Kids disembarked from easyJet flight

[Michael Birbeck]

Pupils on trip to Venice forced to leave plane due to inadequate number of teachers - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5136729/Pupils-on-trip-to-Venice-forced-to-leave-plane-due-to-inadequate-number-of-teachers.html)

How many captains out there know what the legal ratio of adults to children should be? Was this a safety issue or just our nanny state (and airline industry) gone mad again?

:(

[biscuit74]

That is crazy. It is a guideline, not a law. Anyway ,the recommendation is '10-12 students per aduit. None of Easyjet's business IMO. And officiously OTT.

Unless the youngsters were being rowdy and uncontrollable, and there is no comment suggesting that at all.

Congratulations Easyjet official, whoever you are, you just ruined some youngsters' happy expectations, for no justifiable reason whatever. There really are some folk for whom any authority is a dangerous thing.

[west lakes]

Another paper takes a slightly different tack, the teacher/pupil ration is stated (apparently) in the group booking conditions, if the Pax can't read and follow the T&C's who is at fault?
The airline for insisting it's T&C's are followed, or the school for not following them? Bearing in mind that another group had gone out earlier with more staff than were needed for the number of pupils so there was overall the correct number of staff, just not on the correct flights - again who's responsible for that?
Worth bearing in mind that the 1:10 ratio is a requirement within the schools system.
Perhaps then going by earlier posts it is OK for airlines to ignore the 1:50 rule for cabin crew

[HundredPercentPlease]

Biscuit74,

It is clearly stated in the easyJet terms and conditions:

easyJet.com - Carrier's Regulations (http://www.easyjet.com/EN/Book/regulations.html#infants)

Groups of children

easyJet will accept children aged 13 years or under in large groups (i.e. 10 or more) on the condition that there is a minimum ratio of one accompanying adult per 10 children. In these instances an adult is considered to be anyone aged 16 years or above.

It is a condition of carriage, and the person or company booking the seats (in this case "The School Travel Service") are obliged to read the conditions, and acknowledge that they have read the conditions, when booking. So much so, they have even apologised and offered a refund:

The School Travel Service, which organized the trip, also offered its apologies.

A spokesman said the company "looked into every possibility to transport the group but unfortunately the trip had to be postponed".

The company would provide a full refund and an alternative discounted trip later this year, the spokesman added.

Well done to the Captain for making sure the flight was in accordance with the regulations, thus keeping the insurance policy valid.

[Cloud1]

Completely agree West lakes - the pax responsibility, the pax fault. The Head says "We are extremely experienced in running study trips both in this country and abroad. The care and security of our students is always paramount" One must ask then why did they choose to ignore the airlines conditions of carriage!?

[BEA 71]

Bisquit 74:

There are rules and regulations regarding the number of ( unaccompanied ) children on board. They are there for VERY good reasons. Well done Easy Jet !

[Avitor]

I detest the nanny state, bureaucracy and bloody pedants. But insurance is insurance, it is essential for the carrier and the carried.

[JW411]

biscuit74:

So, if you had been on that flight and those 28 children had decided to get unruly with only 2 teachers to try and control them, you would have been perfectly happy with the situation?

[Michael Birbeck]

I wonder what the average kid to teacher ratio is in the average UK classroom? Certainly far higher that than 10 to 1. More of an education risk than a health and safety risk I suppose.

Also appreciate the insurance issue for the airline and sympathise with that. If this is such an issue from an insurance perspective then why were the kids allowed to embark in the first instance?

[JW411]

There is a huge difference between a teacher having 28 kids out of control in a classroom rather than within the confines of an Airbus 319!

[Checkboard]

How many captains out there know what the legal ratio of adults to children should be?

I know it. I mention it to the Senior whenever large groups of youngsters board.

What safety rules do you ignore, or can't be bothered learning?

If this is such an issue from an insurance perspective then why were the kids allowed to embark in the first instance?

Because they don't necessarily check in as a group, so it is not necessarily obvious that the Terms and Conditions of their travel is not being met, until they gather together at boarding.

[HundredPercentPlease]

Michael Birbeck,

Controlling a large group of children in a classroom is, may I suggest, an issue quite different to controlling a large group of children in an emergency evacuation of a burning aircraft.

