It is only in places like the North Sea where the operators think they know better
that no cabin attendant is carried.
SM, do you honestly think that a cabin attendant would have made any difference in the historical accidents/crashes?
Is the issue not that there is sometimes insufficient robustness in the A/C's mechanical components, either due to a compromise on acceptable limits and/or design flaws?
Nothing is perfect, to believe so is false, so is putting faith in effectively another PAX who will have no effective control in the event of a MR/TR failure.
PAX are trained to evacuate the A/C in the event of a ditching/capsize, that's only ones of a few areas that require improvement IMO.
All 491 crew and PAX were unconscious from impact, so even a cabin attendant would have been in the same unfortunate situation.
These A/C are designed to stay in the air and thankfully most of the time they do. Placing a cabin attendant and/or mechanic in the rear smacks of other inadequecies. PAX and crew should have 100% confidence in the A/C and the maintenance/condition monitoring system, negating the need for another set of "condition monitoring eyes" or a morale booster to PAX.
We have made some progress, but until the mechanical design issues and pro-active maintenance procedures are properly addressed/implemented and all 16 recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry are actioned we are no further forward apart from self-awareness by all involved.
Regarding reliability of A/C types in general I've just returned from offshore Malaysia where numerous A/C types are in use by MHS and Westar. It's worth noting that Westar were brought in partially due to the poor accident record of MHS with 3 AS332 accidents and one S61 (see extract below from Malaysian Wings).
"QUOTE
“Since its operation in 1981 in Miri, MHS has been providing excellent service. It only encountered one major accident off Bintulu in Jan 29 last year which resulted in just one death,” he said when met yesterday.
I personally find the phrase "just one death" somewhat disturbing and insulting to the family of the deceased! MHS have lost the work because they actually had 4 major accidents in a very short period of time. One involved an S61 helicopter just after take off from Kerteh (May 2005). Another involved AS332L2 9M-SPA being flown into the water on a flight from Kerteh (Nov 2006). On services from Miri they had two ditchings with Super Pumas with "just one death", AS332L 9M-STT (Jun 2005) and AS332L2 9M-STR (Jan 2007). The customers in Miri lost faith in their services and brought in CHC to take over.
As mentioned previously CHC have now set up a Malaysian Company with local businessmen called Awan Inspirasi Sdn Bhd."
IMO the above is an excellent example of where you cannot just blame the A/C type. I believe that's what commissioner Wells was implying in his report.
Safe flying
Max