Pondlife

[LONGBOW1]

heard today a passenger on a monarch flight into man last night was arrested after disembarking the aircraft, police found a number of lifejackets in his/her bag that the moron had stolen from the aircraft ,what sort of person steals life saving emergency equipment from an aircraft? hope they throw the book at him/her

[JW411]

Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing new about this. I can remember in 1980, just after I'd got my command with Laker on the DC-10, we arrived in LAX a little bit behind schedule.

The outbound crew got on very quickly to try and make up time. The girls quickly spotted that 6 LJs were missing. The guy was caught in Customs.

He thought that they would "really neat" on his boat in Marina del Rey!

[apaddyinuk]

You should try having a plane load of italian students on exchange, they rob the lifejackets, seatbelts and even seat covers!!!

[6_DoF]

These sort of PAX should be banned from air travel for the rest of their lives

[apaddyinuk]

6_Dof,
They arent even banning passenger for life who assault crew let alone ones who take off safety equipment, and if they tried the passengers would simply get off citing they have a fear of flying and they would feel safer if they had a lifejacket on their person!

[6_DoF]

Then even more of a reason for them to be banned. Get a boat lossers.

In the UK if you miss behave in a pub you get put on "Pub Watch" effectively banning you from all local pubs. If you cause trouble at a football match you can be bared from all international travel around a major football match. It would not be impossible to create a system within airlines where these people who have no regard for anyones saftey on board an aircraft, not to be granted a ticket. It does not require courts to set this up just inter airline agreement. I would like to see anybody try to challenge this in a humanitarian court of human rights.

[apaddyinuk]

Well unfortunately this is just not the case when it comes to air travel. I work for a major british carrier and although we do have a "book" of banned passengers, they still regularly manage to board our flights without being recognised. And not enough airlines share their lists!
As for the justice system in the uk, it seems to me that the hype of 9/11 is well and truly dead as judges dont seem to be strict enough with abusive passengers! A crewmember I flew with recently told me how he had to go to court following a violent assault but a passenger in which the crewmembers nose was broken. The judge in Crawley or Horley, whereever it is,gave the man a £52 fine and had to write an apology to the airline...not even the crew member!!!! Thats Britain for you!!!

[6_DoF]

Oscarh,

Guess you have not much knowledge of air incidents involving ditching in water. If you do your research and yes it is rare however survival rate is extremely good.

[Kapt. Ive]

You should try having a plane load of italian students on exchange, they rob the lifejackets, seatbelts and even seat covers!!!

Is that because they're Italian, or is it because they're students..? :}

[6_DoF]

It does not matter who they are just get them of planes. English sportstars have also been involved in bad behaviour on board aircraft unless you send out a clear message that this is not acceptable then the problem will just get worse.

Paddy,

Totally agree, its a sad state of affairs, I witnessed an air rage case in 2000 from a PAX point of view and believe me my heart started to thump alot harder. He was complaining his ears were hurting however it was clear to everyone that he was intoxicated. No reason to take it out on the crew. They had a hard time restraining him and he manged to get free and finally settled down. he was arrested at LHR but not sure what happened to him. This day and age and the cases are mounting Airlines should take matters on to themselves for interairline agreements not to permit these PAX on air travel again. Come on we have technology and these people are few. Make examples of them and people will think twice about trying it.

[Engineer]

oscarh

It is a mandatory requirement for flights over water.

But you do have a valid point about the liferafts they are not much use if the aircraft ditching breaks up on hitting the water such as the B-767-200ER Off Moroni Comoros Islands but the 57 survivors must have been grateful for the life jackets they were wearing :eek:

[6_DoF]

http://www.rescue007.org/ditchings.htm

Hope never anybody has to go through with it but I personally would like to know there was a life jacket available just incase.

[sinala1]

but the 57 survivors must have been grateful for the life jackets they were wearing
But too bad for the ones who inflated their lifejackets inside the aircraft - as the a/c started to sink, they were unable to reach the exits, and unable to remove their lifejackets due to them being tied in a double knot around their waist, rather than a double bow as is now the common practice :{

[HOGE]

Why not just cut up their passports, this would certainly limit their travel options, (or would that be an infringement of their human rights:yuk: )

[Mowgli]

Oscarh and 6-Dof.

There is a popular misconception that lifejackets and rafts are only there to give passengers a false sense of security because it is often assumed (wrongly) that when the plane goes down, there will be no survivors.