And I too know the ratio, along with a load of other useful stuff I am meant to know about as a captain.

[Rainboe]

Outrageous biscut74. They were following their own rules clearly stated to passengers in the booking conditions! How dare you come here and castigate them publicly for it! YOU should be flogged! The least you could do is apologise for your insulting remarks.

[Michael Birbeck]

Please credit me with the sense and intelligence to comprehend the difference between the risk associated with managing kids in the classroom as opposed to an aircraft.

As for the question as to what safety regulations I ignore, I will just ignore that impertinent question :-). Suffice it to say I believe that safety regulations should do just that, ensure safety and as such should be understood and obeyed.

The presumption that the children were "unruly" is mere supposition.

[Checkboard]

None of Easyjet's business IMO. And officiously OTT.

Unless the youngsters were being rowdy and uncontrollable, and there is no comment suggesting that at all.

Of course the safe carriage of passengers is easyJet's business - and the other passengers travelling are grateful when we enforce those rules.

No one is suggesting that the children where anything other than well behaved, however it is the purpose of those rules to avoid situations that could arise in flight - when they are very difficult to deal with, not to wait until the trouble is occurring in a locked and crowded aircraft, half an hour from an airport.

[WHBM]

The School Travel Service, which organized the trip, also offered its apologies.
It's one thing for individuals booking themselves on a flight to fail to understand the T&Cs. But this trip was booked and organised by a major company who specialise in school trips like this, and who thus should be fully aware of everythng to do with carrier conditions for minors travelling. Their webste is full of statements about how they know all the fine details due to their experience. And don't forget that as professional travel agents they are taking a fee for this service.

It is a guideline, not a law.Biscuit, it is a legal regulation. An air carrier's conditions of carriage (including this 1:10 ratio) are incorporated and validated, and regularly audited, in their Air Operators Certificate, which is issued to an airline by the Civil Aviation Authority, a government department. No AOC, or AOC withdrawn, and the airline is grounded. And this regulation is there for a very good reason.

Somerset County Councils's "guidelines" of 10-12 pupils per teacher are completely irrelevant. This is an airline, not something the council manages.

The headmaster blames this on all sorts of things, including that they were "forced" to split the group, and 34 travelled with 4 teachers the day before, and this was 28 with 2 teachers. That makes 62 pupils with 6 teachers, which would still breach the conditions of carriage if they all travelled together. Um ..... do you teach mathematics in your school, headmaster ? It's a good job that even for the most basic Private Pilot's Licence you have to be a sight better at mental arithmetic than this.

[Rainboe]

Biscuit apologise or delete your stupid post!

[Noxegon]

It's worth noting that they were apparently short staffed anyway - 34 + 28 pupils, 4 + 2 teacher => 62 pupils, 6 teachers => even if they had all been on the one flight they'd have been outside the T&Cs.

[Michael Birbeck]

Used to be flown back from Oranjemund (Namibia, then South West Africa) on a school flight back to Cape Town on chartered C130 from a dust strip. Tarpaulin separating the kids from the Captain and crew. No questions as to what the teacher children ratio was. Captain would glare bayfully at us from up front before start up and warn us all that given any trouble he would come out and "donner us" (beat us). There was never any trouble.

Enough material here for a number of law suits today I guess. :)

Still remember those flights like yesterday. The Captain was just that, a Captain not a quasi accountant/lawyer.

[biscuit74]

If those are their terms & conditions, fair enough they are entitled to enforce them. For that ignorance on my part I apologise.

However -

(a) How well advertised are these Ts & Cs. In my experience of bucket outfits like Easyjet, they keep a lot of this stuff in fairly small print, deliberately. Rather as with insurance policies, it allows them to be very selective when they wish to be.

(b) In my experience I'd rather have a bunch of kids - and there is absoutely no indication that they were unruly in any way - than a mob of the usual half cut, ignorant, and sadly all too often over weight and unfit types seen in the queues for too many of these flights. The people whose behaviour gives the UK a bad name all across Europe. Notionally adult, but.... It's why I won't travel on those carriers.

