thread will be closed.

[John R]

wiggy, no I do not expect an immediate answer from the crew, which is why I disagree with the approach taken by getoutofmygalley.

Where I do think there is a problem is when no explanation is given (a missed approach / go-around, for example, which is not explained by flight crew once the aircraft is stable will lead some passengers to think the pilots made a mistake). As a regular flier, I have seen this and willed an explanation which never came!

Let us be clear: I do not for one moment condone the actions of these passengers, which if true were utterly dangerous and irresponsible.

All I am saying is that these are probably perfectly sensible people who when put in a very unusual, perhaps frightening situation will behave in the most primordial way to protect themselves.

Let's remember that not everyone knows about V1 and the sterile cockpit rules!

The majority of cabin crew do a fantastic job, but in my first post I mentioned incidents which I have witnessed first hand and which do not inspire me with confidence.

One final point: if you're an officer on the flight deck, and especially if you're the captain, you are still ultimately responsible for the actions of your cabin crew, non?

[wiggy]

"Ultimately responsible for the behaviour of your Cabin Crew"..absolutely, but as you are aware it is difficult for the Captain to be aware of all that goes on in the Galleys. I honestly believe the vast majority of my colleagues are professional when on board the aircraft, but there are always a few who "let the side down", I just hope it wasn't on one of "my" Flights.

Yes, we are supossed to make a Announcement following a Go Around - when/if circumstances permit. But even if it appears stable "down the back" and people are wondering why the Captain hasn't said anything, all may be completely different on the other side of the Flight Deck door; the Flight Crew may be working like the proverbial one armed looking at Fuel Remaining, Alternates available, "do we stay or do we go" (i.e; Divert) so there genuinely may not be time for a few soothing words. Having said that most of us have a suitably non-commital speech for such circumstances.

[fireflybob]

If the weather is close to minima and I expect a possible Go Around then I tell the passengers! "The weather is well within our limits to make an approach but if we dont see the runway by the prescribed point we will be climbing away again and may well be diverting to XXXX".

Then if you land they think what a great job you have done (true of course!) - if you Go Around it's no big surprise.

Obviously this doesnt cater for Go Arounds for other reasons (Tech/ATC etc) in which case an announcement will be made if and when circumstances allow.

[blaggerman]

It's interesting how a normal situation can rapidly degenerate into chaos through mistaken perceptions and confusion.

The fact it was a charter is signficant to me. I think it's fair to say that the passengers on a charter flight are likely to have a much lower level of flying experience than those on a scheduled flight. The scheduled flight will have a mix of newbies and very experienced passengers. In such a situation, a word from another passenger to say "it's condensation, happens all the time" would probably have resolved the situation before it started.

Perhaps charter operators need to take this into account and have crew explain the obvious a bit more often.

[jetset lady]

As already pointed out, there is only so much we can explain in the briefing and lets face it, how many passengers actually listen anyway? It's got to come down to trust in the crew. And that brings me to what, I feel, may be a contributing factor in the lack of trust passengers seem to have in the crew.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and no doubt offend a lot of people but, I feel you should have to be a certain age before being able to go for promotion to Senior Crew. I am a Purser for a major airline, and most of the time, it's a fairly straightforward job. However, when it's all gone wrong, I have had to draw on all of my flying and life experience. I have dealt with medical emergencies, technical emergencies, irate passengers etc. There's no way I would have been able to do this successfully at 21. No matter how mature you are, at 21, you do not have the "natural authority" needed to keep control of a sometimes, volatile situation. That's something that can only ever come with age.

This is not against the younger crew, as I work with some exceptionally good crew that I would trust with my life, but I know them. Passengers don't. Passengers can only go on their first impressions. Unfair but true.

For the record, I'm in no way, trying to defend the supposed actions of the passengers on the BMI flight. I'm just guessing at one of the possible reasons that these types of incidences appear to be happening.

Jsl

Hat...coat...

[Final 3 Greens]

As already pointed out, there is only so much we can explain in the briefing and lets face it, how many passengers actually listen anyway?

I find that a strange statement.

If condensation is billowing out of the vents, which I have seen, then I don't think it is asking too much to make a short announcement.

Sadly, the only times are have heard this were from pilots (one a Jetset cpt)

Just seems like a no brainer to me.

There are things in my business that I understand very well, that my clients do not. I make a point of delaing with these things when thay arise.

You do make a good point about the effect of age on authority, its an example of something called "referent" power and it means power instilled by people choosing to invest it in someone.

[Ankaput]

First: I am no aircrew, just a moderately frequent flyer. If for example condensation in the cabin is fairly normal under observable and even predictable conditions, then perhaps anticipation of the passengers' nervousness might he helpful?

Condensation and smoke LOOK the same at first glance - OK , so condensation doesn't smell. You have passengers from all walks of life, levels of education and experience in your craft. To you, these machines are a familiar workplace and you have been trained to handle them and understand their peccadilloes.

We haven't! A simple anticipatory introduction when conditions look as if condensation might occur would not take too much time and effort - perhaps at the beginning/end of the safety chat?

You chaps keep these thing in the air and put them down safely nearly ALL the time. Hell, we look out of the window and to us it;s as close to magic as we are ever going to get.

Help us out here - some verbal balm sparingly applied would go a long way!

[jetset lady]

Sorry. I was agreeing with others in that there is only so much we can say in a briefing, hence the need for passengers to be able to feel they can put their trust in us. I wasn't talking specifically about condensation. I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to expect the crew to make a quick PA in those circumstances.

Jsl

[Final 3 Greens]

No, my apologies are due for misinterpreting your statement JSL.

[fyrefli]

Sorry. I was agreeing with others in that there is only so much we can say in a briefing, hence the need for passengers to be able to feel they can put their trust in us. I wasn't talking specifically about condensation.