I usually sit in the front with the big windows, but often I am a passenger positioning or travelling on holiday. Many passengers ignore the safety brief and this reflects the excellent safety record of air travel. However, take it from me that if an aircraft does have a serious emergency over the water, then all those items of equipment may be the best chance anyone has of seeing their next birthday.

Yes, the ditching 767 off the Comoros islands did break up, but there were still 57 survivors. There would have been even more if the pilots had been able to keep the wings level and make a controlled ditching - unfortunately they were unable due to the actions of the hijacker/s.

I have sometimes thought about the what ifs when flying over the pond or the Indian Ocean. Imagine a fire in the cabin when you are a couple of hours from a place to land. The cabin crew will fight the fire but if it gets out of control, the next best thing may be to put the aircraft down on the water before losing control. I am confident that there would be many survivors. All would survive would be my aim.

Once out of the aircraft, the first concern would be not drowning, hence the lifejacket. The next would be hypothermia. Getting out of the water into a liferaft would be the priority for this, and for subsequent detection and rescue by any ships in the area which would already have been alerted following distress calls from the aircraft.

Shorthaul aircraft may only carry lifejackets, the idea being that survivors in the water would be fairly close to rescue opportunities.

It's all a matter of risk assessment. I want to emphasise that the risk is extremely low. However, if it's not your day, then all is not lost in a scenario such as the one described.

To get back on line with the thread, low life who steal safety equipment are putting others at greater risk. It would be like removing the airbag from your car. These people should be appropriately dealt with. Not much chance of that in UK, they will probably be offered councelling!

[419]

it might come down to

In the event of ditching, a lifejacket might not be any use, but at least you have it available if needed.

OR

In the event of ditching, and the lifejacket is in some student's university pad, you're well fcuked!

[captplaystation]

I'm happy to tell you that Ryanair impose life-long company ban on any pax caught smoking on board;much more effective/satisfying than involving disinterested Italian/Spanish police;unfortunately I don't believe such info goes outside RYR, and I don't know how well/rigorously we impose the ban.I always found in the good old days before ticketless-travel, asking to see offenders tickets as they got off(if they were outbound)and confiscating same, gave one a certain satisfaction.At least they were forced to waste time/money/effort to sort out how they got home.Like so many aspects of "captains discretion" I suppose I would be the one in the sh*t if I did this now, sad. . .bloody sad. Apart from life-jackets we "lose"a lot of seat-belts and seldom carry spares,great news for someone if it is a full return sector!On our newest aircraft life-vests have been re-located behind a flap in overhead service panel,obviously not just to improve accessibility,also one less place for DOT moles to hide dummy-bombs for our CC.

[agent x]

last year a certain well known low cost carrier took a 4 hour delay because some light fingered passenger managed to pinch an emergency EXIT sign from the door as he disembarked! Now that takes the biscuit! :hmm:

[apaddyinuk]

If airlines only put lifejackets onboard as a false sense of security then why waist time/weight and money on the other ditching items which you passengers would normally know nothing about such as the lifesaving equipment which is built into the rafts and the huge and very heavy Survival Packs which on my aircraft anyway (b747 and 777) are stowed above the doors or within immediate vacinity of the doors?

[Platinum206]

Kapt. Ive,

I would assume it's students in general, on the dedicated student flights, as Spanish aswel as Italian students regularily have to be dealt with on arrival into DUB during the summer season for taking these items.

P206

[Engineer]

If it is not nailed down some one will take it. Applies to beer mats or life jackets :O

Been happening over the last twenty five years sure it happened before that and certain it will carry on happening :{

Mowgli aims to have 100% survival but in the two incidents that have occurred over the last 35 years (pretty good statistic) luck will have played a large part in survival rate. For those incidents survival rate was approx 50%

Consider the variables that exist in getting the ditching exact. Swell, crest of the wave prevalent wind direction to name a few. Couple that with the stress level which might be increased due to the fact that one has screwed up on the fuel calculation that has now landed(no pun intended) you in this predicament. May be just to many variables with out the intervention of lady luck to assure 100% survival rate.