In the event of an emergency, again I'd rather have the kids all in /around early teens if I understand the news report, than the afore mentioned so called adults.
I've worked with many young folk who were much more useful, alert, obedient and interested than their so called elders and betters. It's a matter of how you treat them.

It is the case that this over zealous BS in Britain is producing a second generation which believes it doesn't have to think for itself, is not responible for anything and doesn't have to obey any rules it doesn't want to.
I suggest some of our posters here go to Europe and see how more civilised countries treat and train their children and also how they view practical Health & Safety.
A lot of the total lunacy forced on us in the UK by the Nanny mob is justly laughed at.

As for you Rainboe, I'd suggest you take a long deep breath and calm down. It's really not that important. Chill out.

[Rainboe]

It's not in 'small print'. Easyjet T & Cs are clear to everybody. That is hardly an apology when you go on to justify your peculiar stance!

[WHBM]

How well advertised are these Ts & Cs. In my experience of bucket outfits like Easyjet, they keep a lot of this stuff in fairly small print, deliberately. Rather as with insurance policies, it allows them to be very selective when they wish to be.
I'll say it again. The bookings were physically made by a professional schools travel organiser, School Travel Service Ltd, who can be expected to understand all such things. That is what they get paid for. They were the ones who accepted the Easyjet T&Cs on behalf of all the travellers here. Of all the Easyjet T&Cs this must be one that a school travel organiser comes into contact with every day.

The T&Cs are not in small print, and they would not be permitted to do so. This was stamped out in contracts many years ago.

Easyjet are not a bucket outfit. In 15 years of operations they have built up one of the largest air carriers in Europe, with all-new aircraft and the professionalism you would expect to go with this. Immaculate safety record.

[ihadcontrol]

Aside from the Easyjet stuff...... 2 teachers to 28 pupils? Not really good youth work/school policy for a trip abroad!

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

your peculiar stance!

I guess I'm peculiar too as I tend to agree with most of biscuit's last post.
The total dumbing down of the airline industry is utterly shameless and I'm delighted that I am now too old to participate up front.
It seems that experience, competence and judgment has been completely removed from the scene and replaced by faceless, nameless and often unnecessary bureaucratic "watch your six" rules and procedures.
If the "rules" are set, however ill considered, the captain or any other suitably qualified officer must enforce them but when will you in the industry wake up and take sensible charge?
Of course Easyjet is a "bucket" outfit, it matters not a hoot how long it has been operating, but that is not to denigrate the professionalism, competence and ability of its operating crew. It's the suits who are to blame for the sorry state of the UK air industry, together with the sad state of nannyism which is ruining this once fine country.:*

Sorry- bit of a rant- but I feel better now.

[flybar]

The 1:10 ratio for foreign trips is advocated in many publications from various Governing Bodies, the Department for Education (or whatever it is called this week) and backed by the NSPCC amongst other organisations.
The organisers have no excuse for not knowing. EasyJet are quite right in their action and should something have happened would not have had a leg to stand on.

[paully]

This should have been posted in Jet Blast :bored:

However, well done to the Ezy skipper....:ok:

[FrequentSLF]

Just read the T&C before flying.
I always wonder when people says "I did not know that, is not fair".
Well when you purchased your ticket you should be aware of what are the T&C. This does not only apply to the airline industry...

Now a question for the informed, could any other adult travelling on the same flight came forward and say that he would accompany the children?

[lomapaseo]

This should have been posted in Jet Blast


Nah, it's informative to the passengers and SLF

poof

[surely not]

I cannot believe that Biscuit is still floundering around in a sea of incorrect assertions.

A bucket shop is a Travel Agent that sells tickets dumped at below cost fares by airlines including many scheduled carriers of such pedigree as BA, Lufthansa etc. Never heard of a bucket airline before.

I am forming the impression that Biscuit is one of those who is never wrong in life. If easyJet had carried the children and a problem resulted which caused a diversion no doubt he would have trawled throught their Conditions of Carriage and demanded the flogging of the Captain because he DIDN'T follow them.

Never mind Biscuit, more like wants his cake and eat it!!!

I have nearly recovered from the shock of agreeing with Rainboe on a topic on here :ok::}

[west lakes]

Now a question for the informed, could any other adult travelling on the same flight came forward and say that he would accompany the children?Doubt it, CRB checks and all that for anyone involved with children (imagine the furor if a non-checked person had done the wrong thing!)

