Scared PAX force Air Berlin to replace aircraft

[txl]

Wild weekend for Germany's second largest carrier Air Berlin: Rebellious passengers forced the airline to fly in a replacement aircraft on Sunday after a Boeing 737-800 scheduled to leave for Faro failed to take off from Nuremberg airport twice, German news agencies report. According to reports, the aircraft had to abort after pilots detected a failure with flap control instruments while taxiing out.

After returning to the gate, where passengers left aircraft while maintenance work was done, 170 of 172 pax re-boarded, with two scared passengers opting out. Second attempt at take-off an hour later was aborted after control lights failed again, most reports say. A differing AFP report states that second abort was due to a cabin crew member fainting.

After two aborted take-offs and evacuations, remaining passengers refused to board the plane again and demanded the aircraft be replaced. Passengers were accomodated at a local hotel while replacement was flown in from Antalya. Flight finally commenced 15 hours after scheduled time.

An airline spokeswoman stressed that there was no technical issue with the plane and referred to the crew's handling of the control light malfunction as "routine". The aircraft was new, the airline said, faulty control instruments were not an un-common issue with today's technologically advanced planes. "Passengers were very concerned and reacted in panic", the spokeswoman was quoted. There had been "a psychological element" after the Spanair accident at Madrid, she reportedly said.

Also on Sunday, an Air Berlin flight from Malaga to Nuremberg had to return to Malaga after an issue with a fuel filter occured 30 minutes into the flight. Again, some passengers refused to board the aircraft again, news agencies report. On Saturday, an aircraft bound to Faro from Hamburg had to divert to Dusseldorf after a birdstrike damaged engine and fuselage, the spokeswoman said. Passengers continued travel on a replacement aircraft.

[LH2]

Funnily enough, I had the same issue on a Spanair flight last week. They bused the pax to the plane before it was ready for boarding--the pax then saw one of the engineers (whom they decided was the "captain") having a look at the nose gear bay and refused to board.

It took only a couple scaremongering idiots to delay the flight for over four hours as the company finally decided to get in a replacement aircraft (and crew). Although I thought it a bit over the top at the time, top marks to the gate agent who decided he wouldn't take any shouting at his face and called in the Guardia Civil pronto--it certainly had a soothing effect on the punters :ouch:

[CityofFlight]

I have a feeling this could be a sign of the times then. With my experiences of late crew and combined MX delays and if more PAX get wind of others' mutiny tactics, this could force the hand of carriers to shelve some of their cost cutting methods.

In the end, it's the PAX that create the paycheck...and apparently it's the PAX that can refuse the aircraft now. Very interesting.

[NotPilotAtALL]

Hi,

Wonder in how much time airlines will have to cope with wilde pax strikes? :ok:

Cheers.

[nick2007]

but do you blame them? if someone feels they are about to die a fiery death, how would you expect them to react? they're only human... there is very much a "them and us" mentality, especially with security procedures these days now that the pax rarely ever see their flight crew. this mentality is exacerbated by the reports of cabin crew refusing to let pax alight prior to the spanair incident. the pax feel trapped!

it's the responsibility of the airline to inform/instruct/reassure the pax, and if the airline fails to reassure, i'd say the pax have a right to protest.

[rubik101]

Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled.
See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide.
I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.

[Minimbah]

Rubik 101 said “Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled. See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide. I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.”

Well then, there’s a simple answer – just don’t bother with us silly passengers, just fly your nice shiny aircraft all over the place empty. I’m sure the company will still pay your wages – NOT.

Seriously, given the number of aircraft that are making holes in ground at present and the financial state of the airline industry, can you blame passengers for being a bit concerned.

Yes, I know, statistically it’s more dangerous to drive my car than fly, but statistics mean bugger all to someone who knows nothing about aircraft and suspects, rightly or wrongly, that something is wrong with HIS/HER aircraft. They do seem to forget that the crew would also like to arrive at their destination in one piece.

I must agree with nick2007 when he said “it's the responsibility of the airline to inform/instruct/reassure the pax, and if the airline fails to reassure, i'd say the pax have a right to protest.”

Rant off. Minimbah

[baftabill]

Passengers may be silly but if you were on the Spanair flight from Madrid less than a month ago and had refused to fly you would now be alive.

When it comes to the possibility of dying human beings will sometimes decide to not take a risk.

[ara01jbb]

Reminds me of something that happened a few years ago with a Bulgarian charter heading out to Varna or Bourgas from BFS. Doors didn't even close, it was just a stampede back to the gate when the passenegrs settled into the interior of a particularly tired Tu-154 :E

[gbour]

...was simply switched to another flight where it carried 130 unsuspecting passengers happily to their destination.
(Or so I guess)

[Skipness One Echo]

Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled.
See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide.
I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.

When your customers are concerned and that's the only answer you have, you deserve to go bust, simple as.

[Wirelock]

well for the passengers of the air berlin flight i can understand their concerns and in the circumstances they did the right thing by switching the a/c. also this gave mx the time to properly trouble shoot and repair the defect.

as for the spanair pax that refused to board, i'm sorry but i have no sympathy for them. if people dont want to fly spanair then they have the right to book another airline but obvious overreaction really helps nobody and proves only the ignorance of the pax that refused to get on the aircraft over something trivial

[Nightstop]

The majority of pax are scared of flying, even (especially) those who sit reading their books/newspapers during the safety demonstration. These people tend to act irrationally when faced with something they don't understand, that's why we as professionals need to reassure them whenever they perceive something to be not quite right. For example, we recently had a centre cabin emergency exit row passenger open the overwing exit deploying the escape slide (on ground) because he/she thought the aircraft was on fire....mist from the overhead louvres was entering the cabin due to high humidity, a perfectly normal phenomena but one which this savvy traveller had never seen before. This, and other situations such as an engineer topping up the engine oil with cowlings open while the pax are boarding, all deserve an explanation to the pax. Otherwise anarchy can take over and the pax become the Regulators such as in this case:=

[condorbaaz]

There are two things which are out of ones control..

