Interesting input from all sides here. For the record, I think it would be fair to say that I am a company man. Sure, I am a pilot but I find myself defending the company more often these days when talking to pilots than the other way around. So I really wouldn't say I am interested in doing this just to save jobs. I am well aware that the company requires efficiency and bums on seats so that I and others might still have a job (I'm also a shareholder!). I am also very aware though that there needs to be rational thinking in the way we operate and unfortunately we are occasionally faced with decisions that are poorly thought out.
One thing I forgot to mention in the initial post, when mock evacuations of the Dash 8 300 were undertaken with CASA watching for type certification, the first attempt failed. Bear in mind this was with 2 flight attendants. It was either 2 or 3 attempts that were allowed (I can't remember exactly), and it was only on the last attempt that passengers were successfully evacuated through the correct exit. The problem was very simply passenger control. Even though there was fire at one exit, a passenger opened the exit because the flight attendant couldn't adequately monitor everyone's actions all at once and stop people where necessary. I have a hard time believing it could be successfully done with one flight attendant, but if it could be done safely and repeatedly by average flight attendants then subject to further analysis of other emergency scenarios, I would have to say I am for it. I just can't see it though.
Of course this is just the Dash, and there may be other aircraft types that would fare much better in this scenario, in which case I would love to hear about it.
For the record also, I believe that whilst our company may be interested in 1:50 getting up, they are not presently interested in its application on a regular basis. I believe they are keen to continue with 1:36 but have the option to use 1:50 in exceptional circumstances. I haven't had that from the horses mouth though...
Evilc, fair point. I want my job to be tenable, but as the person responsible for the safety of all on board, I want to be able to get everyone off in a real evacuation, and I want to be able to get a fire out quickly. They are the 2 scenarios that bother me most and I worry that 1:50 will not allow that to happen, particularly on my aircraft. Sure 1:50 is the way things are done elsewhere in the world but having travelled fairly extensively I am actually far happier to be operating in Australia, from this perspective anyway. I will never forget being on an Airbus in Europe once. Probably only about half full, but before the aircraft even pushed back there were passengers from up the front coming down the back to claim the empty seats so the trim would have been completely different for takeoff to what was on the load sheet. I was looking at the flight attendants waiting for them to do something but they couldn't have cared less. Then I actually approached them, and still they showed no interest. Amazing. And this was a Oneworld alliance airline too; we're not talking some dodgy airline here.
Tailwheel, good question and I am afraid I don't know the answer. I've just had a look at the Dash 8 type data sheet on the FAA website but I couldn't see it. I'm a bit of an amateur in that department I'm afraid. The proposed rule actually says that 1:50 will not be allowed if the original type certification was based on less than 1:50. I presume they're talking about original type certification via the FAA (more research needed). But perhaps that means operators might seek to re-certify the aircraft on this basis? I kind of doubt it.