At the end of the day we have a situation where (supposedly) well educated and responsible people have arranged a trip for other people's children, not checked the T&C's of the carrier or relied on others to do it for them, are on the edge of compliance with national advice for supervision levels, I somehow doubt I would let any child of mine (he's 19 now so not an issue) travel abroad with that group of "responsible people".

Should add that I was involved with a volunteer youth organisation for 18 years starting from about 23 years ago, the 1:10 ratio was in force back then - though oddly enough lots of schools didn't comply with it!

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Far be it for me to defend the good biscuit (I'm sure he's more than capable) but if you (surely not) reread his last post he accepts the T's& C'c but criticizes the whole woolly rationale behind it. So do I.
We all know what is inferred by the term "bucket" and to use it for an airline whilst not literally correct, does sufficiently indicate the type of operation ie verging on dodgy in comparison to main line airlines (or ticket agencies) Good to see pedantry alive and well.:ok:

[anotherthing]

ROG

The Ts and Cs clearly state a ratio of 1:10. You argue that the rational behind it is flawed.

So what do you think the ratio should be 1:20, 1:30...??? What if I or any other Tom Dick or Harriet disagree with the figure you pluck out of the air?


The total dumbing down of the airline industry is utterly shameless and I'm delighted that I am now too old to participate up front.
It seems that experience, competence and judgment has been completely removed from the scene
You are totally correct - there is a dumbing down of the airline industry in all aspects.

However don't you think that just sometimes having 'trivial' things like this written down in Ts and Cs actually helps the Captain concentrate on his main task instead of leaving every little decision up to him?

Don't you think that having such matters in black and white helps keep the operation running smoothly?

It's a condition of travel, clearly stated. People who choose to fly low cost airlines should be aware of the many rules that abound and therefore should take extra care to read the conditions of booking.


If people aren't capable of reading and understanding the conditions of carriage, maybe they are not fit to travel unaccompanied. The fact a Travel booking service screwed up is even worse!:ugh:

As for your comment
...inferred by the term "bucket" and to use it for an airline whilst not literally correct, does sufficiently indicate the type of operation ie verging on dodgy in comparison to main line airlines ...
You're making it even worse than Biscuit74 did (and he's obviously crackers)!! What do you base this statement on?

I'm an ATCO working for NATS in the LTMA. I control aircraft operating into and out of EGLL, EGKK, EGSS, EGGW, EGBB, EGHI etc to name but a few.

I can assure you that the crews of these so called bucket organisations are every bit as professional as the 'mainline carriers'.

Your statement is completely inflammatory and totally out of order!

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Read it again "another thing". It's the Airline management I refer to, not the operating crew.
Of course Easyjet is a "bucket" outfit, it matters not a hoot how long it has been operating, but that is not to denigrate the professionalism, competence and ability of its operating crew. It's the suits who are to blame for the sorry state of the UK air industry, together with the sad state of nannyism which is ruining this once fine country.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/bah.gif

Don't have a problem with the application of rules, just want them to be framed by people with competence and experience; and don't get too hung up on specifics, my comments ( a rant really) was the huge unneccessary raft of rules which now consume the industry. (As a matter of interest I reckon that a teacher who controls 30 kids in class can manage more than 10 in the air, but that's only an uninformed opinion)
I repeat, the captain or any other qualified officer has no alternative but to apply the rules, but for the love of God let's try and get the rules correct, relevant and useable.

[west lakes]

Don't have a problem with the application of rules, just want them to be framed by people with competence and experienceI would guess that Easyjet are well aware that the don't have the competence and experience regarding the adult/child ratio. So it would make sense to consult those who have, perhaps they got the advice here?

The 1:10 ratio for foreign trips is advocated in many publications from various Governing Bodies, the Department for Education (or whatever it is called this week) and backed by the NSPCC amongst other organisations.Unless you think these bodies lack the competance and experience!