1. Where and how one will be born,

and

2. Where and how one will die.

maybe one walks away from an aircraft to be knocked down by a truck...


Live Life...

[FrequentSLF]

Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled.
See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide.
I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.

Did ever pass to your mind that those silly passenger might have more qualification that you have? Might be there doctors, scientist, CEOs and just because they are not sitting in the front of the aircraft you call them silly?
That's one the reasons why they refuse to fly. Your attitude that their just another piece of freight is not helping their confidence on you and your airline being capable to do guarantee their safety.
As a frequent flier (more than 150 flights per year) the safety record of an airline is the predominant factor in defining my flight schedule.

[david1300]

txl, that's a harsh call isn't it: "Wild weekend for Germany's second largest carrier Air Berlin: Revolting passengers forced the ....."

I mean, the passengers may have been mildy unpleasant, maybe even unwashed, possibly ...? But revolting? Definition of revolting: Causing abhorrence or disgust.

OK - I know it wasn't your word, and it does have another meaning, but being a long-time Wizard of Id fan (the peasants are revolting) I couldn't resist.:O:O

:ok:

[SNS3Guppy]

Did ever pass to your mind that those silly passenger might have more qualification that you have? Might be there doctors, scientist, CEOs and just because they are not sitting in the front of the aircraft you call them silly?


I don't think anyone questions the intelligence of the passengers. Each person entering into the flight has a personal stake in the successful conclusion of the flight. After all, each person has a right to live and be safe. If the passenger feels uncomfortable or sees reason to fear for the safety of the flight, I would hope that the passenger is willing to pass this information along. I know that if I were a passenger and concerned about the safety of flight, I wouldn't take the flight...every bit as much as when acting as a pilot I won't fly if I have a concern about the safety of flight. That's reasonable.

What's not reasonable is the concept that because one is a doctor, scientist, CEO, or other representative of a particular professional vocation, one has any expertise whatsoever with respect to aviation.

[Merlyn]

They may be doctors, scientists, CEOs, whatever but they don't have more qualifications than I do in the only subject that matters - determining if the aircraft is safe to fly. I do. And yes, sometimes they are silly, sometimes nice.

I usually make the point that I have no particular reason to get to their destination and am under no pressure to do so. (Not exactly true but close enough), So I'm only going to go if it is safe to do so. I do tell them that I've been at it for 30 years, and that if I feel comfortable taking the aircraft, they can feel comfortable also.

Seems to work so far.

[sussex2]

Calling pax 'silly' and SLF does not help the matter one little bit..
What would you do in the case of a knowledgable pax informing you (via the cabin) crew that the slats/flaps were not deployed for take off - call him silly and ignore it?
The derogatory term SLF does not take into account that some of the pax could be 1/. Staff, with at least your knowledge 2/. Frequent travellers who may themselves be private pilots, or, any other combination.
You can go back to the Trident disaster at Staines to find that the slats/flaps (slats or droops in that case) and their deployment or not have caused many deaths(LH 747 at Nairobi?) - and yet it is still happening.
Complacent attitudes do not help the matter.

[TiiberiusKirk]

Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled.
See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide.
I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.
But that's your job isn't it, to fly passengers from a to b?.
They're not hitch-hikers, they pay your salery. No passengers = No Flight = No Job. Perhaps you should go fly freight only.

[Morbid]

They may be doctors, scientists, CEOs, whatever but they don't have more qualifications than I do in the only subject that matters - determining if the aircraft is safe to fly. I do. And yes, sometimes they are silly, sometimes nice.


It doesn´t matter how much you or they know if you can´t communicate your knowledge effectively.

I do wonder if the whole behind the locked door obligation is starting to remove the pilots PR skills. Building relationships with the customers used to be one of the essential elements of becoming a Captain but nowadays its a metalic voice at TO and Landing and nothing more.

[txl]

David1300, you're right, thanks for the tip. I wrote "revolting", but meant something more like "rebellious". In German, the meaning of "revoltierend" is more like "rebellious" and not "disgusting", hence the error. I'll fix that. Cheers.

[Manxman11]

And if you questioned a doctor's diagnosis he would call you silly, a scientist would pour scorn in your direction and the CEO would laugh at you for questioning his management and leadership.

The problem here is the sensationalist and uninformed reporting in the media in our 24hr news culture - the images of other accidents become etched in their memories until they associate flying with fireballs.

Buy an airline ticket and part of that contract is trusting the professionals at the front of the aircraft - if you don't like it find another means of transport.

[Manxman11]

thanks ASFKAP - thought I had caught the typo in time! Duly edited....

[Skipness One Echo]

With a Doctor I am fully capable of obtaining a second opinion without being ejected from my burning seat as the plane disintegrates around me because of something the Doctor forgot to do..........

I wholly agree that the locked cockpit has put the crew out of touch with passengers, they only seem to see them when things go wrong and the Police are called. I prefer the Swiss appraoch where the aircraft commander did the announcement in front of the passengers.He had a face you see.

