SLF Ignoring CC. What to do? [Archive]

raffele

24th Mar 2009, 21:58

Are you suggesting that passengers are required to be alert, undistracted, and focussed on safety procedures as they taxy out and take-off? Where does that rule come from? Let them relax, that's what they want to do.

No, thats not what was being suggested at all. Wader2 was, quite rightly, questioning how to go about dealing with an individual's decision to break laws and regulations stating electronic devices such as laptops, games consoles, PDAs, portable media devices and so on must be switched off for take off and landing, when the cabin crew aren't able to attend as it would risk their safety.

And whilst actually paying attention to the safety demonstration isn't required, there are plenty studies that conclude that those who pay attention for those 5 minutes have a greater chance of survival and are more likely to remain relatively calm in an emergency.

VeeAny

24th Mar 2009, 22:15

I used to fly Newquay to Gatwick as a passenger regularly and it was embarassing how many times the CC had to ask people to sit down after we pulled up on stand, they give fairly clear instructions each time and yet as soon as one is up, most passengers are out of their seats and in the way.

I've seen the Dash 8 brief a good hundred times now and yet I still bother my arse to listen. I don't particularly want to be obstructed by the muppet who can't find or operate an Emergency Exit if they need it, because they weren't listening, its not too taxing to give up two minutes of your life just because you are used to it, if you can't be bothered to listen then drive.

If I have to brief my passengers personally as the captain of a commerical helicopter and they don't listen, I don't take them whether they are legally required to listen to me or not.

flash8

24th Mar 2009, 22:32

Jean-Lill

24th Mar 2009, 23:14

W2

I assume you were a passenger on the flight you mention.
If you see something that you consider is not allowed for reasons of safety you should speak to the cabin crew privately and then leave the issue for them to deal with.

Some passengers are unaware they may be doing something that is not allowed so it would be inappropriate to speak to them yourself. On the other hand whatever they were doing may be allowed so it would better to check with the cabin crew who know what is and what is not allowed.

As far as watching safety briefings is concerned, it is really up to the individual if they care to watch it or not, there is no law that says they have to. Usually when the flight crew politely suggest they should watch the briefing they are more likely to do so. I know some people have flown on an aircraft type so many times before they cannot be bothered to watch. I always feel it is a little rude to ignore the briefing and carry on talking or reading etc. Sadly there is nothing anyone can do about it unless they are very noisy and prevent other people from hearing the briefing, that happened to me once when I stopped the briefing until I asked the offenders to allow other people to have the opportunity to at least hear what we were saying. The offending pax were not in the least bit bothered at the briefing being stopped due to their loud shouting and laughing, that surprised me, they probably do it on every flight.

Classic

25th Mar 2009, 15:48

I just find it amazing that an off duty crew member would even consider telling a passenger not to watch a PDA on taxy out.

If I were operating and maybe on assessment, I'd ask the pax not to use it, but do you genuinely think there is danger associated with watching a video on an PDA? There are hundreds of such devices on board and functioning during take-off, and the aircraft is built to withstand far stronger EMF than that associated with iphones etc!

Those regs are just a legacy from when cellphones and other devices operated via microwaves and at far higher powers, and are slowly being removed.

If you see a passenger replaying a video clip on their camera as the power comes on for take off, just look away, be brave, and bite your knuckles.:rolleyes:

ProM

25th Mar 2009, 16:30

Classic, I disagree. Well partly anyway. Mobile phones may not hurt aircraft systems.That does not make them safe.

But can you imagine the absolute horror of being stuck on an aircraft for 8 or more hours with some arrogant little twit who makes loud calls the whole way across the Atlantic, the main point of which is to justify who important he thinks he is?

I am pretty sure I and many others would crack. So unless you want the murder rate on aircraft to rise sharply, please fight the use of phones onboard at every opportunity.

This message was brought to you by the league for peaceful SLF who listen to safety talks, say thank you to CC, smile, read quietly or watch the IFE and don't get stupidly drunk or try and smoke etc etc.

Pontius Navigator

25th Mar 2009, 17:00

do you genuinely think there is danger associated with watching a video on an PDA?

the aircraft is built to withstand far stronger EMF than that associated with iphones etc!

Those regs are just a legacy from when cellphones and other devices operated via microwaves and at far higher powers, and are slowly being removed.