In my simulator experience have never acted out the scenario of controlled ditching into water let alone a discussion as part of recurrent training :uhoh:

[classjazz]

At the end of last year I flew from Spain to England on one of the low cost operators that frequent that route. As a safety conscious ex Airline member, I perused the safety documents and listened/watched the safety demo. Apart from the fact that it was the worst safety demo that I have ever seen, I realised that the safey docs allocated to my seat were for a 737-200 instead of the 737-400 that we were on. The emergency exits did not correspond etc. This was brought to the attention of the cabin crew who were simply dismissive and appeared not to care.
The unlockable seat back on the occupied seat back in front of me was similarly ignored.
I wrote to the IAA and explained the situation and received confirmation that indeed there was cause for concern.
Some time later I had a phone call from the IAA Inspector and during the course of the conversation he told me that not only do safety docs go missing from the aircraft but there is a trend for seat belts to be removed as well because the buckles are regarded as "fashion accessories"
I did say that it must be very difficult for the c/crew to check everything on QTR's but apparently it is the responsibility of the engineering staff to check these items. I do find this as curious.

[Mowgli]

Engineer

I appreciate that ditching would present great difficulties, but in the Comoros islands case with the 767, from the amateur video it appeared that the aircraft wing hit the water first with a considerable angle of bank. Despite this, and the susequent catapulting of the fuselage, there were still 56 survivors. If the wings had been level on impact with the water, I contend that many more would have survived.

As far as stress is concerned, surely coping with it is what we are paid to do? Not to mention the survival instinct - there would be no other options.

I defend my aim of 100% survival. I aim for a perfect sim ride, that doesn't mean I will actually achieve it!

[Bengerman]

I believe Branson rewards abusive female pax with free 1st class tickets!!??

[Engineer]

Mowgli not doubting capabilities before they are tested. But if you do not test your ability before the incident how can you acheive your aim.

Will reiterate how often is ditching on water practiced or discuss in the sim check. Slightly different from a V1 cut on take off. :suspect:

Take a look at the survival rate on the DC9 (http://www.airsafe.com/journal/issue6.htm#alm) that 6_DoF posted and this aircraft floated for approx six minutes.

As for the stress it is not about what you are paid surely but the professionalism you exhibit. When your sphincter is going ten to the dozen can be a levelling experience :O

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

Bengerman, correct, but only if she is a celeb..........

[Mowgli]

Engineer

I agree that ditching is rarely discussed and seldom, if ever, practised in the sim. There isn't time available and so the priority is given to other "situations". I believe our difference of opinion is one of my interpretation of the word "aim" compared with your interpretation.

Aiming for the perfect result is a target. I aim for a perfect landing. I aim to push back on time. It is achievable most of the time. Within 15 mins is probably achievable 90% of the time.

[Engineer]

Aiming to achieve a perfect landing will be increased with the frequency that you carry out the task.

The more landings on an aircraft type increases the chances of the perfect landing. Thus experience will result in you achieving your 100% aim.

Silimiar with the on time push back the more experience you have of what can go wrong ie slow boarding baggage ramp staff etc will increase your ability to pre-empt potential short falls resulting in possible 100% aim achievement.

My view is about practicality and realism. On an engine fire which is practiced to death in the sim (more than 6 times per sim session/sometimes 4 sessions a year) no problem if it happens for real. 100% aim will be achieved.

Ditching well that is another ball game.

Not sure if you remember the Souix City crash of the United DC10. After the crash United reproduced the scenerio in the simulator. Apparently not a single crew could land the aircraft, but a lots of crashes.

It was then incorporated into the training program resulting in a 100% improvement. Practice makes perfect resulting in possible 100% aim;)

[Final 3 Greens]

docs allocated to my seat were for a 737-200 instead of the 737-400 Earlier this month, I was on a Lufthansa A321 and found a B737-300 safety card in my seat pocket.

As I travel frequently on both types, I am aware of the main differences in the OW exits etc, so I didn't make a big issue of it, just mentioned it during the drinks service.

Within 2 minutes, the purser appeared with a correct card and expressed thanks for mentioning it - a very professional response.

[BleriotXI]

On a cheap flight back home I noticed that our entire row lacked the safety instructions card. I informed a flight attendant about this and as a result I ended up sitting in the first row with twice the legroom... oh and there was no card there either. Such a number of cards are nicked from the aircraft on a daily basis that they just don't have enough on board to replace them on a single day.
The demo was a farce, the attendants made a comedy out of it which of course was appreciated by most of the passengers but which made me think to myself "kiddo, when the proverbial sh!t hits the fan you're on your own."