[John R]

Wirelock says:

"as for the spanair pax that refused to board, i'm sorry but i have no sympathy for them. ...obvious overreaction really helps nobody and proves only the ignorance of the pax that refused to get on the aircraft over something trivial"

If you, as a professional pilot, get yourself into a situation where your passengers refuse to fly on your aircraft, perhaps you should ask yourself whether you, as the commander, have done enough to reassure them.

You talk about "ignorance of the pax" but do not stop to consider whether those commanders who can't even be bothered to address the passengers might play a role in the erosion of your authority.

I say this having flown on the day of the Madrid crash following a six hour delay and been hugely impressed to watch a superbly diplomatic easyJet captain pacify a whole aircraft of irate passengers by apologising, explaining, and finally standing at the front when they disembarked. It can be done.

[Piltdown Man]

Following (public) maintenance action and non-standard events I will do my very best at reassuring passengers that an aircraft is safe to fly. But how do you use logic to overcome irrational fear, phobias and poor logic? Some of the things I have faced are "I'm not flying in an aircraft with propellers" or "It must be broken, otherwise there wouldn't be an engineer working on it" or a simple "I'm not getting on". To date I've not had anyone get off but I've had a few not get on. But the passenger's that takes the biscuit is "I can't see what you are worried about, there's only a little bit of snow on the wings and we are already half an hour late".

PM

[The Real Slim Shady]

I'm with John R on this one.

As the environment we work in, which is, to us normal and perhaps mundane, as we experience it daily or often multiple times daily, can be frightening, or at least cause acute anxiety, to other people it falls to us to offer reassurance and explanations of the perceived unusual.

I can't say that I'm fond of visiting the dentist, but my dentist, a glider pilot, explains before he starts what he is going to do and why etc and any anxiety I have disappears, even though I still do't enjoy the experience.

If passengers, however ill informed or terminally stupid, have a perception that something is amiss, more often than not the explanation by the Captain of exactly what has happened / is happening will calm everything down.

If anyone chooses not to travel after the Captain has spoken with them, that is their prerogative, as it remains to me to get up out of the dentist's chair and walk away: as I would still have to pay for the dentist's time it is only right that the passenger who chooses not to fly in the those circumstances forfeits the cost of the ticket.

[Mshamba]

The quoted news article was a bit, well, too sensational. The acft didn't abort the takeoffrun (twice) nor did they evacuate. First they just did not takeoff as they had a wrong flaps indication, mx fixed it, they wanted to start again but as the flight was scheduled for early in the morning a flight attendant felt unwell, probably didn't eat anything meanwhile - can happen. So they didn't takeoff the second time as well. Both times the pasengers disembark normally at the gate.

Thats the rumours i heard - and far more realistic.

Of course the plane flow safe another leg with different passengers as there was nothing wrong at all.

Offtopic: I so so hate to fly those brandnew fresh out of the factory planes. They always have misindications alot. If i experienced anything in the last few weeks (RA failure and stuff like that) it was always on planes with less than 1000 hrs on the clock. Is there a special thread for this topic somewhere? ;)

[FrequentSLF]

Following (public) maintenance action and non-standard events I will do my very best at reassuring passengers that an aircraft is safe to fly. But how do you use logic to overcome irrational fear, phobias and poor logic? Some of the things I have faced are "I'm not flying in an aircraft with propellers" or "It must be broken, otherwise there wouldn't be an engineer working on it" or a simple "I'm not getting on". To date I've not had anyone get off but I've had a few not get on. But the passenger's that takes the biscuit is "I can't see what you are worried about, there's only a little bit of snow on the wings and we are already half an hour late".

Well said. :D

There will be always irrational fear, phobias and poor logic. But providing information and explaining to PAX what is going on will help to overcame such situations. Recently we had smoke in the cabin and we had to return to KUL. I could see all the flashing lights of the emergency services waiting on the airstrip. No one panicked, the cabin was very calm. The captain did inform the passenger of the situation and the cabin crew show an impeccable calm.
We landed, changed aircraft and, for my knowledge, nobody refuse to board and in less than two hours on the way again.

[Jet416]

They Should Have Replaced The Passangers Instead. All 170 Of Them.:}

[Rolling Stone]

Your quite correct, if there has been a tech delay there is always one passenger who believes they know it all and who has wound up the other passengers. I am always surprised when intelligent people tend to believe some of the drivel a stranger tells them. Then again as someone has said they are out of their normal environment and not knowing can be scary. I have always combated this by pointing out to any worried passengers that I am no braver than them and if I thought there was a problem with the aircraft I would be the first one off it. This retinal has, so far, always calmed any fears and made them see sence.

[cockney steve]

May I respectfully suggest torubic101, that "peer pressure" together with arrogance, conceit and complacency,has led to many a flight-crew taking their ignorant, trusting pax on a trip to the pearly gates.

Private transport: trust your own judgement and the honesty and integrity of your driver.

Public Transport: pay for a tightly regulated , irreproachable standard of "vehicle" staff and systems.

It isn't happening! A quick fix at the side of the road is bound to breed doubt and as a previous poster stated, It's up to a PROFESSIONAL Pilot to explain and reassure those in his care, that any "unusual" activities are, in fact, "routine"

Even the obvious line" if anything goes wrong, I "cop for it" it before you , Please be assured, I want to arrive safely,please tag along with me"

SLF, bridle when treated with contempt and my intelligence is insulted.

[twochai]

I can't say that I'm fond of visiting the dentist, but my dentist, a glider pilot, explains before he starts what he is going to do and why etc and any anxiety I have disappears, even though I still do't enjoy the experience.