Absolutely Classic. I don't believe there is any danger whatever. I also think that aircraft seat belts are a waste of space. Most aircraft that come to a sudden stop kill their passengers, seat belts or not.

What use are lifejackets too when the aircraft doesn't carry proper liferafts and exected time of survival is measured in minutes in the Atlantic?

Why bother searching passengers too for yesterday's threat? I am sure that the nimble terrorist will come up with something else.

Time for us all to lie down and be counted. Let's not let the little people boss us around.

Pugilistic Animus

25th Mar 2009, 17:03

Unfortunately nothing can be done.
but this issue angers me too, because how many times have you heard of pax; blocking others from exiting/ taking carry-ons jumping into flames/running engines/ or recently opening a submerged door?---do everyone a favor if you can not listen to the briefing --just sit quietly and die, but don't kill others because you know soooo much about EVAC procedures:yuk:

to me the scariest and most dangerous factor in an air accident are the gound people aboard with their brillant ideas

edited to add emboldened words

apaddyinuk

25th Mar 2009, 20:34

Yes, and remember at the end of the day the Cabin Crew know better then anyone how to get themselves out of a burning aircraft and they are not required to put themselves in any danger just to rescue a passenger who couldnt have been bothered paying attention to the demos or rules!
So it is in your own self interest to pay attention and follow their instructions!

cokecropduster

26th Mar 2009, 02:19

Please remember - seat belts are there for not just crash landings... there are alot of things that make the tube move in strange directions suddenly. Turbulence, system issues, aborted take-off, etc.

Making you turn off everything is a way to make it as simple as possible. If it wasn't uniform it would be too hard to understand for the 'simple' minority.

Pontius Navigator

26th Mar 2009, 07:07

So your 'simple' little PDA may or may not affect the aircraft electronic systems.

My simple little PDA has a memory capacity some 32 times that of the Mark 1 Nimrod. It has virtually unlimited storage capacity measured in gigabytes. It can transmit on WiFi or BlueTooth and others on mobile freqs.

It is not beyond the wit of man to install a rogue engine management system and close the throttles at VR.

Well? Now what do we do?

Back to the mundane:

if . . . the thing goes flying on impact then there is a problem!

Personally I stow all my bits and pieces so I will have them on me if I have to exit quickly. I always wear trousers and good shoes; Mrs PN likewise is always attired in running kit. An Airbus driver of my acquaintance said if it was up to him he would ban any passenger in shorts, thongs, bare midrifts etc.

I dress for survival, expect the worst and hope for the best.

Abusing_the_sky

26th Mar 2009, 14:32

I just find it amazing that an off duty crew member would even consider telling a passenger not to watch a PDA on taxy out.

Funny ol' thing, i was an "off duty" crew member some time ago and as soon as the No1 went to the fwd galley having secured the cabin, the woman sitting across the aisle decided that the infant seat belt for her "little angel" wasn't important at all so she removed it so the little one can stand up during take off - great fun i imagine.

I told her, in the most polite manner, that it's not safe to have the infant without the seatbelt; she completely ignored what i told her and carried on playing pik a boo. I told her again then i had the "what the hell do you know" look from her, to which i responded by taking my ID out (i always have my ID with me when i travel, you never know that's what i say...) and simply said "i am not asking you to put it back on, i am telling you. If you chose not to do so, this a/c will not take off without the cabin secure. Trust me".
She mumbled something but done it. Problem solved.

Now moving on the PDA (or any other electronical items), it really gets on my nerves when people ignore when we say "all battery operated equipment must be switched off now". Not only it is dangerous, it disregards the CC's (who are delegated authority in the cabin by the Commander of the a/c) request therefore the Commanders reasonable instruction (yes, this is an Air Navigation Order). The pax is not alert and may endanger his and other people's safety should anything happen.

So W3, should you come across this situation again, please feel free to turn around to the offender and quote the above.

Rgds,
ATS

ProM

26th Mar 2009, 15:01

Several people here seem to be suggesting that the ban on electronic devices is not there now because of EMC issues, but because of either PAX attention or flying objects.

But this doesn't stack up with what we are told. I am allowed to read a book or newpaper (I am even given one of these by CC) which will distract me just as much as using a PDA etc. (I am talking about during take-off and landing here, not about during the safety briefing).

Similarly if the issue was flying objects we should be told to put phones etc away, not turn them off

racedo

26th Mar 2009, 15:58

An Airbus driver of my acquaintance said if it was up to him he would ban any passenger in shorts, thongs, bare midrifts etc.

