QF - 737 door arming?

[Jackbr]

Is it actually a requirement that Cabin Crew kneel down to arm the doors on the 737? I always thought it was, and have always seen it done this way when I have been able to see the doors from my seat on QF and DJ 737s, however flying from MEL-SYD yesterday from my seat in J I saw a more senior looking Flight Attendant (therefore I assume she certainly knows what she's doing) essentially stomp the girt bar into place with her feet? It looked a bit odd to me!

Is this normal?

[S70IP]

Ahhhh no that's not normal.

[Servo]

Unusual, you have to lift it up and out from retention brackets and down into the girt bar. Last time I looked in the manual, no feet. :}

[aussie027]

Hmmmm, may be she can't bend over or maybe she is very dexterous with her feet.:E:E

[cone zone]

maybe she was dispatching a cockroach!!

[The Green Goblin]

Or she was hallucinating that Joyce was standing there (after years of workplace stress)

Sums it up really.

[airsupport]

The ONLY possible thing I can think of is are you SURE that she was the one actually arming the door (slide)?

Is it possible that it was already armed by another Flight Attendant and she was only cross checking it?

[VH-XXX]

Ahhhhhh Cross "checking" .... I thought they say cross "dressing"... That makes more sense now. ;);)

(tipping that 90% of thea male crew probably wouldn't mind the first bit)

[Jackbr]

Qantas doesn't crosscheck.

[Yeti Breath]

Qantas does cross check, they just don't say it in the PA.

[Jackbr]

Qantas used to cross check. Deleted from their operating procedures some years ago. JQ also deleted the cross check from theirs more recently.

[airsupport]

Qantas doesn't crosscheck.

I have never ever seen any Airline NOT do it, they may not announce it or even say it out loud, but they all do it.

PLEASE tell me safety at Qantas hasn't sunk to that level. :eek:

[Boomerang_Butt]

1. Yes kneeling to insert/remove the girt bar is SOP, however, there are *some* crew who choose to do it the way you've described. Whether or not this is what you saw, I cannot say, but yes- I have seen it and yes it is against QF's policy. If caught a CC is likely to get sent back to EP training.

2. Crosschecking has been deemed not necessary, as Qantas feel that cabin crew should be adult enough to take responsibility for their own door. I believe that in the past, some crew got lazy/complacent about dis/arming doors properly because they figured the other crew 'would catch it' during the cross check. As I was told during initial training, when they removed the cross-checking procedure, in conjuction with door opening being (mostly) done from the outside, the rate of inadvertent slide deployments fell dramatically (they do seem to have less than other airlines in Oz over the last few years- whether this is due to aircraft type I couldn't tell you....)

[Keg]

It would be at least half a decade since QF crew have been told to cross check the door. Part of the reason was to make one person responsible for the door. And yes, our rate of slide deployments has dropped. I disagreed with it at the time but you can't argue with the results.

[Jackbr]

Does anyone know exactly how long ago the cross-check was removed from their SOPs? I recall reading a post on this forum that said it was 20 years ago, however this seems a little long to me.

[Keg]

I've been in QF for 16 years so it's been since then. I can guarantee that it was more than five years ago.

[Yeti Breath]

I stand corrected, I've been out of the Qantas system for about 4 years now and I'm pretty sure they were still x checking then...... I may be wrong though.

[mustafagander]

As far as I remember, the removal of the "cross check" requirement on door arm/disarm was also driven by the idea of making the primary responsible for the door through which s/he would evacuate. A great motivator I would think, cock it up and it might get ugly for YOU personally if things go bad.

[airsupport]

As far as I remember, the removal of the "cross check" requirement on door arm/disarm was also driven by the idea of making the primary responsible for the door through which s/he would evacuate. A great motivator I would think, cock it up and it might get ugly for YOU personally if things go bad.

Yes a great motivator no doubt, however does anyone really think motivating your Employees is more important than the safety of the passengers, surely NOT. :eek:

[Jackbr]

Well, it clearly worked for them.

[airsupport]

Well, it clearly worked for them.

Okay IF it has worked for them, or maybe they have just been lucky.

So how many real actual emergency evacuations have they had since this was introduced?

And they all went perfectly?

Just seems to me to be a reduction in safety standards without even gaining any cost saving or anything, the same number of cabin Crew are on board (are they not?) so why not use them as before?

What next, why bother with all the cockpit checks, make one Pilot do them on his/her own so they will do them properly. :rolleyes:

What about Engineering, why insist on two LAMEs checking any work on primary flight controls, just use one to make him/her do it properly. :rolleyes:

[VH-XXX]

I flew in a QF 767 on Friday, Syd - Mel.

Cabin Crew CROSS-CHECK was clearly heard over the PA system when we exited the runway in Melbourne.

[Keg]

The PA made when exiting the runway is by the CSM who normally says something like:

Welcome to Melbourne where the local time is (whatever)....

At various times in the subsequent PA you'll be asked a few times to 'check' various things- over head lockers, seat pockets, for belongings, loose items, small children, etc. Sure it wasn't this you heard with reference to the word 'check'? There is nothing to cross check when exiting the runway and certainly no PAs from the flight deck as part of SOPs.

[VH-XXX]

Exited the runway was a little loose in my wording sorry, closer to the terminal. It was definitely Cross-Check. I always think to myself "cabin crew cross dress" (which no doubt some of them would enjoy). I was specifically listening out for it after I had been reading this thread. Also, this was a 76 versus 73 if that makes any difference in the SOP's.