While drilling out an old filling the other day, my dentist (a skilled professional practitioner and rabid pilot wannabee) spent the entire time while I was speech incapacitated recounting various and sundry, but inane, personal experiences. Aterwards he told me he hoped that his inconsequential conversation distracted me from the unpleasant things going on in my mouth. I told him I just hoped it didn't distract him from the job at hand!

Time to lighten up, folks. Next topic.......

[Wirelock]

John R says:

If you, as a professional pilot, get yourself into a situation where your passengers refuse to fly on your aircraft, perhaps you should ask yourself whether you, as the commander, have done enough to reassure them.

You talk about "ignorance of the pax" but do not stop to consider whether those commanders who can't even be bothered to address the passengers might play a role in the erosion of your authority.

i take you point, but let me clarify. firstly i am not a pilot. i am a licensed engineer. i was making a comparison between the situations mentioned at start of thread.
look John R i can understand that people are anxious when flying on a spanair aircraft but what do u expect the pilots to do... on the mic every time the slightest bump is felt during boarding.... the bump u just felt was some luggage been put on the plane... or the noise u just heard was the fuel bowser been attached to the wing... or it might get loud now that we are going to take off . silly season is here!!
so i repeat my statement... if people dont want to get on a spanair plane then dont, but please if u refuse to board because a pilot or an engineer is doing a walkaround it just shows how little you know about aviation or servicability of an aircraft.

PS if i was on the Air berlin flight mentioned for thread title i would not have stayed on the flight unless i knew what the problem was and how they fixed it!!!

[Ares]

Following (public) maintenance action and non-standard events I will do my very best at reassuring passengers that an aircraft is safe to fly. But how do you use logic to overcome irrational fear, phobias and poor logic?By providing an explanation of the what and why. People are fearful because they don't know what's going on, hence an explanation of the events would do wonders to quell fear and phobia. That is precisely one of the routes taken in cognitive behavioural therapy when it comes to aerophobia - clients are slowly familiarised with all aspects of air travel, including procedures and noises experienced in-flight. So if you want to reassure your passengers (even in the case of mild turbulence), a prompt explanation via PA would make all the difference to passengers' flight experience.

[LH2]

JohnR,

perhaps you should ask yourself whether you, as the commander, have done enough to reassure them.

I understand you are talking about the Spanair event. Well, the captain wasn't even there--we'd just been bused out to the tarmac and left in the bus for a few minutes as the cabin hadn't been readied yet.

FreqSLF,

Did ever pass to your mind that those silly passenger might have more qualification that you have?

Regardless of any academic achievements they might have had (and in this particular instance it's safe to say they didn't have any), their reaction put them squarely in the "mindless idiot who's going to make a scene" category.

Guppy,

I don't think anyone questions the intelligence of the passengers.

Oh yes, I do, as a first-hand witness. Those people who stirred the ****, and most of those who followed them were functionally illiterate. Amongst other things (apart from their use of uneducated speech) not being capable of filling out the complaint forms they were given was a bit of a giveaway. It was in fact quite telling when at one point they decided to split the passengers in two groups, those that wanted to fly and those who didn't--you could smell the grey matter imbalance from two terminals away :}

Slim,

it is only right that the passenger who chooses not to fly in the those circumstances forfeits the cost of the ticket.

Matter of fact, I travelled Ryanair on the way back. I was hoping that if a similar situation arise, apart from forfeiting their ticket they would also be charged for any delay incurred in offloading their bags. If there's anyone who will not let emotion get on the way of business that's got to be your boss MOL :E

In this regard, it is true that part of the blame should go to the airline, as they could have handled the event a lot better than just letting a couple of loud mouthed pricks take control of the situation.

[angels]

If passengers don't want to fly in a plane, that's up to them.

Dump them. They lose their money. They were offered a seat and declined it. Sod 'em. If necessary fly the plane empty to the destination, there are pax there who want to go to the aircraft's next destination.

If the pilot is happy to be on the plane I'm happy to be on it. I always assume the pilot wants to return to his home that night alive and well.

[x213a]

Reductio ad absurdum.

[FrequentSLF]

LH2

Regardless of any academic achievements they might have had (and in this particular instance it's safe to say they didn't have any), their reaction put them squarely in the "mindless idiot who's going to make a scene" category.

I was not specifically referring to the Air Berlin case. I do not have sufficient info to speak about the specific situation. I am arguing that there are no silly passengers, you might call their actions silly.
My point is that has become more and more a common place to define the PAX idiots, silly, or anything else. For a group of people seems that all the PAX combined will never have the intelligence of the guys in front. IMHO that is the issue: give credit to the PAX and treat them as intelligent, not as just piece of self loading freight without brain

AN

[Coquelet]

I agree with "angels" : if the aircraft seems good to the pilots, it's good for me - I trust them.

[txl]

The quoted news article was a bit, well, too sensational. The acft didn't abort the takeoffrun (twice) nor did they evacuate. First they just did not takeoff as they had a wrong flaps indication, mx fixed it, they wanted to start again but as the flight was scheduled for early in the morning a flight attendant felt unwell, probably didn't eat anything meanwhile - can happen. So they didn't takeoff the second time as well. Both times the pasengers disembark normally at the gate.

Thats the rumours i heard - and far more realistic. Well, I can't see where this differs from my account. And being a journalist and just as sensitive when it comes to criticizing my trade as other professionals ;), I feel that "sensationalist media" is a call made too easily sometimes. I'll admit that "disembarked" would have been a better choice than "evacuation" though, my bad.