Believe it, the journey onboard any transport is the easy bit as all the children are in one place, dealing with them at a busy airport/seaport/public place can be hard work at a 1:10 ratio

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

OK everyone, don't burst a blood vessel, it was only a rant on the suffocating overcomplication of T's and C's in general, rules, limitations etc but particularly the insiduous nannyism which is killing this industry and the country.
If the industry standard is 10 to 1 as advocated by the dept of Education (a fine organisation with a record of unparalleled success) and the NSPCC (an unrivalled history of aviation), so be it. We must obey.
However, we, the Industry, could and should be doing better.

[Rainboe]

We don't need to! For goodness sake it is laid down in black and white (or maybe orange on a yellow background whatever) what the regulations are, and as pointed out, especially after Pablo ('my Mum couldn't spell 'Paul'') Mason, there is no latitude to bend the rules. The industry has done it fine- the school failed for not checking its kids were looked after, and the tour operator failed.

[boguing]

I'd been wondering about volunteer surrogates. I'm fully CRB checked, and would certainly have stepped forward to offer to 'supervise'. Must say though that my CRB certificate is not something I carry when traveling - that might be slightly pervy. So they'd have had to 'phone in to some database or other to check me out.

From recent parental experience I'd say that half the adults on a ski trip are teachers, and the other half are (grateful) parents. So unless the carrier insisted on the adults being booked within the group, I'd have thought it was a good way around it.

ps. If School Travel Service Ltd are reading this, and need a CRB checked adult available now, contact me by pm to discusss my rates.

[13 please]

That's a nice idea 'boguing', however you have to be CRB checked to that address, the address of the school.

As cabin crew, I have been CRB checked twice, yet if I want to help at my kids' school disco, be a reading mum, go on a school trip, etc, I have to be CRB checked again.

I haven't done it as I'm not really that bothered, but you couldn't just step in, as it were. Unless the different counties have different rules, who knows..??:)

[Rainboe]

OmiGod! This is going too far! How come everybody knows better? You think you can pick someone off the street these days and ask them to supervise children fer goodness sake? And why should another passenger take responsibility for a bunch of kids? Do you think paying such lip service to the rules is enough these days? Crazy suggestion!

[Jofm5]

Had I been the Captain of said flight, I would have applied common sense (is that allowed anymore?) and asked for ONE adult volunteer passenger to act as responsible person to assist should it become necessary.



All very well to get someone to assist on the outbound flight but what if on the return leg there are no volunteers - that group is then stranded abroad.

A captain can apply common sense but he cant turn a blind eye to the insurance requirements. For the captain to suggest another pax fulfil a role on the way out and the group gets stranded because no pax will fulfil the the role on the way back who would the school head be bitching at ?

The responsible thing to do is what the captain did and offload them until the conditions are met. With the letter of the law ignornace is no defence - had something un-toward happened and children never managed to evacute the craft the captain as the ultimate person responsible would be hung out to dry.

Although there are some disappointed kids they are alive disappointed kids - Ultimately it is their safety that is primarily of the captains concern - it is not a case of refusing carraige for proving empowerment for his ego.

[boardingpass]

Sorry Jackdaw, while you may be good intentioned, it's a serious responsibility that children's parents have entrusted to the school. For clarity, here are the rules from my manual that all pilots and cabin crew know and follow:
*** does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no circumstances must another passenger be asked to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor...
*** will accept children aged 14 years or under in large groups (i.e. 10 or more) on the condition that there is a minimum ratio of one accompanying adult per 10 children...
Whenever groups of children are traveling they should be allocated seats where they can be readily supervised by the responsible accompanying adults in both normal and abnormal conditions...

On another note, I would like to add that I have seen teachers getting up after take off while the seat belt sign is still on, during turbulence, and also after landing while still taxiing. I've heard the 'oh but Sally was upset by the turbulence' excuse, to which I replied that if your head had hit the bulkhead and you had been knocked unconscious, you'd be no use to Sally at all'. I wanted to remind them that they should also be setting an example but bit my tongue...

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

If you have not read the thread "a sign of the times" running on R & N, I can highly recommend it. IMHO it encapsulates very much the discussion on this subject.
The EJ captain did what he had to do given the R&R, T&C etc which pertain today. I do not believe that that decision had anything to do with safety

Ultimately it is their safety that is primarily of the captains concern

and (reluctantly) I have to agree with the comment

Do you think paying such lip service to the rules is enough these days?

