Minimum Crew - Compromising Safety ?

[TSR2]

I recently travelled on a B737-300 flight with a legal minimum cabin crew compliment of three.

The policy of operating with the legal minimum crew does not unduly concern me but the mix of experience within the crew gave me somewhat of an uneasy feeling.

This particular crew consisted of one experienced senior and two young junior members who were quite clearly, not only new to the airline, but new to the cabin crew job as well. Throughout the flight, the senior member had to guide the two junior members through most of the tasks and was, let's say, ready for a rest on landing.

(The experience I quote is simply through observation of crew actions and conversations between crew members overheard from seat 2C.)

Whilst I realise that cabin crew are trained to deal with all anticipated eventualities, could the lack of practical experience (for this read lack of familiarity with aircraft equipment) within a minimum crew compliment constitute a compromise in safety standards?

Is it common practise to integrate new recruits into a minimum crew compliment or for new recruits to be additional to the minimum compliment until some pre-determined experience has been gained ?

[Getoutofmygalley]

Unfortunately you haven't given an indication as to where you are from, so I can only speak for my airline in the UK.

A crew member will complete their initial cabin crew training and will have to then complete 8 familiarisation sectors, operating as an addititional crew member (i.e. 4 in the cabin instead of 3 on a 733)

Once the crew member has completed their 8 familiarisation sectors, they can then operate as a fully fledged crew member (i.e. there would be 3 in the cabin only).

BUT for the next 60 sectors that that new crew member operates, they must be rostered with fully experienced crew. This prevents you having the problem of just 1 experienced purser and 2 very junior crew in the cabin who could potentially be a bit green in an emergency :8

[OZcabincrew]

TSR2.

I am going to presume you are from Australia? With the airline i work for, the 737-300's are just about out the window anyway, getting too old.

As far as i can remember, with our airline, 3 Flight Attendants and one 'Purser' is the standard number of operating crew for most legs on this aircraft. The Purser is responsible for L1 door, one flight attendant is responsible for R1 door and two Flight Attendants are responsible for doors R2 and L2 (senior F/A). Passengers seated at the overwing exits are briefed and responsible for opening the two overwing emergency exits.

All crew wouldn't be allowed online if they were proven to be competent in dealing with all aspects of aircraft safety, including emergency procedures, equipment, first aid etc and ALL crew are tested and examined on this every 6 months for their whole career. What a lot of passengers may not understand is that each F/A position has certain duties that they're responsible for onboard and when you're new, this can be a little confusing/daunting until you get the hang of things, especially when sector to sector the service can be different based on the time of the day and whether or not you're working in economy or business class, also very daunting when the other crew know what they're doing and are working at 1000km an hour. Everyone when they first start needs guidance with the service flow etc, they try and teach you from a book, but when you're up there learning it's very different. it's up to all crew to help with this.

99% of crew have had very little practical experience in putting their training into action (except during training), but trust me, it's all there when you need it. As i said, you can rest assured, ALL crew need to display that they are aware and competent in dealing and operating all aircraft equipment.

With us, the old way for training was that new crew would be assigned an in-flight trainer where they would do the same roster as their trainer for a month, they would also need to fill out a competency journal in which they would have reviewed at certain periods by their manager to make sure they're up to scratch etc. Unfortunately now, that doesn't tend to happen, but new crew are usually given "supernumery" flying, where for two or so flights they are an additional crew member in addition to the standard crew complement, they can choose to participate in the service etc or just watch, most participate. What you may have experienced is that these crew were unfortunate not to have any training flights, but were put right into it, this is fine, except this flight may have originally been allocated the standard number of crew and then one gone sick last minute, couldn't get anyone else so were approved to operate on minimum crew, this does happen. (as said, in Australia, the number of crew normally operating on a 737-300 is 4 including the 'Purser').

I don't think you have anything to worry about in regards to the lack of experience etc in aircraft safety, equipment etc with new crew, they would all know what to do. However it can be quite a scarey thing for new crew to have to work on an aircraft (unfamiliar environment in itself if you haven't done it before) and have to deal with every day things. It is all completely different up there than what you do in training.

I suppose it really depends on what they were talking about? If they were literally saying they don't feel comfortable with something to do with equipment etc, then maybe it should have been brought up. Crew (and a lot of crew aren't) need to be aware of how loud they're talking and what they're talking about as if you're talking in the galley's, you're voice actually projects into the cabin. I quite often feel embarrassed and tell other crew to turn the volume down due to being able to hear them 6 rows into the cabin!

Oz

[TSR2]

Thank you 'Getoutofmygalley' and 'OZcabincrew' for such detailed and informative replies. Much appreciated.

The flight in question was with a UK airline during a period of rapid expansion from a new UK base.

It would appear that a minimum crew in the UK is one less than in Australia.

[speedbirdhouse]

"It would appear that a minimum crew in the UK is one less than in Australia."

Not for long...............

[karnak]

which airline / base - spedbird interesting reply care to expand?

[Simon Templar]

Jetconnect.(AKL Based QF Subsidiary)
Also legislation currently going through the senate to bring us into line with the kiwis

[Getoutofmygalley]

which airline / base - spedbird interesting reply care to expand?

Don't get excited karnak, I think speedbirdhouse is referring to Australia changing it's rules so that they are inline with the UK (i.e. 1 c/c for every 50 or part 50 seats installed).

[6chimes]

As the previous posts outline, the mix of experience is quite legal. Before you can really answer the question of wether or not it is safe, you need to consider what exactly was it that brought you to notice the gap in experience. It could be that the crew were very new to that particular airline but may have been flying for many years, so as far as if anything should go wrong then you are in the hands of good people. Getting used to a new airline and its service may give the impression that you are new and inexperienced.

As a purser for an airline which has heomorraged experienced crew I can tell you that whilst it may be legal to operate to minimum crew (3 on the 733, before an a/c can come into service it has to be proven that it can be evacuated in less than 90 seconds using only half the exits, thats partly why levels are set as they are, 1 crew for 50 pax seats), it is far from ideal to have only one experienced person on board. Yes its right to say that all crew undertake very intensive training and would not be allowed out to fly unless they had passed rigorous tests, that is exactly what it is; TRAINING. It takes considerable time to become accustomed to the strange environment that you are working in. A very important part of that learning curve involves learning from those about you, how can you do that if there is no one else there to give it to you?

The legal minimum is fast becoming the industry standard which is not what it was set out to be; which is the closest you can legally operate without being unsafe. That does not only apply to crew levels but rest and maximum flying hours etc (how many of us can honestly say that we are on the ball at the end of some of the duties we do these days?). But companys have to stay financially viable, so it will take a tragedy that can be directly linked to those legal minimums being taken as standard to change things.

That is not to say that just because you are new you cannot still be damn good. (thought i'd better get that in!)

6