This incident (not meaning the "accident" type of "incident" here) shows how sensitive passengers can react to news of serious aircraft accidents. That's why I posted it here. Being sensationalist or not, reports of the accidents at Madrid and Perm scare passengers. These concerns, legitimate or not, should be taken seriously by airlines and personnel, because customers' trust is one of the cornerstones of the industry.

I think it's quite remarkable that the airline addressed the passengers' concerns like they did and flew in a replacement aircraft, this surely didn't come cheap. Maybe it was for PR reasons, well handled then. On the other hand, from a PR perspective I don't understand why a spokesperson would go on the record saying passengers were panicky and over-reacting (even though this might be just so).

Just to be clear: I'm with you in criticizing how some media types handle accidents and how sloppy the reporting is. That's a core issue with journalism these days. And I understand the frustration of crew members here when they read reports by some hacks who can't tell a copter from a glider even if it hits them. But what also permeates this forum is a deep misconception of how media works in a 24/7 connected world.

Daily news is a fierce business, and media outlets are under pressure just as your airline employers. Competition and dwindling revenues force companies to make adjustments. Let's hope that with airlines, the need to save a penny here and there doesn't affect safety. In my trade, the economic pressure is already gnawing on our core assets: it kills accuracy and reliability.

[p7lot]

How many lives have been saved by refusing to board??? how many disasters averted by second guessing the filghtdeck????
Whilst I am aware the passengers are responsible for the boss being able to pay my wages, it is not always possible to inform the cabin of events as the workload increases expedientially if the problem is unusual or sudden.(misconfig, windshear, tcas, etc).
We try hard to be visual to the pax, often issuing relevant pa to assure and explain certain events but there is a limit in practical terms.
It is my job to fly the aircraft.....it is the pax job to allow us to do it in a competant and professional manner.

[Airbus_a321]

well said, txl.

[Rananim]

Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled.See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide.I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.

One of the most irresponsible comments I've ever seen.You,as skipper,do your damndest to explain the problem,diffuse the tension,and convince them its safe.If they still want to get off,that is their prerogative.

[xplorer]

:eek: Call me a chicken and i dont mean to sound supersticious, but i wouldn't wait for the third sign to get off that aircraft!!

[Icare9]

As SLF, and a fairly relaxed one, I have to admit that if I was on an aircraft that had 2 aborted take-offs, I would seriously question whether "third time lucky" would apply. I would be strongly inclined not to re-board for the 3rd attempt.
I also write with the benefit of the hindsight that the wing flaps were not correctly set on the Spanair Madrid flight. The indicator light on the flight deck appears not to have worked. If I was on an aircraft that had 2 aborts, then my feelings would be: "2 strikes, is there a message here for me???? ... hmmmm OK, now I'M out of here".
The Air Berlin passengers were predominantly German I assume, and we all know how firmly they can stand their ground, especially in a group.
I think Rubik101 made a needless comment, I don't have less faith in the crew, just less faith in the aircraft, maintenance and perhaps management and other pressures inducing flight crew to continue, rather than call up another aircraft to allow more in-depth examination as to why a fault (that appeared to have been repaired) may have recurred. Surely as a pilot, would you be concerned about a fault (serious enough to cause an abort) recurred after you had been informed that it was fixed??? You may have sublime faith in your skills, but do the rest of the team have the same capabilities??

[jackharr]

Allegedly a true story from way back that is worth repeating. (details might not be quite accurate, but near enough.)

Pilot (DB) night stopped away from base having flown a fixed-undercarriage DH Heron. He was due to be positioned home next morning as passenger in a "shiny" new Fokker F27 Friendship. DB stayed in the same hotel as the F27 crew. Apparently, the F27 crew took the Mickey out of DB all evening about his old fashioned aircraft, fixed undercarriage, etc, etc.

Next morning, during the taxi out, DB (sitting under the wings) noticed that the undercarriage locks were still fitted. He left it for a while until the holding point, when he summoned the stewardess and said that it would be a good idea if you "hand this note to the pilot".

Jack

[Wirelock]

Icare9 says
I also write with the benefit of the hindsight that the wing flaps were not correctly set on the Spanair Madrid flight. The indicator light on the flight deck appears not to have worked. If I was on an aircraft that had 2 aborts, then my feelings would be: "2 strikes, is there a message here for me???? ... hmmmm OK, now I'M out of here".
The Air Berlin passengers were predominantly German I assume, and we all know how firmly they can stand their ground, especially in a group.
I think Rubik101 made a needless comment, I don't have less faith in the crew, just less faith in the aircraft, maintenance and perhaps management and other pressures inducing flight crew to continue, rather than call up another aircraft to allow more in-depth examination as to why a fault (that appeared to have been repaired) may have recurred. Surely as a pilot, would you be concerned about a fault (serious enough to cause an abort) recurred after you had been informed that it was fixed??? You may have sublime faith in your skills, but do the rest of the team have the same capabilities??

Icare9, i'm sorry but this post is misinformed to say the least.
firstly... the design of the aircraft is the thing that prevents most accidents. once the human element is added thats where the trouble begins.
secondly no maintenance engineer would knowingly sign for release of an aircraft that was not fit to fly. believe it or not a maintenance engineer know more about an aircraft than any pilot(flying on the other hand is for pilots).
thirdly...there is a HUGE difference between an 'aborted takeoff' and a 'return to stand'.

[DingerX]

And if you questioned a doctor's diagnosis he would call you silly, a scientist would pour scorn in your direction and the CEO would laugh at you for questioning his management and leadership.