He is a killjoy.

Would only do it for Muffin tops as you need some distractions.

Have seen a CC asked someone with a child to restrain them properly, Mum wasn't really interested until CC got on speaker and indicated that regretably we would be returning to the terminal as a passenger was not restrained properly. Pilot then came on and apologised. Mum after a few comments complied as some passengers vented their views.

Pontius Navigator

26th Mar 2009, 17:48

He is a killjoy.

Would only do it for Muffin tops as you need some distractions..

I detect sarcasm :)

For Classic, if you have ever banged out or done an emergency egress you will never again fly with sleeves rolled up and wearing thongs.

Wader2

27th Mar 2009, 10:22

apaddyinuk - it would have been difficult to tell the offender directly. Whether the PDA, or any other electronic device would cause a hazard is beyond my, or I would suggest any CCs, competence to assess. The announcement was OFF and the pax had ignored this.

Classic - are you an electronic engineer who knows that all electronics are EMC with aircraft systems? I quite agree with your assertion that the EMF issues are possibly now an irrelevancy but we do not know that for a fact. The customer is NOT always right. When he boards an aircraft or a ship he accepts that he is under the absolute authority of the Captain acting in accordance with the relevant Act.

Jean-Lill, good advice about speaking privately with the CC rather than confronting the pax. The issue here is that the CC are all in their seats for take-off and the pax is wilfully or negligently ignoring the safety of flight briefing.

Pugilistic Animus - you are probably right that nothing can be done before the aircraft gets airborne. Nice as it might be to allow passengers noticing anything wrong during the departure phase to announce it 'clearly and concisely' - THE PASSENGER IN SEAT 13 HAS AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE SWITCHED ON - I can't see that being proposed as standard practice. How about having the pax escorted off the plane (last) for a professional one to one instruction on safety procedures?

Abusing the Sky - please feel free to turn around to the offender and quote the above Only if Mrs Wader is not with me and he/she is smaller than me :)

To sum up, there is nothing really that can be done except consider warning the pax directly. If the pax was then publicly briefed on the transgression then the message might filter through.

northern-light

29th Mar 2009, 06:01

Mobile phones nowadays cause less EMF than those of yesteryear, but unless the aircraft has aeromobile i dont see the point in having them on as you wont get very good reception at 36000 feet!

In case we need to evacuate an aircraft, we have to do it in less than 90 seconds!!! Thats not a lot of time at all. In the case of a 2 class 777-300 it means getting 4.5 pax off the plane per second... If everybody were allowed to use their ipods, laptops, cellphones, blackberries and whatnots, imagine how many things would be lying around the cabin, causing people to fall over, and in turn block aisles and exits... Every second counts!

If we start letting pax get away with using their PED's, soon they will ignore that instruction all together... So if you feel up to it, tell them directly, or contact the crew as soon as practical... i.e after takeoff!

I was deadheading once to Tunis, and we passed through some heavy thunderstorms on approach. The captain told the crew to sit down immediately over the PA. I noticed a pax across the aisle not wearing his seatbelt... I politely suggested that he should put it on, as it was probably going to get very bumpy very soon! He laughed at me and said "Im a frequent flyer..." I had done my part! About a minute later, the plane goes into a nosedive lasting a few seconds! The guy was floating in the air! Then the plane suddenly pulled up again, and he landed with a loud bang on the armrest! I have never heard a man scream so loud! It turns out he had broken his tailbone on the armrest! So much for being a frequent flyer!!!

A Comfy Chair

29th Mar 2009, 12:47

As others have said, the idea of this thread was how to manage passengers who are disregarding the rules/instructions, not whether those rules are indeed relevant in this day and age.

When the CC say to turn off your PDA, that means you turn it off, whether or not you think it is justified.

As a passenger, what can you do? Probably not much. If within a close range you could politely ask the other passenger to turn it off. If they refuse, then if you have the opportunity you could quietly mention it to the CC... but if they pull it out on the takeoff roll there isn't a lot you can do except for wait and maybe mention it to the crew so they can look out for if they try to do it on landing as well.

It is amazing how many passengers will directly disobey an order from a CC member, and it is upto the crew to difuse the situation (which is where the best crew excel... the ability to turn a potential standoff situation into one where the passenger thinks they have won, but the CC have achieved what they want). If they continuously ignore important directions, we can always have the authorities waiting for them on arrival... :E

Skipness One Echo

30th Mar 2009, 06:56

The day you stop referring to me as "Self Loading Freight" is the day I take you seriously as a profession....