However, I firmly believe that we in the industry have allowed this to happen and whilst I can offer no solution, I hope that the younger, active members of the flying community can learn from history and prevent even worse downslides in the industry, and perhaps, hope against hope, reverse the trend.

[Michael Birbeck]

When I originally posted this thread I was apt to get a Captain's (i.e. the pilot in command) perspective on this issue. As is the way of these things the thread has taken on a life of its' own and has become a SLF issue (so be it). What I learned (surprise, surprise) is that there is a cadre of good corporate captains out there ("we must obey the letter of the law"). The other pole of opinion is that good sense should prevail and some lateral thinking could have solved this situation within the spirit of the law. Without wishing to be provocative I don't subscribe to the school of thinking that maintains the safest way to fly people is not to fly them them at all. Ultimately the real fault probably lies with the company that organised this trip but how supine of some of the thinkers here to say not my fault, not my problem.

There are multiple ways to fulfill the mission and these often require a little bit of gumption, a command decision (God forbid that a Captain might have to make one of those without rushing back to company procedure or some other piece of paper to hide behind) and a dollop of good old fashion courage. I guess the same applies to flying in extremis, does one fly the aircraft or does one sit hiding behind peripheral knowledge of automated systems and modes and allow oneself to be flown. :ok:

[TightSlot]

I'm sorry, but I really think that some of you are a tad confused in your understanding of how things work at airlines.

Commanders exercise command decisions (variously described as Gumption, Lateral Thinking, Initiative etc.) when appropriate: In this case, appropriate may be taken to mean, when required. Flight Crew are not paid to interpret regulations, and amend on the fly when it suits their whim (QED Pablo Mason). Some of you may not like this (QED Pablo Mason, again) and while that may make for an interesting chat in the Pub, the reality is that adherence to SOP's, Regulation & Legislation is the backbone of safe aviation. Deviation from this reality, when there is no overwhelming safety reason to do so, leaves those on board in peril, either physical, legal or both.

The suggestion that other people be drafted in as surrogate teachers of some sort is absurd: Society (whether you like it or not) has determined that those caring for children must jump through certain hoops (CRB checks anybody?) before they are allowed to take such a role. It is not appropriate for those existing procedures to be abandoned when inconvenient - your definition of inconvenient will be discreet i.e. what you judge to be correct for your child in this situation will not be the same for other parents. Once again, discussions about the value of these procedures is something interesting for your second pint - it has no place in aviation.

In this instance, all the mistakes were made by the Tour Operator. They blew it, and knew it. Neither the airline, nor specifically the operating Crew may be blamed, criticized or second guessed for complying with pre-existing rules. Speculation as to whether those rules are appropriate, or could have been adapted (i.e. bent) is interesting, but within an operational aviation context, irrelevant. Stuff just doesn't work like that in the flying business - if you don't get that, you shouldn't be working in the business.

[WHBM]

So far what has not come to light is exactly why the children were dispatched to the airport with an inadequate number of adults (not just for this flight, but for the whole round trip when the groups were together on the return).

It may be that nobody understood the carrier's regulation, although I have to say that given the background of the tour operator this seems a little unlikely. It could be they had the regulation explained to them but decided that for their group it somehow needn't apply (rather like some of the posters above). Or it could be that there were the correct three teachers allocated, and on the day one had a road accident on the way to the airport, or their own child went down with chickenpox that morning, or a range of other issues that stopped them going.

What such groups need to understand is that the number of accompanying staff is not a recommendation, but an absolute limit, and if just one of the adults doesn't make it then the entire group's trip is lost - as here. If I were taking 28 children with a 1:10 ratio I would consider four adults, not three, to give some headroom. Tour operators who offer one "free" place for adults per 10 children do not help, because this encourages people to work to the minima. And to give the schools the benefit of some experience from aviation, always working down to the minima is a bad thing, isn't it ?

[Michael Birbeck]

I am not for one moment suggesting that rules should be bent, broken or ignored.