And I would find another doctor, never trust anything from that scientist and invest in a competing company. All three of those jobs are based not on authority, but on the ability to reason from knowledge and experience. And in all three positions, the ability to communicate to non-specialists is critical too success: doctors with bad bedside manner, no matter how good, don't go very far; scientists who can't write a grant application or teach students will end up in private industry as slaves to management; CEOs who can't convince shareholders or employees of the direction to take the company will end up running an airline.

But I do wonder how much of this happens because we're talking about an airline, a route and a price that are all specialized for holiday-makers. Many of the passengers are not going to be frequent fliers, and in "holiday mode", they're likely to exhibit a wider range of behavior. As such, they probably have no idea of what a horrid pain in the ass cancellation or a change in equipment entails.
Oh yeah, and if the flight attendants are passing out because the airline doesn't maintain them properly, you have to wonder about all the non-sentient parts on the aircraft that we're entrusting our lives to.

[John R]

Wirelock - I take you point and agree entirely that it is obviously not possible to explain everything that seems untoward.

The only point I am trying to make is that it is the responsibility of the commander to manage the aircraft, and that unfortunately involves people management in these kinds of situations. Some pilots are better at it than others. The easyJet captain I referred to earlier was pretty skilled at it.

If passengers get into a frenzy on the bus, well then that is their problem. But if these incidents spiral out of control on board, the person who carries the can is the captain. The views of some supposedly professional pilots here demonstrate that they are shirking part of their responsibility.

[Wirelock]

agree 100%
when i am flying as a pax , i always think that its nice or calming to hear the voice from the flight deck, just to let every1 know that the flight is going fine.
if there is a problem with pax for some reason , then i think the communication between the cabin and flight deck is important to inform the flight crew of the status. after that it all up to the guy/gal in the left hand seat to sort it all out

[Tigger_Too]

I would not label a passenger who does not wish to fly as 'silly', but I would label them as 'irresponsible' and 'selfish' if they cause a departure to be delayed or cancelled for no other reason than that they do not understand what is happening. Book an airline ticket and you accept the risks and responsibilities that are inherent in air travel (which are far fewer than almost any other form of transportation).

If you are suitably qualified or experienced, and you observe something that you reasonably assume to be a risk to the saftey of the flight, and you bring that to the attention of the crew, then fine. If you act irrationally despite having been given reasonable assurances from the crew that a problem has been resolved, then not fine!

By such actions, you are not only inconveniencing the rest of the passengers on your aircraft who are prepared to accept the professional advice of their crew, but probably several hundred others who will suffer delays or cancellations as a result of your actions. Do this too often, and you are placing at risk the financial viability of the airline, and therefore the jobs of ite employees.

Don't believe that airline survivability is that fragile? Read the papers.

Think very carefully before you book an airline ticket.

[Taildragger67]

I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.

Smartest man I ever met (if measured by his numerous scientific degrees, foremost amongst which was a Ph.D in mathematics) flew very frequently and then suddenly decided 'no more'. He loved being on aircraft but during one flight, his highly-developed mathematics informed him that statistically, it was about time he was involved in a major incident.

So this man's smarts (in the form of pure statistically-based logic), not silliness, grounded him.

[A330-300]

There is, no doubt, truth to both points. However, calling passengers "silly", particular of this AB Flight, is not quite right. Given the circumstances we are in with all the bad publicity, I can totally understand their reaction and even through the flight-crew was, as i would expect nothing else from an AB-Crew, totally professional in aborting both TOs. (However no applaus here, everyone professional should do so and would) And even through it now appears the aircraft was fit to fly, just imagine your family sitting in there...Now you wife is totally shaken up, because of all the accidents that happened and then you abort two TO, (by the way I'm not sure they made it to the RWY...did they?) I would assume even the flightcrew would have some understanding of the situation. I would definetely tell my wife to get out. ...even throught I do trust other pilots, I would be highly worried. Then again, most passengers, as was mentioned before, are at least a little bit nervous boarding a plane.

I just remember two years back travelling from Newark to Detroit as SLF...on a DC 9-30 (I believe it was, don't quite remember), plane full of Business-People (most of whom don't care anyway) on their way back to DTW...the right engine did make such enourmous noises, i thought the aircraft was going bust. Having flown on DC 9 before, I was quite disturbed, however trusted the Crew, as we were already airborne. But then again most SLF wouldn't even now, that we would make it with one engine shut down...not even thinking about a total failure for whatever reason. Now if that would happen out of LHR or TXL tomorrow and prior to take-off .... one can only imagine...I would assume passengers would crash into the cockpit to force the pilot to bring them back to the gate. Highly critical such behaviour as well.:uhoh: By the way, we changed aircraft, i was supposed to go on with this a/c but were delayed until they found another one and crew.

Now imagine you sitting in such an A/c prior to TO, enourmous abnormal noises, wouldn't you think twice if somebody would ask you: " Go with this aircraft, or back to the gate?"...now If you say " GO " ...and everything works out fine, you of course would tell everyone..."this scared lil. xxxxx were so afraid, they almost had the flight delayed" ... BUT if it doesn't and somebody would ask you afterwards (of course that is probably impossible) you would, I assume tell them, that it was the best decision of your life not to fly with this a/c. Now again hypothetical, if only some left the aircraft, those who did and survived could tell (of course that would be outrageus in such a situation, and it is impossible I know) those who died "I told you". So don't get me wrong I'm against overreaction passengers, however applying common sense i do think the passengers point especially in the AB-case was understandable.

So I believe even through passengers shouldn't interfere with the flightdeck...everyone of us, being responsible, should care as much, as either calming them down or at least do have some sympathy. Calling them "silly" doesn't help.