TightSlot

30th Mar 2009, 07:39

Actually, Skipness One Echo - SLF is a phrase that I've never heard used outside of PPRuNe, except once by a pilot, many years ago: I'm sure that it is used by somebody, somewhere nowadays, but not with any regularity.

I won't waste your time, and mine with examples or explanations of why it might be worth taking the role seriously, since they abound on PPRuNe, and must have been already read and discounted by your good self. That's fine - the wonderful thing about perceptions is that they are your own: Nobody can take them away or invalidate them. However, if you could manage to squeeze just enough respect for us, even as people, to avoid coming into a CC forum on an aircrew bulletin board and posting about your contempt for the role in toto - we'd all be ever so grateful.

EYXW

30th Mar 2009, 07:45

Skipness, I am sure it is a term or endearment really!

Strangely enough not long ago I was on an older 737 which had an adverse (though never really dangerous) reaction to a Mobile turned on whilst still within reception range of the ground.

Whilst it is unlikely that your £300 PDA is going to cause too much distress to the £130,000,000 21st Century Jet Liner, it is not up to you to decide which rules are obeyed and which are ignored.

The ANO is fairly clear that disregarding the reasonable request of the Commander is illegal. Whilst our Customers are not expected to know the Law's and Conventions pertaining to Air Travel inside and out (trust me I would never wish Air Law on anyone) I am still confused as to why people instantly start to become a little rebellious when they climb aboard. Perhaps those who are leaders on the ground are not up for being told what to do in the air?

And really are you that important that the email needs to be typed then and there - I mean if the flight had left on time you probably wouldn't have had the opportunity in the first place..... If war is about to break out if you don't get to send that little "sent from my Blackberry" message then why not use the onboard Sat phones.

Biggles225

30th Mar 2009, 07:53

Tightslot
The term SLF was certainly in common usage among the RAF transport fleet in the late 60s and 70s, and I'd assume that it migrated! Ah the days when we had a fleet....! :}

shinobi1

30th Mar 2009, 08:03

I think you hit a raw nerve there Skipness! And that was from a moderator. :ooh:

All Skipness is asking for is a bit of respect. SLF is a derogatory remark and if someone used it in reference to me, I might point it out to them in slightly less polite terms!

Remember, this is a public forum and our customers are reading this as well.

Shinobi

TightSlot

30th Mar 2009, 08:14

All Skipness is asking for is a bit of respect
Possibly, but I'd suggest that is your interpretation of the post, since that is not the point raised, and no evidence is presented of a lack of respect, beyond the hypothetical use of a term that isn't used.

if someone used it in reference to me
The point being made is that this is highly unlikely to happen (unless you flew with the military many years ago :))

Remember, this is a public forum and our customers are reading this as well.
I'd forgotten, thanks.

Eff-Ohhh

30th Mar 2009, 08:26

While mobiles may not effect the avionics noticably it is really distracting when we hear the electromagnetic interference when a passenger's phone (or sometimes my phone when I forget to turn it off) repetedly tries to log into the network as we enter range of a ground station. This usually happens on final approach into a really busy airport where radio communications are made every few second, and we need to hear them.

There is also a huge distraction factor during the take off roll when we are watching and listening for each others call outs and possible problems with the aircraft itself. Then, at a critical time (usually at just before V1) you get a buzzing in your ear followed buy the pulse repetitions from the phone in the overhead lockers above row nine under the VHF arials. For those reading who are not normally sat on the flight deck, that sound, can get the heart rate up if the timing is right.

Please, try to remember to switch off your transmitting devices. Thank you.

ProM

30th Mar 2009, 09:22

EYXW

I agree with you on the urgency of these communications. I think with most it is either an ego trip "Look how important I am that I need to make and take calls every second" or fear "I had better check that they haven't discovered that I am incompetent yet".

It is worth noting that currupt people are usually discovered when they are out of office and cannot shield the dodgy data from enquiries as effectively.

Personally, my view when i see these poeple is that if you haven't left behind staff capable of dealing with the problems for the half a day it takes to travel, then either you are too unimportant to need such a staff, or you are incompetent for not developing them to the point that they could manage.