Like others on here (although I refer to previous threads in the main), I've often wondered why a reasonable amount of the briefing is taken up with "In the event of a landing on water...", since survivable landings on water with underslung engines aren't exactly common.

I also kind of wondered reading this thread why there isn't some more information about, for example, condensation, emergency descent and so on in the safety information. I guess one answer is it might frighten people - but perhaps only the kind of people sitting like startled rabbits while those of us who've listened to the briefing jump over them to find the exit behind us as fire breaks out. If you're going to tell people about the masks, why run the risk that half of them are too panicked to do as they're told because they don't understand why the aircraft is in a dive? A controlled emergency descent probably doesn't seem so controlled to most pax!

I also wonder whether, for those of us who are frequent fliers - indeed particularly now so many people are frequent fliers, having one, scarcely ever altered version of the safety briefing could not prove counter-productive in an incident. Are some people only going to realise at the crucial moment that, whilst they know the briefing off by heart (in multiple languages!), it has become so routine as to be just another set of noises.

But now I'm wandering off-topic!

[Spotthedog]

Reading this thread ... several people have tried to relate the passenger behaviour to lack of IQ, intelligence, common sense etc. I'm not sure that's relevant as I'm convinced that many rational people are capable of such behaviour under certain circumstances.

Imagine being a passenger on board, during the takeoff roll you are suddenly faced in your own mind with the unexpected but direct and immediate prospect of being incinerated if the takeoff continues with images of a flaming concorde looming in the front of your mind. Taking the highly risky and extremely drastic step of standing up and banging on the cockpit door even at such a critical point might, by comparison, seem like a good idea.

I reckon those passenger knew full well the serious risks involved in standing up during the takeoff but felt they were facing a far more unpalatable option ....

[aviatordom]

Lol, shame it didn't happen before V1!

If it did and i was PIC i would simply slam on the brakes and apply thrust reverse!

Then the passengers can't go off and complain because it was all their fault andn were affecting the aircraft's safety in the first place!

[frequentflyer2]

Some contributors to this forum appear to link this type of behaviour to the ability to travel provided by low air fares.
Believe me the only people travelling cheaply on this flight were the cabin and flight crews.
All the passengers were flying back to Northern Ireland after spending the province's traditional July holiday in Majorca - a very expensive time to fly anywhere from Belfast.
Most of those on the aircraft would have been IT passengers with a fortnight's apartment holiday for two people costing more than £1000. The bill for a family would, of course, be much greater and once you decide you want to stay in a hotel the prices just spiral.
We paid almost £2000 for 10 days bed and breakfast in Puerto Pollensa.
Anyond travelling flight only on the bmi aircraft would also have paid a great deal of money for the privilege. The Falcon website is quoting a return fare of £325 for the equivelant dates next year (July 4 returning July 19).

[scaredflyer]

As a frequent business flyer ( 126 flights in the last twelve months alone )who is scared ****less of flying most of the time I've only ever seen this happen once on an aer lingus flight from Dublin to Manchester about 10 years ago.

The plane landed and we were heading for the gate, what at first appeared to be smoke started appearing at the side of the ceiling ( sorry i'm sure there is a technical term )

At first I thought it was smoke but remember that smoke accumulates and steam dissapates so I reassured myself today was not my day.

But someone else shouted "jesus we're on fire...." and panic ensued, after a short while the pilot came on the wire to explain it was steam due to high humidity

Now in all my time flying as a pax i have never ever heard a pilot pro-acively explain this item.

I've only seen it 3 times,

[nearport]

Every word, facial expression and action of uniformed cabin crew shape the feeling inside an aircraft. A PA announcement would have gone a long way to avoiding the situation.

Way back in the 1990's Ansett New Zealand were flying Bae 146 fleet and marketing them under name of 'whisper jets'. The quiet operation of these planes leads to hydraulic/mechanical noises sounding very loud to passengers. This fact was part of pre-departure PA announcements to put minds at ease.

[Wirelock]

Hi All,

i find this thread very interesting indeed!
as an licenced engineer of a few years i have experiences from both sides.

i am a flyer but not a nervous passenger. i can however understand the concerns of nervous passengers during flights.
i would say to any nervous flyer to ask cabin crew about any item they are not happy about during the flight(but not at take off). there should be no such thing as a stupid question to the crew if the passenger thinks it involves the aircraft airworthiness. any crew that ignores a passenger(maybe it is an aircraft engineer on holidays) does so at their peril.

in my opinion the majority of cabin crew(in my airline anyway) have no idea what is normal or abnormal. i have been asked questions by crew which turn out to be normal events but never do i laugh or ridicule them for asking!! the worst thing would be for them to stop asking and hence stop learing about their aircraft.

i once had a passenger who claimed to be an engineer(cant remember which type) but she wouldnt leave her seat until she had talked to maintenance.
when i arrived she said their was a problem with the aircraft pressurisation because some ice had formed on the outer pane of her pax window.
i told her this was normal but i suppose she(been an engineer n all) thought i had no clue what i was talking about.

[frequentflyer2]

As a journalist I really couldn't let this one pass. I contacted the bmi press office where I was initially told they had heard of the thread on pprune but their operations department had no record of the incident so they could be of no further help.
I then contacted the Civil Aviation Authority Press Office. A press officer confirmed the incident had occurred. He said approximately 15 passengers were involved and moved forward as far as row three during the take-off roll.
He also confirmed some passengers were still standing when the aircraft became airborne but denied any passengers had been banging on the cockpit door.
The CAA report states passengers were reassured by cabin crew and the captain. It also said the flight proceeded without incident.
I went back to bmi where the press office conceded defeat and issued a statement giving more or less identical details. Their press officer also denied any passengers had reached the cockpit door.