Best Regards

[HeadingSouth]

my dear I flew once frm LAX to AMS after two aborted takeoffs. Quite funny actually, Pilot telling us the reasons...
MD11 - first abort due to insufficient tire pressure on the "helpy" wheel (RLG I assume, Rear Landing Gear ?)
second attempt failed due to speedometer malfunction - back to the gate for the 2nd time.
third attempt went fine though there were some shaky moments at lift-off. Few minutes later captain came on the PA and mentioned that this time all was well and we're set to reach AMS...

Important: Sympathetic appearance of captain with grey hair and full uniform helped a lot in terms of credibility. Would there have been some 2x years old FO it wouldn't have had the same authority...

I assume that - tongue in cheek - "Zis erplen WILL fly !! _I_ am ze kepten end I nou assuur yu zet we ar going to lift off _zis_ time" in a barky tone of voice won't really reassure the passengers...

[tonyc]

I flew down to CAG with XL (XLA564 I think) two weeks ago and the pre-flight announcement from the Pilot was not only very funny and self deprecating, but had the added bonus of getting everyone's attention and getting his main points across to the passengers. This had the desired effect of relaxing everyone :ok:

[PAXboy]

We have seen this kind of reaction before. Each time there is a series of incidents and accidents close together, Pax react like this. That does not diminish their fears but means that SOP announcements and procedures need to be 'softened' or adapted, rather than just following the book.

My guess is that, as some FC here have said, reminding the Pax that you also want to get home safely tonight is part of the key. Standard announcement (say): "Safety is our first concern and we want to ensure that you reach your destination, relaxed and happy." adapted: "Safety is our first concern and I want to ensure that we all reach our destination, relaxed and happy."

No, they don't understand and Yes they have seen scary news stories. Even 15 years ago, we did not have hand held colour news cameras on the scene of a prang within minutes. Now we have cell phone footage that is so poor you really cannot make out what is happening - but it looks bad. There is no accurate commentary to give guidance and all the news media want is to get the pictures out there first before anyone else. The situation facing news staff was well stated earlier in this thread.

Adapt your contact with the Pax until they have calmed down - or decided to leave the a/c. A carrier may find it cheaper to change the a/c and crews - even when there is no need - than to fix the PR nightmare of:
We couldn't take off twice and then they forced me to stay onboard and I was terrified the whole time.
Did you reach your destination safely?
Yes - but I will never fly XYZ again.

Logic has nothing to do with it.

[sussex2]

And what is it that assumption makes out of everyone? You have a valid point but I think public suspicion is beginnning to come to a head...I give you an example: 2pence of a UK pound for a return trip from LGW to DUB...where is there any possible logic in that? It simply cannot be the case.
I reckon that the longer we hang on to the cheap fairs thing, the worse things will get.
The trouble is that safety is actually far, far better now than under the more expensive fares rules. In fact so much better that the facts hardly bare comparison.
Whence from here? as they say in Shakespeare!

[carbis22]

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your views or questions here? Many of us pilots like to know exactly what you think of us, the job, the airline or anything that you think we should hear about


Actually this would not seem the case, in reality you are not allowed to post what you like, on this particular thread you are not allowed to be an SLF or have an opinion or view, or for that matter on any site....

Why would any un brain damaged person wish to expose themselves to such risks??
I would too, remove myself from that situation, and think good on the gerry's for once for standing up for their rights, guess the pilots of the doomed spanair, and aeroflot ect, ect thought the same, but where did they end up? in a burning wreck of mangled steel, so good on em for getting to their deStination alive...

Whats the matter with all, they may have just saved one of your own lives., cause for sure management would not make that call without the SLF intervention, so be god damm gratefull for once.

[SNS3Guppy]

Oh yes, I do, as a first-hand witness. Those people who stirred the ****, and most of those who followed them were functionally illiterate. Amongst other things (apart from their use of uneducated speech) not being capable of filling out the complaint forms they were given was a bit of a giveaway. It was in fact quite telling when at one point they decided to split the passengers in two groups, those that wanted to fly and those who didn't--you could smell the grey matter imbalance from two terminals away


Got it...you were personally involved in this incident, then.

And you're questioning the intelligence of the passengers.

That's really irrelevant with respect to the passengers right to make decisions regarding their own safety. A passenger isn't required to take an IQ test any more than a pilot is...and I've met some fairly dense pilots in my time. Nor should either group be required to do so. Nor is that any criteria for determining what one is willing to personally accept.

You cite literacy as if it has some bearing, in any way, shape, or form, to the right or even ability to make a personal decision with regard to one's own safety. How can this be?

[TightSlot]

Please try and keep this on the rails. There is clearly merit on all sides of the discussion - it would be more productive to try and find common ground and points from which we can all learn. You'll come unstuck if you try to claim that you have 100% of the available merit.

[A330-300]

@Tonyc: Would you mind telling us what he or she said? Just Curious. I'm going to take notes :)..promise.

I agree with all the others, that it can calm passengers down, when the Captain speaks to them...however I'm always puzzled when people think the FO or as some still call it "Co-Pilot" can't do the job. (besides giving the captain his coffee :}) But i suppose that is a lil bit off-topic.

[frequentflyer2]

Not all passengers are unduly alarmed by technical hitches. We were flying back to BHD from LBA last Sunday evening. Right in front of the windows of the food village at the gates was a Jet 2 757 - Jet 2 Tenerife if my memory serves me rightly - with the covers off one of its engines which was being examined by engineers. Eventually the flight and cabin crew due to operate the already very delayed Paphos flight left the aircraft and were taken away in a minibus. The uncovered engine was then turned on and run up to what I assume was full power by engineers in the cockpit. Eventually, it was turned off, the engine covers were put back on and the flight and cabin crew returned. All it would seem was well. The first announcement calling passengers to the gate was greeted by loud cheers and the SLF made their way to that aircraft as quickly as possible.