ZH875

30th Mar 2009, 09:42

SLF is a derogatory remark

Much in the same way as 'Trolley Dolly', or 'Cart Tart' but they still get used by SLF, to describe the Airborne Cafeteria Staff and Passenger Comfort Executives.:p

Pugilistic Animus

31st Mar 2009, 15:43

I just call'em "ground people' :hmm:

with big traps:*

Juud

31st Mar 2009, 23:19

Mr SOE or any other pax taking me serious as a profession (I am not what I do for a living but never mind that) is irrelevant. A bit of respect is always nice, but the funny thing is, I usually get that anyway. ;)

It's relevant for pax to be aware that the Captain is the legal authority on the aircraft. To be aware that the cabin crew represent the Captain when they instruct (not ask, instruct) the pax to turn off their electronic devices, the pax are by law obliged to do as they are told.

***********************

Some people do not want to understand this, which becomes a problem when things get more serious. Those people can be warned, both verbally and in writing, and if they still fail to follow instructions, can be handcuffed and arrested on the spot 'in name of the captain I hereby arrest you' and will be handed over to the authorities on arrival. September the 11th started a new era, and it's good to remember that when you fly as a passenger.
Respect doesn't come into it. Common sense does.

We hate confrontations, but we will confront you if you force us.
Because while we love giving the best service we possibly can to our honoured pax and abhor fighting with the people who pay our salary and keep our airline in business, if we have to choose between being nice and being safe, safe will always win.

In short: it doesn't pay to **** with the cabin crew on matters relating to safety.
In a well run airline, cabin crew on behalf of the captain can and will enforce the safety rules, and you disregard our instructions at your peril.

Classic

1st Apr 2009, 00:53

Oh stop being so melodramatic Juud

In the UK cabin crew can't go round arresting passengers or restraining them at will! You have to get the Captain's permission to do any of those things and even to give them a 'yellow card' warning. And I'm afraid I haven't any intention of giving such permission for a pax who simply won't follow an instruction to stop watching their PDA!

The unbelievably tiny risk associated with such actions doesn't warrant escalating the issue to such a level.

EYXW

1st Apr 2009, 07:12

Classic,

JUUD is just reiterating the training CC receive whether you think it accurate or correct or not. I believe we are ALL employed to follow the rules and to enforce them if necessary.

Whilst I agree I am unlikely to crack out the bondage kit for a passenger not turning off their mobile there are other ways that the crew in the Flight Deck can help to make our colleagues in the back lives more easy - showing a united front on PPRuNe could be one of them.

Everywhere has to draw a line and, I say again, it is not up to Flight/Cabin Crew or the passenger to discern which electrical equipment is okay and which is not and which signs should be obeyed and which not, that is the preserve of the relevant department within the airline - the rest of us just do as we are told.

Munnyspinner

1st Apr 2009, 10:41

Drunken Flight Attendants Beat Aeroflot

According to Bloomberg this morning, drunken flight attendants beat up a man
on an Aeroflot flight from Moscow to the Siberian oil town of Nizhnevartovsk after he served himself when the attendants refused
to bring his girlfriend more wine. The three male attendants work for Aviaenergo, which Russian state-run carrier Aeroflot uses on some domestic flights. The passenger had a black eye when he got off the four-hour flight and has filed assault charges. Other people on the flight said the attendants dropped food trays and slammed a passenger in a doorway as he left the plane.
The quote was something to the effect ``You understand how coordination worsens when someone isn't sober,'' Aeroflot might reconsider its contract with Aviaenergo if it finds the crew started the fight.

On a separate note, Aeroflot may join Air France's Sky Team frequent flier network soon, which will be great for business fliers that want to collect more points. Personally, I would have been happier had they chosen Lufthansa and the Star Alliance group. As the French might say, C'est la vie

I better make sure Tighslat doesn't catch me! And, where the **** is rainboe when you need him?

A Comfy Chair

1st Apr 2009, 23:02

Classic,

I think Juud was refering to "when it gets more serious".

The point is that a lawful direction from the Cabin Crew must be obeyed by passengers, and passengers need to be aware that there can be consequences if they insist on playing hard ball.

Arrest on board, as you say, is not really an option if the passenger is simply refusing to turn off an electronic device... but going back to the gate and offloading, or having authorities scare them on arrival is.

Usually the threat of offload/going back to the gate is enough to make them turn it off!