I am championing the ability of anyone (and all of us) to question the logic of the multitude of rules that impinge on as at every level and in all walks of life (not just aviation). If we continue to just "obey orders" without at least thinking through the logic of these things then we are on a slippery slope to being ineffectual and somewhat diminshed as human beings. By blind obedience we ultimately purposely put ourselves out of the loop, hence my use of the word supine. You are either in control or you are not! You are either a Captain of your own destiny or not.

As it happens, in this specific case the airline and the crew were obviously correct in the decisions made based upon the regs as they stand. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't debate the logic or efficacy of those regs.
:ok:

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Well said Michael, seconded by me and many other "thinking" aviators.

[COLOR=#008080]Stuff just doesn't work like that in the flying business - if you don't get that, you shouldn't be working in the business.

You are so wrong T/S. Those working in the industry should be aware of the "rules" but those still with their own brains should be challenging many of them.
I am not referring to this incident but the slow strangulation of the industry as a whole.
However I feel it's all too late and the rule book will get ever bigger and all decision making will be taken away from the front line. 1984 rules supreme.
I'm long since retired, but the idiocy of the industry still affects me as SLF.

[TightSlot]

those still with their own brains should be challenging many of them

Fine - my point is that the Pub is the best place for planning a challenge - On the line, on the day, when it comes up is not

I am not referring to this incident but the slow strangulation of the industry as a whole

I can't judge how correct that statement is, but it appears to be based on anecdotal evidence - not always the strongest basis.

Look - If that's your perception, then great. I just don't believe that this incident is the best example for you to cite: We can courteously agree to disagree on that.

[Final 3 Greens]

The airline follows the rules, yet gets bad exposure.

Tough, that's one of the downsides of being in a high profile business, I have no sympathy and an airline should have a contingency plan in place to manage their exposure to this incident, which is predictable - hint - look at all t&Cs and ask the question 'what risks are generated by these?' It's called scenario planning.

Airlines need to get smarter in media management - one already is very smart in generating free publicity.

Generally, airline media management has a lot to learn from the FMCG and other sectors, easyJet could have have turned this into a lot of excellent free exposure, with a little thought, instead we have the travel agent offering a refund - not exactly stellar stuff, it it?

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Quote:
I am not referring to this incident but the slow strangulation of the industry as a whole
I can't judge how correct that statement is, but it appears to be based on anecdotal evidence - not always the strongest basis.



It's based on 40 active years as military and civil navigator and pilot, with current close associations with senior airline captains both mainstream and LoCo, Fleet managers and Training Officers and many in the TP world...... Oh yes and some anecdotal!

No you're right this is not the best example to quote, but after listening to my teacher friends, and my policeman son, and my ATCO son, and my doctor friends and my wife a nursing sister, who all report the same downward slide in their industries the overall trend is quite upsetting. So I had a rant.

[WHBM]

It's based on 40 active years ...... all report the same downward slide in their industries the overall trend is quite upsetting. So I had a rant.
What downward trend in aviation ?

Well I suppose there is the downward trend of the accident statistics, which nowadays (tight procedures) are an absolute fraction of what they were 40 years ago (loose procedures).

But there are upward trends as well, like the numbers able to afford to travel by air, which is what, 100 times as many as it was 40 years ago, with all the benefit to crews employed and the scale of the industry. So good trends overall.

If you feel hesitant about current procedures, the next time you get any checklist out, look at all the items on there. And remember that for each item that appears on there for you to follow, someone (maybe many) have died in the past for the lack of care with this item. Each and every point.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

What downward trend in aviation ?



If you can't see it then for you it does not exist. I could see and feel it when I came to the end of my active flying life and my pals, still hanging on (for the pension no doubt) are in no doubt.
Thank goodnes we're all different and I hope you continue to defend and enjoy the industry.
PS the safety record is down to better aircraft and better engines and equipment. Naff all to do with the nameless beancounters in suits.
PS2 if you believe that the experience enjoyed by those increased numbers who can now afford to fly can compare with the experience of 40 years ago then you are probably in need of a visit to my daughter in law (consultant trick cyclist)
Oh yes I nearly forgot... the industry is certainly much bigger and there are many more people employed (some of them pilots) and they are all treated like sh*te by the non aviation, beancounting, faceless suits. That's what I call a downward trend.