[seang]

Well, what an eye opener this little thread has been. There I was thinking I was a decent sort of bloke forking out a lot of cash to fly with various airlines quite a few times a year and having a bit of a crack with the staff on board, when in fact all along I have been a "silly, ignorant and idiotic SLF" pain in the arse for all you cabin crew and pilots beacause I might have been a little bit worried about something that may make the aircraft crash. Silly me. I am so sorry to have troubled you all by boarding the plane in the first place, please accept my apologies for inconveniencing you in any way. As for this mad assumption that we should all be reassured that the plane will arrive safely because all you pilots and cc wouldn't fly on it otherwise, well, what can I say?

[FrequentSLF]

IMHO it is disturbing that some pilots (actually a number of them) consider the PAX idiotic, silly, etc. I am not saying that all have this kind of attitude, but many comments in this thread have mentioned those words.
We should understand the reason of that! This is the IMHO the major issue. PAX generally trust the pilots, pilots not always trust the PAX. Why?

[LH2]

Guppy,

Got it...you were personally involved in this incident, then

Yes, I was travelling on that flight and was a witness to the pathetic scene that developed.

And you're questioning the intelligence of the passengers.

Not at all. Their lack thereof was completely beyond question.

And btw I am talking about certain passengers, not the heterogeneous group as a whole, as would be clear if people actually bothered to pay attention to what they read (if nothing else, as a courtesy if they intend to respond to it, else we're all wasting our time here.)

That [intelligence?] is really irrelevant with respect to the passengers right to make decisions regarding their own safety.

Is it? That's an interesting postulate indeed.

You cite literacy as if it has some bearing, [....] with regard to one's own safety. How can this be?

That, I trust, you are more than capable of answering for yourself.

I am terribly sorry but I really do not have time for all that PC rubbish. One thing is people with genuine cognitive disabilities, but idiocy in the form of a lack of interest in achieving a certain degree of education or discernment is not excusable much less acceptable.

...and for the sake of completeness while we're at it, did I mention those pax refusing to travel were all low-class and ugly? (hey, I'm just making an observation here, not drawing any inferences :E -- Also, any suggestion of me being sour for having been pointlessly delayed for four hours is mere speculation)

[SNS3Guppy]

That, I trust, you are more than capable of answering for yourself.

I am terribly sorry but I really do not have time for all that PC rubbish. One thing is people with genuine cognitive disabilities, but idiocy in the form of a lack of interest in achieving a certain degree of education or discernment is not excusable much less acceptable.

...and for the sake of completeness while we're at it, did I mention those pax refusing to travel were all low-class and ugly? (hey, I'm just making an observation here, not drawing any inferences -- Also, any suggestion of me being sour for having been pointlessly delayed for four hours is mere speculation)


I can't answer it for myself...I lack the basic qualifications to do so: your arrogance, I'm not illiterate, and I'm not prejudiced against those who are.

Perhaps your post belongs in the arrogant posters thread as a glaring example of ego, and proof that one's nose can indeed be so high in the air that it's snowing on one's brain. Do you look down on everyone like this, or pick and choose your victims?

You do realize that when a flight departs, everyone on board, regardless of their intelligence, sex, color, education, background training, religion, health, literary skills, upbringing, heritage, or personal habit, has the same stake in the safe outcome of the flight, right?

No, absolutely not...a less intelligent person does NOT have less right to decide his or her fate. If one feels unsafe, one has every right to speak out. Your assertion that those you feel are lesser than yourself don't have such a right is ridiculous and yes, wrong.

If I crash an airplane, I'm the first one to the scene of the crash. However, everyone else behind me arrives very shortly thereafter. I have the full capability at any time of accepting or rejecting the airplane, the approach, the clearance, the fuel load, you name it...as a pilot I can make many decisions on behalf of the company, the passengers, etc. The passengers place their faith in my ability to do that. They place their faith in my ability to operate the airplane safely. They place their faith in the company's ability to maintain the airplane safely.

If that faith is misplaced, or if they have a reason to believe it is, then the passenger has every right, and every responsibility, to speak out.

In flight, the airplane belongs to the pilot. On the ground, this is not so. It's quite one thing for a passenger to demand a change in destination or a return to the gate after takeoff; at this point the pilot is making the decisions and operates in a manner most conducive to the safety of flight. It's another matter for a passenger in the comfort of the gate, before the airpalne is underway, to make a safety decision of his or her own. Even an ill-informed one. If the passenger isn't comfortable taking the flight, then the passenger shouldn't take the flight.

The level of reading ability of the passenger plays no part in this. None. To suggest otherwise is so blatently conceited that it gives one pause. Clearly you believe you're a better person than these passengers; a pathetic view. Such condecension and haughty arrogance only makes you appear small. Peel back your pride, and you may find you're no better than they are...and without doubt you'll find, if you can see beyond the tip of your nose with that near-sighted view on humanity, that they have every bit as much right to speak for themselves, to act for themselves, and to act in their best interest as you.

I am truly disgusted by your comments, and no, I care not a whit about political correctness.

[FrequentSLF]

If the passenger isn't comfortable taking the flight, then the passenger shouldn't take the flight.\

I am with you on this.:D

Such passenger might panic in flight and create a serious safety issue

[Mshamba]

What was the topic again?