Munnyspinner

2nd Apr 2009, 08:32

This really boils down to whether the said pax is doing anything that might endanger the safe conduct of the flight or is doing something that is threatening to other passengers or crew. Recent legislation does cover this but the tact and discretion of CC usually overcomes such nonsense.

If a passenger stoically refuses to switch off any device and CC cannot persuade him /her to do so then the matter is for the A/C commander. If the reason for switching off the electronic device is related to EM interference with A/C systems then it could be argued that the commander may be considered reckless to proceed with the flight - return to gate and all the hassle that entails is probably the correct but least palatable option.

I cannot agree that proceeding with the flight then asking the authorities to 'scare' the perpetrator is an advisable option. The commander is putting him/herself in an difficult position as a complainer. Either there was a real risk to the flight - in which case the commander has acted recklessly in proceeding or, there was no real risk and there is arguably no complaint.

The airline rules are defined in T&C of Carriage. A failure to adhere to these policies is a breach of contract. One remedy is to refuse furture carriage or ownward/return carriage. However, this is a civil matter which would not involve the 'Authorities'.

Frankly, I can't undertand why people can't switch off before boarding. Most PDA/phones now have flight mode which I assume means that they stop searching for a signal ( this is what creates the potential problem) and can be used after take off.

I always read the safety card ( to check A/C type and model -it's amazing how different types vary) and listen the the flight breifing even though I am a former pilot and have several thousand passenger flights behind me. If anyone sitting next to me is reading or not paying attention I usually ask them a few pertinent questions about evacuating the aircraft in the case of emergency. Most have a reasonable idea to start with but if you pose a few 'what if scenarios' they do tend to take notice. Anyone playing with a PDA falls into the complacent ' not paying attention' band and needs to be educated.

Once on a short flight from Edinburgh There was a smell of smoke in the cockpit which necessitated a precuationary return. I was fairly relaxed, partly because I suspected the smell was coming from outside (There had been a huge fire in the city the night before and the prevailing wind was from the east, the direction of take off) and because I had confidnce in the flight crew. Interestingly, looking around I could see a number of white faces - the same ones that had been reading the newspapers during the safety briefing. Says it all doesn't it?

TheMaskedDispatcher

2nd Apr 2009, 19:39

Dear all,

actually i'd say that you brave boys and girls who put up with the SLF for longer than the few seconds it takes to check them in or board them have very polite terms for the Talking Ballast . . for many of us they are merely a help to trimming the aircraft, a boarding sequence number, and a constant impediment to OnTimePerformance!! :ugh:

T-M-D

ProM

2nd Apr 2009, 20:30

TMD has a point. I've seen quite a few pax that I'd willingly throttle, and I'm not the one on the receiving end of all their demands

Grueber

2nd Apr 2009, 22:16

for many of us they are merely a help to trimming the aircraft, a boarding sequence number, and a constant impediment to OnTimePerformance!!

Not to mention a major source of revenue to your employer.

Juud

3rd Apr 2009, 00:35

"Oh stop being so pompous Classic!" ;)

And stop clutching that straw man (http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Strawman.html) while you’re at it. I know it makes you feel good, but it doesn’t do much for a sensible discussion.
Of course nobody arrests anybody for watching a PDA. Any FA worth his salary will diffuse such a situation pronto.
Try and widen your angle of view here a bit though.
(among other things by realising that there’s more aviation than the UK, and that for example, many companies consider their FAs well able to decide when handing out a yellow card might solve a problem, without having to go and ask permission from the captain to use that tool)

Passenger aggression is a daily problem world wide. Since you are focused on the UK, here are some numbers for you.
The CAA received 2702 reports of disruptive behaviour on board aircraft during 2008. That's a bit more than 7 incidents a day reported on UK aircraft.
7 a day reported Classic, think about that number for a bit.

Actual aggression incidents follow a fixed pattern:

Pax acts out in way that disrupts service and threatens safety.(there's 3 main types of aggression: pap has mental prob, pap has been treated badly and needs that acknowledged, pap uses aggressions as a mean to achieve a goal)
FA tries to defuse situation with correct demeanour, body language and verbal techniques taught by company. FA informs pap that the behaviour is unacceptable and needs to stop.
Pax ignores intervention and continues undesirable behaviour. "yellow card" is handed out and pax is told to stop behaviour.
Pax continues acting out and ignores crew’s attempts to defuse situation.

At this point there are a number of scenarios, none of them pretty:
Other pax interfere successfully; flight continues in a safe manner.
FAs restrain pax, flight carries on; flight continues in a safe manner.
Captain decides to divert and offload disruptive pax; flight eventually continues in a safe manner.

With me so far?

At point 2 described above is where the authority of the CC, as an extension of the captain’s authority, becomes relevant.
All rules apply to all pax. It is not up to the CC nor the pax to decide which rules can be applied and which ones ignored. Only the captain can deviate from that, and even (s)he only in exceptional circumstances.
Sticking to SOPs is a large part of flying safely.

CC need to enforce the rules. Not just some of the rules, but all of them.
Enforcing only some of them is the start of a slippery slope which can and often does result in a breach of safety. A breach of safety that could have been avoided if the CC had not given the pax access to the slippery slope in the first place.

And that’s where the PDA comes in. In itself it is likely not a problem.
As the start of a slippery slope, it definitely is a problem.

I flew for 15 years as a rank and file FA. In those years, I witnessed a number of serious incidents. All of them could have been avoided if the No1 had put a stop to the initial bad behaviour, rather than letting it go and hoping that the pap would see sense by himself.
Letting the small stuff go is the failsafe recipe for creating a big problem.
Prompt and functional intervention is the key to not letting a problem turn into a safety hazard.

As I say during every CC briefing: “Use your charm, your sense of humour and your brains when dealing with a difficult pap. Always remember that you started this job because you liked dealing with people. An amiable solution is better than a confrontation. However, when a pap crosses the line of what is acceptable in regard to the safety rules, goes beyond the rules of normal civilised behaviour or starts pawing you, also remember that you have to be able to make the switch from service provider to safety enforcer.
Do not accept the crossing of that line, and if you can’t deal with it, come and get me or the Assistant Purser, and we will deal with it. If you make a mistake, we will handle that between you and me, but I will back you up 100% in front of the pax and with the company. Don’t fail to take action when it is needed.
If we all do that, both our pax, the pilots and we will have a safe and pleasant flight.“

............................................................ ......... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/flapsforty/smilies/plane.gif

tart1

3rd Apr 2009, 07:31

Very well said, Juud. :D

QWERTY9

3rd Apr 2009, 10:01

But it's not like that in Mile High ;)

I think a few people here need to take a reality check. It's all very well stating from the 'book' what can/can't or should/shouldn't be done, but reality is a totally different scenario.

You do what you have/should to according to the situation at the time. Human nature dictates that we will react very differently to similar situations, some of which will be to difuse/calm and get the desired result, others which will possibly exacerbate, antagonise and make things far worse. There's no accounting for people.

It's certainley not for me to advise another pax of their wrongdoing (unless critical), I'd advise a trolley dolly (it's a term of endearment :E) and then let her/him to their job.

Mobile devices and EMF ? Arguments both sides, none of which have been adequately proven or not, therefore we must just follow the current directive whether we agree or not and that includes those up-front ! Maybe a few ops departments should remember that. the rules may seem out of date or just plain daft, but that's life ! Don't forget to raise your window blind now !

As for dressing for survival ? Do you not find that you get strange looks sat in seat 23b wearing your smokehood ? Do you often hear babies crying near you ? Ever thought why ? If you have a long stretch over sea it must be worrying whether to decide to keep your flippers on or take them off. You know how feet swell in the air !

Airports and aeroplanes (not airplanes) - Why do seemingly normal people become agitated, confused and lose all sense of normality and direction as soon as they step foot inside them ? Does it happen when riding a bus ? No, well not for most, so why when travelling by air ?

Nothing like the simple life, get on board, adhere to the rules, enjoy your flight, have a drink, maybe a bite to eat, arrive safely. What could be easier ?

cockney steve

3rd Apr 2009, 11:34

Unfortunately for CC, the vast majority of SLF (that's me!) do NOT appreciate the difference in legal status of these "flying bus "crews.

Were the airlines to print a bold, simple statement on the ticket, EG.-

The captain has full legal authority on the aircraft. you have a LEGAL DUTY to obey any crew orders whilst on,entering or leaving an aircraft.

FAILURE TO CO OPERATE MEANS YOU CAN BE PUT OFF THE AIRCRAFT AND WILL BE CHARGED FOR THE COSTS.

or similar wording- Once the pax understand that the staff HAVE authority, the message becomes clearer.

Unfortunately one seldom hears of "joe prole" being sucessfully sued for £5k for the return to gate, ejecting him and finding/ejecting his luggage.

Air travel is no longer the preserve of the economic and social upper-classes.

It's cheap, mass-travel, by a large number who include the antisocial and unaware, as well as the just plain thick. Subtle communication doesn't get through, hence the "in your face" idea of the "this is how it is, do as you're told or you don't get the ride" message which every pax should be made to read before boarding...........perhaps it would pass the time waiting in "security" or the "secure" airside departure-area?

Munnyspinner

3rd Apr 2009, 14:29

I like it - I can see a new sport evolving - Not cage fighting but tube wrestling! The direct approach has worked in a variety of ways for Ryanair etc - THIS IS HOW IT IS, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT - THEN **** OFF!

Problem is that the LEGAL ( i.e. governed by Statute etc. ) and CONTRACTUAL obligations get all muddled up. It seems prettyy clear from this thread that most CC and SLF can't actually distinguish between each.

Plain english, setting out the rules of engagement and spelling out the consequences is possibly the best way forward - its just that you might have expected that someone would have thought of that by now!

Dual ground

3rd Apr 2009, 15:02

But they can at least distinguish between a premium and an economy cabin.....:E

EYXW

3rd Apr 2009, 15:30

Were the airlines to print a bold, simple statement on the ticket, EG.-

The Big Airline I used to work for print it on the safety card and in the back of the onboard Mag, just by meet the Nigel Column.

Munnyspinner

3rd Apr 2009, 16:23

If you read the 'now closed' thread you would know that the opportunity was created by CC not being able to distinguish between Cattle class and Premium pax. Although It remains to be seen what the actual difference is on some airlines, other than ticket price!:}

Munnyspinner

3rd Apr 2009, 16:25

The Big Airline I used to work for print it on the safety card and in the back of the onboard Mag, just by meet the Nigel Column.

So, effectivlely hidden from view then!;)

clareprop

3rd Apr 2009, 18:58

If you make a mistake, we will handle that between you and me, but I will back you up 100% in front of the pax and with the company.

And that Judd, with the greatest of respect to people who sometimes have a difficult job, is where things can get out of control.
When young or inexperienced CC make a mistake in dealing with an experienced passenger, blind loyalty to your staff can escalate a problem when a quiet word and apology would have settled everything.
After twenty five years of premium travel, if I had a pound for every time I've seen it....
On the other hand, during the same period I have seen people who deserve to be dealt with quite firmly treated with kid gloves to achieve the peace.
A difficult balancing act I accept.

Juud

3rd Apr 2009, 21:08

Clareprop, with a bit of tact and brains, not too mention far too many years of experience, it is quite possible to back up the FA while still calming down the pax. Trust me, I'm an old Wagon Dragon. ;)
Also, and I hope you understand this the way I intend it, because of the way I am, what I say in the briefing and my somewhat "scary" looks, I seldom have FAs who do a bad job or who are surly with the pax. It happens, but rarely.
Other thing is that during the first 3 hours of the flight, I don't do any admin. Instead I am all over the aircraft like a bad rash. By continuously moving around, chatting with pax, observing the FAs, lending a hand where needed, the FAs know my beady eye is on them and the pax feel 'seen'.
It's a good way of spotting potential trouble areas and stepping in to soothe the waters before the sh!t hits the fan.

As you say the whole thing is a balancing act, and of course mistakes get made occasionally. Both by the pax, by me and by the FAs. It happens, and it's very embarrassing and makes me feel awful.
Usually though, if you find a face-saving way for people to back off (doesn't matter if it's pax or FAs) the majority are only too happy to do so.
Funny thing is that after such an episode, both the FA and the pap will go out of their way to be pleasant and polite with each other and often the pap will thank us for an excellent flight.

Still, when a pap is abusive in the manner of "I fly a million miles a year and you are a brainless tolley dolley whom I can treat as badly as I want" I back my FAs all the way. They are humans, they do their best and they deserve a minimum of respect. And I will make sure they get it.
Weak Seniors, afraid of their pax and wont to apologise when the FAs had not been in the wrong were what I hated most when I was an FA myself. I vowed never to become one of those and I haven't so far.

If an FA needs correcting I most certainly do that, and without mincing my words, but in private and with the understanding that it's the behaviour there is something wrong with, not him or her as a person.
Treating your 'staff' like you treat your customers, with respect and kindness but with no latitude for cr@p goes a long way.