At least I sat comfortably :)

[Middle Seat]

The demo was a farce, the attendants made a comedy out of it which of course was appreciated by most of the passengers but which made me think to myself "kiddo, when the proverbial sh!t hits the fan you're on your own."

One of my pet peeves is safety (and landing) announcements that have been turned into comedy routines. Most of them aren't funny, but maybe because I fly too much. I think I've heard them all. How can crew expect passengers to take the announcements seriously when they don't?

[oscarh]

Point taken about life jackets, but if my post was read carefully, I asked when was the last time liferafts were used in earnest?

It's all very well having escape slides doubling up as rafts; you might as well, but purpose built liferafts along with their weight and complexity (stowage etc.) is surely another story?

There is an argument that they might be of use sometime, but when?

We might just as well invest in expensive bang seats for suitably qualified passengers so that the good Lord could spare the likes of Mr Clever Dick Mowgli should the occasion arise when he wasn't looking out of the big windows in front and practising his brand of perfection! :D

[BOFH]

Any sailor who would use an airline lifejacket on a yacht should be keel-hauled. Apart from the fact that it's stolen, they are unsuitable for a sailing vessel.

BOFH

[CargoOne]

Lifejackets are improving the safety but not that much as assumed.
Controlled ditching is a very rare case. You would not need a lifejacked after uncontrolled ditching.
OK, if you there is a ditching somewhere in Carribean, and you have managed to escape unhurt, and you are lucky to avoid sharks, lifejacket could save your live.

Many years ago I have passed SOLAS (Safery Of the Live On the Sea) training program, which is mandatory for all professional seamen, and can assure you that you will not survive in the Baltic or Nothern Sea (and all similar places) from October to April for more than a 5 to 30 minutes, doesnt matter if you are wearing the livejacket or not.

If someone really considers that livejackets are really improving the safety then they should start to press for mandatory ejection seats for the passengers... Ejections seats will double or triple the industry expenses (which will be passed on to the passengers) but they will save much more lives and will improve the pax safety even if every second pax will not survive after ejection...

[El Mirador]

Oscarh and Engineer....I appreciate the points you are both making when I hacked through this post.....What I don't get is your objection to Mowgli's aim for 100%!!!!
Now I am no statitician, but 100% aim is good right???? What I am is a passenger and traveller on an aircraft!!! Any pilot who in a crash situation aims for 100% survival has my vote!!!! So thank the Lord for the likes of 'Clever Dick Mowgli' and 'their brand of perfection!':ok:

[Engineer]

El Mirador

Looks like you are a fan (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?postid=512824#post512824) of Mowgli :D.

It not about ones' aim it is about the realistic achievement of ditching an aircraft. :{

[El Mirador]

Well who's been doing their homework??!!!!!;)
I don't actually know who Mowgli is (not that I'll be believed.) Indeed I have checked his/her profile and I am non the wiser but his/her posts have made a lot of sense! If you track back and do your detective bit it all stems back to a post made in defence of SLF such as myself! Somebody who sits 'with the big windows' Had labelled a lot of us 'down back' in very uncomplimentary terms...Mowgli defended us......so I watch for his/her name and try to return the odd favour....I appreciate this is a forum for Professional pilots and those in the industry (I am neither) but as a passenger I do like to know what goes on.....Now if you'd like to check my other posts....There was a particularly good one on animal transportation.....(again my other interest) So if your not busy....Any info. on how to get a very large dog to America/Canada???????:p

But back on track...I stand by what I say and without this degenerating into a 'chicken and egg' debate...Surely to aim for 100% however unrealistic is better than not to aim at all.
(I am truly a fan of Mowgli now after this debate!);)

[El Mirador]

Oscarh...
Thank you for your response. I can see everything to be totally understandable in your post and well....as a passenger extremely encouraging! I can not agree more that practice makes perfect and that standards should be met. Again when humans are involved 'the best' is all we can hope for, but hopefully the best can be an improvement on a basic standardisation! I never considered the 'moveable feast' aspect of the standards and now I understand. Thankyou. I just thought of 100% in this case to translate to 'doing all one can in a very undesirable situation'(ditching/crash scenario)
One day I shall invent a '100%' that suits all and makes me lots of money!!!!It beats being a bored housewife!!!!

(Any confusion with the log in El Mirador stems from the fact I sometimes creep in under my husbands log in name ...):ok: