TC 'Terrifies' Passengers - The Press at their worst

[jayteeto]

Terrified tourists boycott flight home after being told to sit at back 'to balance nose-heavy jet' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194937/Terrified-tourists-boycott-flight-home-told-sit-balance-nose-heavy-jet.html)

It must be a new requirement for aircrews to have no cares about their own safety.............

[Dysag]

Either all the pax are too stupid to understand (possible) or the airline's communication skills are non-existent.

When no-one in authority is able to explain clearly that there's nothing to worry about, this is what you get.

[Little Blue]

Thank god they never had to travel on an ATP !!!
We regularly had to cram them so far down the back cos the thing was so damned nose-heavy.
In fact it was almost a miracle it ever got off the ground !
I suggest the "terrified" holiday makers stick to Blackpool in future...far safer on the M6.

:ugh:

[Mercenary Pilot]

Why does everyone keep posting Daily Mail articles on here???

Really guys, stop reading that ****. :ugh:

[minstermineman]

Dave Charlton, of Blyth, Northumberland, paid £600 for an alternative flight home for himself, his wife Susan and their six-year-old son Adam after being deterred by the sight of the arrivals getting off the plane.
'People were kissing the ground and putting their hands together like they were praying,'

I'm sure that would be disconcerting for many people waiting to board if they witnessed this sort of thing then were told they had to sit at the back to balance the plane !

Not everyone knows about weight distribution and C of G issues in the passenger queue - more care in how it was presented to the passengers maybe . . .

[Barkly1992]

MP

You have to read it - it's called entertainment.

Loosen up man.

[Nicholas49]

'I know my mum is scared of flying too so I wondered what would she do in that situation.'

Always best to take advice from an expert!

On a serious note, did the captain come out into the departure lounge to explain the situation and assuage any concern? I am sorry to say that the tone and style used by gate staff in this kind of situation is not exactly expert, neither is it reassuring.

Intelligent passengers often sit there and think 'ok, so he doesn't know what he's talking about, but at least the flight crew do'.

[Iain Wilson]

Must be a slack news day........ Mind you, all it takes is one pillock and things rapidly get out of hand.
What kind of reaction did the 17 y.o. expect to get from a mother who has a fear of flying??? Serves them all bloody right - I hope they can`t claim their airfares with EZY back - aircraft was perfectly OK for flight.
What`s this country coming to?

[Paul2412]

Is it standard practice to fly with a cargo door jammed that could burst open at any moment?

[Michael Birbeck]

The average passenger hasn't a clue why an aircraft can fly let alone understand centre of gravity issues. To many people, flight is not too far from magic and is only accepted because "science" says it can happen.

A lot of these folks have just seen recent footage of the results of a big airline disaster and, not surprisingly, are nervous.

As ever, the sensationalist press have a lot to answer for encouraging fear and allowing these kinds of mass hysteria to persist through sloppy and over the top reporting.

The key to quashing this kind of nonsense is for professionals to desmystify the whole thing. Professional friendly patience, openess and clarity of communication is paramount.

[DrGitfinger]

It's not just the Daily Mail. France's apparently serious "Le Figaro" has printed some fairly crass nonsense about AF 447. On the other hand, Germany's trashy tabloid "Bild Zeitung" did at least explain why there's nothing to worry about in these photos: Nach Absturz von AF 447 - Solche Bilder machen Flugpassagieren Angst - News - Bild.de (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/leserreporter/2009/06/16/flugpassagiere-haben-angst/bei-scheinbar-defekten-flugzeugen.html)

[abkasti]

heard on the speakers :
"in two minutes we have to make a left turn so if 30 of you would please go to the left side of airplane.
thanks "
:)

[charlies angel]

PAUL2412
Yes we regularly fly for hours on end worrying that the closed and locked cargo doors ( jammed! ) will burst open any second.
In fact I regularly sit at home watching that my closed dining room door doesn't burst open and cause absolute mayhem in the hall.
Have a word with yourself :ugh:

[lexxity]

Jesus wept. Is this all there is to report today?

I've never been to Palma but wouldn't the inbound and outbound pax be seperated?

Also a little fact here has anyone here even been the target of a disgruntled group with a ringleader? I doubt even the most experienced Captain could calm an irate group down. All it takes is one person to be a bit daft, i.e. some young girl calling home to run around saying "My Mum says not to get on" and you end up in a situation that rapidly becomes uncontrollable. It's nothing to do with customer service training or the presentation of the issue and everything to do with mob mentality.

[JayPee28bpr]

Isn't this a case of nervous passengers and 2+2 = 5 or more? I say that as a nervous passenger myself! It seems, though, that a connection was made between the bumpy inward flight and the jammed door. I can't say I see the link. Presumably the plane was balanced on its way in? If there had been the same weight problem on the previous flight, wouldn't that too have been flown with all the passengers down the back?

Where TC went wrong was in not getting everyone on to the plane and then telling them to sit anywhere. It's far easier to refuse to board rather than demand to get off again. Once on the plane, the captain could then explain why everyone needed to sit at the back and, more importantly, why safety regs allow him/her to fly the plane with a jammed (and locked anyway) cargo door. He/she should then have broken the link to the incoming bumpy flight by telling everyone how bad the turbulence had been on the way over and to apologise in advance for the expected bumpy flight home.

I think pilots sometimes forget that the bulk of their passengers find flying unnerving to a greater or lesser degree. 2 minutes spent explaining that the flight might not be very comfortable but certainly wouldn't be dangerous could have saved TC lots of time and bad publicity. In light of the AF accident recently, airlines and crew ought to be mindful that passengers are currently more worried than they were three weeks ago about flying in turbulent conditions. Irrational? Of course. It doesn't seem that way, though, six miles up when the plane appears incapable of flying in a straight line!

[hellsbrink]

Is it standard practice to fly with a cargo door jammed that could burst open at any moment?

If it was jammed closed, how would it "burst open at any moment"?

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Abusing_the_sky]

Some people seriously need to get a life.

[airborne_artist]

If they are that unstable and hysterical they should get the charabanc to Blackpool and make sure not to go up the Blackpool Tower.

So the captain asks them to move, and they then assume they are all going to die. Did they think the flight-deck and cabin crew all had parachutes/ejector seats.

It's amazing that people so thick are a) allowed a passport and b) allowed back in to the UK.

[_ShIfTy_]

The aircraft operating the flight was a Mint air 752. Daily mail never mentions this. I also live in cramlington and recognise her. If I see her in the local I will educate her on weight and balance. This should prevent any problems if she ever flys with ryanair and finds the front and rear 6 rows blocked off for balance.

ShIfTy.

[keeprighton1974]

Oh dear. we're at Snob Factor 9 today, aren't we boys? "They should stick to Blackpool"... have a listen to yourselves. How do you cope with mixing with the peasants in the airport concourse?

It is a non-story in several ways but IF and it's a big IF the story has the facts correct:

1. The pilot / crew must have poor communication skills

2. I don't care who you are - if you're queuing for a flight and the arrivals are kissing the ground / sobbing / telling you not to get on the plane, you're seriously going to consider not boarding the thing!!

However, there's bound to be buckets of over-exaggeration in this story. Just try to show your fellow man a bit of love, eh?

[Icare9]

Why were the passengers on the arriving flight making such a fuss?
If there was turbulence, that has no connection with a jammed and locked baggage compartment! Unless the turbulence was so severe it twisted the airframe thus jamming the baggage door!
The door must have been jammed BEFORE the previous flight boarded, otherwise they would have also been running around without their luggage!!

What a non story, just to get someones picture in the paper.

The girl didn't look at all concerned and here we have a "Mum" mouthing off instead of being pleased to see her.... Hmmmmm maybe that was the problem, did she not want her back?? I think all the noise is because she wants "compo" for the cost of the flight. Still, maybe she'll go by Ryanair in future to stay on her own level.

[hellsbrink]

Can someone explain how the departees were able to talk to those arriving (according to Palma Airport Majorca, Guide to the layout of Palma Airport Majorca (http://www.lets-go-to-majorca.com/palma-airport.html) there is some disttance between arrivals and departures.....)? Also, according to what I see on Google Earth, the chances are those arriving would have used an airbridge so how were they able to "kiss the ground"?

Let's just say that someone is talking porkies in that "article"

[luvly jubbly]

The topic will be discussed on tomorrow's (Wednesday's) North East Tonight programme.


LJ

[IB4138]

It has always been my view that all people should obtain a "Certificate of Competence to Leave the UK and Travel Abroad", before being allowed to set foot on any mode of transport, airport and/or port. It really should include Eurostar and the Channel Tunnel rail services as well.

Regretably these days such a document is becoming even more of a necessity, with some of the chavs the UK allows into the outside world.

As for the Daily Mail and it's sensational reporting of events that don't happen, well.....:rolleyes: Perhaps this publication should be removed from newspaper sales sections and placed with the rest of the comics.

[Razoray]

Why didnt they just un-jam the door and be on with it?

A little delay, no bad press, no hysteria!

Here in the States it would be a delay, some grumbling.....

than Business as Usual.....

:confused:

[tomtom11]

it was a mint air plane with no mainenance cover @ ncl so its easier said than done to unjam the door

[er340790]

Used to fly on Servivensa DC-3s around Venezuela a lot back in the 1990s.

Was SOP for PIC to pop into the cabin before departure and usher any bigger guys up to fill all the empty seats towards the nose.

Tourists were always trying to get the best views from the windows behind the wing - they'd had a few cases of aborted take-offs where they couldn't raise the tail! :uhoh:

[757_Driver]

sorry, keeprighton, don't agree at all.

This is what happens after 12 years of "everyone is right, everyone is an expert" society.
This is the same attitude that has brought back a number of illnesses and epidemics because people are too precious to vaccinate their kids because their mate told them that they had read somewhere that Wikipedia said is wasn't safe. There are a number of examples of this all through our society.
Do these people go to hospital and tell the doctor how to treat them? Do they tell the teachers how to teach their kids (actually, yes, they probably do that)? Why do they think that they know more than the captain? or the crew?
Muppets.
I guess you could view the several hundred quid they had to spend on making their own way home as a tax on "preciousness", or an idiot tax.

[trebor]

Firstly when arriving into Palma on an airbridge you will pass those passengers waiting to board in the gate area and even more so as the flight was already delayed. Some of the arriving passengers over 100 did not have their luggage either this was sent out over the next 2 days.
I was actually in the airport the next morning and from what the passengers told me there was obviously very bad communication between the airline and passengers. They were told about the fault and apparently what made it worse was the state of the cabin and that they had seen the arriving passengers. In my eyes there is no sensation in the news articles I have read.

[Bealzebub]

The Daily Mail is a very opaque window on the world, so I am going to place very little reliance on what it chose to report. However I am a bit confused as to how these passengers came by this information?

If it necessary to use a forward hold only for baggage, because you cannot open the rear one, why would you tell the passengers that? I appreciate that if you need to redistribute passengers as a result, they need to be told something, but that should simply be confined to weight and balance issues. If it were a passenger door, then clearly there would be a safety issue, and the passengers must be briefed about the unserviceable exit and relocated accordingly. However for a cargo door, it is absolutely none of their concern, and nor should it be made one.

This seems to be a case of too much information, and not enough thought on the part of whoever chose to impart it.

[Final 3 Greens]

Beazelbub

A cargo door failure killed 346 people in my lifetime.

What is the failure mode of a jammed cargo door on a 757?

What are the consequences?

I a neither stupid nor hysterical, but I would wish to know the answers to the above questions before boarding.

As it is my life I am entrusting to the airline, it is (with all due respect) very much my business.

If I received a sensible answer, I would be happy to board, but if not I'd walk away.

I wonder how well this matter was communicated.

[Bealzebub]

It is a plug door, like all of the other doors. If it is closed it is closed. It has no correlation to the unmodified rear cargo doors on McDonnell Douglas DC-10 series 10's like the THY aircraft you are referring to.

The consequences are that you cannot use that hold.

You wouldn't and shouldn't be any the wiser before boarding. It is not your concern.

It has no bearing on your safety and is therefore irrelevant to your business. As such you are not required nor is it relevant that you would be required to make any choices.

I also wonder how well or indeed why this matter was communicated.

[simonchowder]

Moronic buffoons, whats so hard to understand about having to trim the aircraft?

[Final 3 Greens]

Beazelbub

According to the manufacturer's records, the THY a/c was modified.

Are you saying that the manufacturer was wrong?

[Bealzebub]

Without delving back into the archives of flight TK981. Yes as I recall the manufacturers service bulletin had not been incorporated into this recently delivered DC10-10 nor a number of others that had been delivered at around the same time. However that has no correlation to the cargo doors on a 757.

[Final 3 Greens]

Beazelbub

So, the manufacturers records said modified, but ship 29 had not, in fact, been modified.

Is this your understanding? Please confirm.

[Bealzebub]

Yes. Let me refer you to the AAIB accident report Here (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/8-1976%20TC-JAV.pdf)

and section 5.1

Once again and to keep this topic on track, these weren't plug type doors, and the 757's are.

[Final 3 Greens]

So now we have established that manufacturer's records may be inaccurate, please confirm

(a) what is the failure mode of the B757 cargo door?
(b) what are the consequences?
(c) if it jammed on the previous sector, how did they get any cargo out?

The point is that customers are more difficult than they were in 1974.

As a consequence, the old 'trust me, I'm a doctor' approach no longer works.

For those who don't get it, to paraphrase 411A, look forward to a nice career flipping burgers.

Those who do get it will understand the importance of effective stakeholder management.

[Bealzebub]

How many times does a person need to answer your question? I have made a few attempts now.

Anybodies records may be innacurate. If you have a particular concern in this regard, ask the party concerned.

I have already told you the 757 has a plug type door. Once it is closed and locked, it is closed and locked.

If it is jammed locked, then anything inside will stay inside until it is unlocked.

Customers may be "more difficult" and ?

I am not a doctor, I am a captain and if you fly with me, you have little choice other than to trust me. I do not run decisions by passengers for their approval. That is not a function of my job, nor is it in any way practical.

I am not sure what you mean by "flipping burgers," as in a 30 year career, and I am sure 411A would agree, my job, his (and most of my compatriots) has to been to apply the highest professional standards at all material times such that the trust placed in us by our employers and our regulators towards everyone and everything in our charge, satisfies the highest expectations.

I think perhaps it is yourself that may be having trouble "getting it?" As such you perhaps provide a good example of why providing too much information only serves to fuel the fire of ill informed comment, when somebody is on a mission rather than seeking pertinent information. Neverthless I hope these answers have been useful?

[Chronistin]

One thing that always makes me scratch my head (not only related to this (non-)incident) is how at one hand everyone complains about journos/pax not knowing and understanding anything about anything, and at the other hand, try to keep it just that way with reasons like

You wouldn't and shouldn't be any the wiser before boarding. It is not your concern.

It's kind of funny when you think it through.

[Bealzebub]

Not really. It is not a case of not getting answers to questions. It is the idea that information that is not relevant, or liable to misunderstanding should be freely imparted or demanded. The pilot doesn't discuss his fuel planning with his passengers. He doesn't discuss deferred defects. Why should he discuss an inoperative cargo door, since it has no direct relevence to a passenger. Moreover I cannot imagine many passengers even being remotely aware that such a defect might exist.

The point wasn't about answering a question, it was about imparting information that not only would be of little relevence, but would also have the likely consequences involved with being easily misunderstood. The desire to know such things before a flight is irrelevant, since the passengers are not going to be a party to the dispatch status of the aircraft unless there are defects (such as exit doors) that directly require a passenger briefing.

[davidjohnson6]

The TCX incident looks like airline (and possibly ground handling) staff were not as customer friendly as they could have been - as others have said, explaining the issue in another way may have avoided the Daily Mail getting involved.

However, TCX are far from alone in being poor at this.

Ryanair as many know, will frequently block off rows of seats at the front and rear when a flight is lightly loaded. Cabin crew *used* to regularly explain this as "We need to balance the plane" with no further details given - this would not a reassuring explanation to those who (as in the TCX case) may fly abroad less than once per year. A better explanation like "It's to save time before departure by reducing the paperwork allowing us to get airborne earlier and also cut down on fuel usage so making your flight greener and better for the environment" is rather more reassuring.

[Chronistin]

The point wasn't about answering a question, it was about imparting information that not only would be of little relevence, but would also have the likely consequences involved with being easily misunderstood. The desire to know such things before a flight is irrelevant, since the passengers are not going to be a party to the dispatch status of the aircraft unless there are defects (such as exit doors) that directly require a passenger briefing.

I think the "desire to know" is part of being human - although I have to admit that, sadly, the "ability to understand" doesn't always come with it.

I've been on board during a few "non-incidents", one of them involving hysterical passengers getting off the plane. I stayed (with about 2/3rds of the pax) and did not raise a question because I DO trust in the pilots (and their wish to live on). However, I felt much better at such situations when a brief explanation of the problem was given as opposed to "We have a small problem" followed by, whenever, "Problem solved".

[Flying Lawyer]

Bealzebub

I agree.

Too much information in this instance rather than too little.


FL

[kenhughes]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39187000/jpg/_39187331_grndlith203bodapjpg.jpg

What sort of flight had this poor guy had then? :8

[Final 3 Greens]

I am not sure what you mean by "flipping burgers," as in a 30 year career, and I am sure 411A would agree, my job, his (and most of my compatriots) has to been to apply the highest professional standards at all material times such that the trust placed in us by our employers and our regulators towards everyone and everything in our charge, satisfies the highest expectations.


What I mean and please do not think I am questioning your integrity or probity, is that the world has changed a lot in the past 30 years.

Institutions that were once trusted are no longer trusted and people are generally more inquisitive and feel entitled (one may disagree, but it does not change their feeling) to know more and be involved more.

My flippant comment was really saying that this is the new reality and as a professional, one has to consider the reaction of the great unwashed and manage it, or one may become an ex professional.

This non event is a typical example and my questions to you easily lead you into the trap of looking defensive and secretive; I know full well what a plug type door is, but my question about the failure mode was not unreasonable and the DC10 incident will be remembered by many.

I respectfully diasagree with Flying Lawyer's comment, because the act of cramming everybody into a small area is unusual and people typically fly enough to understand this.

So information is required, although the words 'jammed' or 'broken' would not feature in my vocabulary as they would quite reaonably alarm someone with no understanding of a deferred defect or MEL.

The airline industry is generally awful at managing its customers in my opinion and it needs to get better quickly.

Blaming gate agents is really pathetic, since someone at management level with the necessay gumption should be drafting the message.

[Flying_Frisbee]

Razoray
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3 Why didnt they just un-jam the door and be on with it?

A little delay, no bad press, no hysteria!

Here in the States it would be a delay, some grumbling.....

than Business as Usual.....



Since we're making sweeping generalisations, I suspect that in the States, the lawyers would already be queueing up to file multi-million dollar law-suits on behalf of the mentally-anguished passengers.

[gatbusdriver]

More like disturbed rather than anguished!

[wouldhave]

I am quite disturbed to read some of the comments on this thread.

We all know that the press sensationalise things. Im nowhere near as much of an expert as the majority of people on this forum, however I have flown a lot of times.

Whether you are a captain, flight attendant, or SLF does not give you the right to determine whether

1. Someone is worthy of flying on a plane
2. To determine that they should go to Blackpool for their holidays instead
3. To expect general public to understand what happens regarding the loading and balance of aircraft
4. To presume you know what happened at the airport when this flight was due to depart

Having been on the other side of this in the past with both BA and BMI when something has gone wrong, I know from experience that explaining to customers is not always an airlines strongest point. This was a Thomas Cook flight operated by Mint - Mint being an airline most passengers would not have even heard of. If a captain said the plane was safe to fly, then Im sure it was - no matter how uncomfortable the outbound flight was.

I discussed this with my partner last night who is frightened of flying, I explained how it worked and he said he would not have got on the plane even though I would have.

I am sure many of you have phobias which you may struggle to control or know little about so I suggest before you get on your milkboxes put yourself in the shoes of the general public who do not understand or have the knowledge we do and try to think how they would.

[Solar]

Regarding the pic of the pope I'm sure you all have heard the story of what happened when he did this in Dublin, as he stood up a voice from the back of the crowd said "isn't it great to see the Holy Father kissing the holy ground of Ireland" to which he was heard to mutter " have you ever flown with an Irish pilot".
Old one always the best.

[Bealzebub]

This non event is a typical example and my questions to you easily lead you into the trap of looking defensive and secretive; I know full well what a plug type door is, but my question about the failure mode was not unreasonable and the DC10 incident will be remembered by many.

Except, that I answered your question before you repeated it. I also referenced you to the official accident document reports of the time. The answers were therefore qualified and reasonable. If you think I fell into "the trap," then well done. I think the repeated use of the term "confirm" rather gave away the fact you wanted a particular answer, more than an accurate or informed one. However, whilst I am happy, and it is reasonably easy to take the time to provide such qualified responses on a forum like this one, it is virtually impossible to do so in the practical confines of the pre-flight period in dispatching a commercial airliner. For this reason as much as any other, the information that is given over the public address system, needs to be considered, measured and delivered in a professional and tailored manner at all times.

An airline pilot has a library of information at his disposal concerning the dispatch legality, advisability, operating restrictions, and recommendations for any given deviation, fault or unservicebility. In addition he has the luxury of specific training and experience to fall back on as an additional benefit to the application. On top of this he has the resources of his company engineering and operations departments to communicate with for advice, opinion or comment, if and when required. In other words there is a great deal of resource for a highly trained and experienced professional to utilize as part of the decision process. Attempting to communicate what is often a complex process to passengers who for the most part will obviously require a relevant and simple explanation of matters that need concern them, is clearly another matter. The failure modes of cargo doors is not a part of that repertoire, any more than the fact that yesterdays engine change didn't involve the use of a fork lift truck, the runway has just been checked for fallen debris, there are thunderstorms on our planned route, or we are using a more marginal method of calculating dispatch fuel requirements, because of performance limitations.

It isn't a case of being secretive. It is a case of confining complicated and easily misunderstood processes to those with a professional need to know, and ensuring that the information given to the customers is in a format that is properly reassuring, honest, and relevant to their safety and comfort. That takes a little more thought than it might superficially appear to.

[Final 3 Greens]

Beazelbub

I understand what you are saying.

But the 'you don't need to know' model is failing these days.

I don't know why anyone mentioned that there was a problem with the cargo door, as a problem is an open invitation for people to fear the worst.

If I had explained the problem, I would not have lied, but I would have said 'ladies and gentlemen, as you know aircraft must be loaded correctly so that the weight and balance is within certain limits. Today, to ensure that we stay within those limits, we will be asking you to sit in seats towards the rear of the aircraft. This is because we have more luggage and cargo in the forward hold. We apologise if this means that you have been moved from your original seats, but ask for your understanding and patience in helping us to operate a safe flight.'

[Ainippe]

As an engineer of 30+ years not only have I worked on aircraft but spent a good proportion of my time flying in them, in fact around the globe several times.

I feel that the staff did not possibly communicate the reason for repositioning passengers within the cabin very well, but then as stated above the captain does not need to justify his descisions to the passengers. he makes hundreds of descisions every flight all as important to flight safety as that one.

There is however there is also a large factor of media hysterics which feeds across to the passengers who believe the media tripe.

You pay to have airlines transport you around the world, they have been doing it for a long time now and it is very closely regulated so place some trust in them.

[Razoray]

Since we're making sweeping generalisations, I suspect that in the States, the lawyers would already be queueing up to file multi-million dollar law-suits on behalf of the mentally-anguished passengers.

Flying Frisbee.....

Exactly, thats why in the States that plane wouldnt take off....;)

[Stick-N-Rudder]

As a load planner with experience on 757 types, I see this definitely as a non-event. As for the passenger shock at being used as "human ballast", they'd be amazed at how common this is depending on payloads, regardless of airlines. Only difference is that this is usually done with cabin limitation on the check-in system, with passengers blissfully unaware :p I'm pretty sure an A321 in this same situation (unusable aft hold) would have had to leave all luggage behind, even with all passengers seated at the rear..

The main problem here seems to be the way in which this was communicated to the passengers, apparently verbally and AFTER boarding the plane. That must have been unnerving, especially if the crew were not English native speakers. Add to this the fact that is was a sub charter operated by a little known foreign airline, and you can be sure that a surge of "Brit-on-holiday-mass-hysteria" was a predictable outcome.

But I find it hard to understand why some people just can't seem to realize when they are talking to a qualified airline pilot who, just like them, does not wish to end up a burning hole in the ground due to an explosive decompression or an out-of-trim aircraft. Or is the Daily Mail front page just too tempting...? :E

Cheers

[ReadyToGo]

Sometimes, airlines insist on the Crew doing their own loadsheets. This happens a lot on ad-hoc or wet-lease aircraft. If the flight Deck were doing this on the Mint Air/TCX flight, I would expect the crew were probably unaware of the balance issue till pretty close to pushback time, so sorting out the issue prior to boarding was probably impossible.

I have seen occasions (though usually on smaller aircraft) where passengers are moved just to make the paperwork correct. The aircraft is still safe, but flying pretty close to its trim limits, so to be on the safe side, a small amount of weight needs to be shifted. I travel on the Jetstream 41 regular, and this is common. I have even seen sandbags placed in the hold when loads have been light!

At last minute, its easier to get passengers to move to the rear than to get the equivalent weight removed from one hold and moved to another. Getting beltloaders etc takes time and adds to the delay. Remember that sometimes it can be as little as 250kgs that needs shifting. On some flights that could be 3 men (using standard EZY weights) or 20ish bags. Its not difficult to see which is easier to move.

The mistake was mentioning the faulty door. The captain should have had a quiet word with the crew, and the crew should have had a quiet word with the passengers. "Excuse me sir, would you mind if we moved you and your family to row 21, theres been a problem with the checkin system", is a lot better than "We've had to put all your bags up front, because the hold door is faulty, so to balance the plane, you need to move back". The latter case would un-nerve me, and I am a very experienced traveller.

RTG!

[AlpineSkier]

As per the heading why were some of the incoming passengers supposedly kissing the ground ? Seems very odd if this was only in reference to a pre-flight announcement about a jammed door.

[hellsbrink]

How did they "kiss the ground" when they walked onto an airbridge and how did those waiting see them do so on the airbridge?

That's what you should be asking, AlpineSkier


Ain't as if the UK press tend to "sensationalise" things though, is it........

[Final 3 Greens]

But I find it hard to understand why some people just can't seem to realize when they are talking to a qualified airline pilot who, just like them, does not wish to end up a burning hole in the ground due to an explosive
decompression or an out-of-trim aircraft.

Helios
Spanair
et al

I suppose these aircraft were crewed by unqualified airline pilots who did wish to end up as a burning hole in the ground?

[Flying Lawyer]

Little Blue said I suggest the "terrified" holiday makers stick to Blackpool in future...far safer on the M6. I wonder if those complaining that the reference to Blackpool was ‘snobbish’ etc have considered that it was merely a way of suggesting that people who are so easily “terrified” might, instead of flying abroad for their holidays, go to a seaside resort which can be reached by road … even though driving on motorways is not without risk.
What is unreasonable about giving as an example one of Britain’s most famous seaside resorts?
Perhaps it’s those choosing to be offended who are being snobbish? Snobbish about Blackpool.
There are some very beautiful parts of Majorca but the larger busy resorts with enormous hotels and ‘pubs’ packed with (often British) holiday-makers make Blackpool seem sophisticated in comparison.

keeprighton1974 2. I don't care who you are - if you're queuing for a flight and the arrivals are kissing the ground / sobbing / telling you not to get on the plane, you're seriously going to consider not boarding the thing!!I don’t know why you feel able to speak for everyone else but, speaking for myself, it wouldn’t have that effect upon me.
Turbulence during the Inbound flight would not lead me to regard the aircraft as "the thing!!", nor would it cause me to consider not boarding.
I would seriously consider changing flights if it meant I'd have to spend a few hours confined in a cabin with the people who, if it's true, were kissing the ground/sobbing/telling people not to get on the plane. Thankfully, for obvious reasons, they would not be on the Outbound flight.

Final 3 Greens
I’m content to agree to differ about the amount of information which should have been given although, having now read that you don't think the problem with the door should have been mentioned, we're not as far apart re that aspect as I thought.
What took me aback most about what you’ve said in your various posts was that, before boarding, you would wish to know:
“What is the failure mode of a jammed cargo door on a 757?”
”What are the consequences?”
And, that unless you received what in your opinion (as a PPL) was a “sensible answer”, you wouldn’t board.
It is, of course, your absolute right not to board. I (as a PPL) would be entirely content to accept the judgment of the professional airline pilots flying the aircraft without wishing to be told how they reached that decision. If I didn't trust the judgment of professional airline pilots I wouldn't fly in airliners.

"Helios, Spanair et al"
Airliners do crash, albeit extremely rarely, and some crashes are attributed wholly or in part to pilot error but I share S-N-R's view. My professional involvement in the legal aftermath of many aircraft accidents (all categories) over a few decades, including close analysis of hundreds of accident investigation reports, has increased rather than reduced my confidence in professional pilots.


.

[The Real Slim Shady]

The captain should have had a quiet word with the crew, and the crew should have had a quiet word with the passengers. "Excuse me sir, would you mind if we moved you and your family to row 21, theres been a problem with the check in system",

Doesn't work for Ryanair though as seats are not allocated at check in.

That's why FR block rows depending on the passenger load.

As a late comer to the discussion, when does your proposed " Little white lie " become disinformation?

There is a balance to be considered as all too often I read complaints here about mis-information and lack of information.

[Final 3 Greens]

Flying Lawyer

On the subject of cargo doors, I have written case studies for executive development workshops based on the DC10 story, so I know a little more about cargo doors and the consequences of certain failure modes than most pax.

I would be suspicious of an airline I have never heard of (I see from Google founded in 2009, with a single aircraft, so no reputation or track record to go on), who were sub contracted in and declared they wished to despatch with a faulty cargo door. If it was British Airways, I would not be suspicious.

That may be unfair, but it is no different to a customer choosing Price Waterhouse Coopers as an audit firm, over the local high street accountant, who may be excellent, but who does not have the same reputation.

It's quite a reasonable to wish to know the failure mode. If it is a plug and it fails safe, then I would be okay, if not, I have the means to walk away and buy another flight.

I have only ever done this once, a long time ago, when I was waiting to board a South American carrier in Europe and the plane that arrived looked like a piece of junk, filthy, with the former owners logo clearly visible under the 'new' paint scheme. I bought a new ticket with Air France and waited for another five hours - I am still comfortable with that decision.

You may call me stupid, but that same airline lost a 747, 727 and a 707 within the next decade.

As to my quoting of Helios and Spanair, I think you miss my point; I am sure that airline pilots are excellently trained and highly capable people.

But the point is that highly professional crews are involved in accidents and peope know that, so their concern is not entirely irrational, even though most people make the majority of their decisions irrationally (in the clinical sense of the word.)

I'll say again that the general public no longer has the same level of trust in the professionals that they enjoyed 30 years ago. I'm a professional in another field, we encounter the same scepticism. You have to learn how to manage it.

[Nicholas49]

The captain should have had a quiet word with the crew, and the crew should have had a quiet word with the passengers. "Excuse me sir, would you mind if we moved you and your family to row 21, theres been a problem with the check in system.

No! You don't ever lie to passengers.

Final 3 Greens: you seem to be rolling together two separate issues here: customer service / the "right to know" and a pilot's professional duty to his passengers.

A doctor is not obliged to explain to his patient why he has decided on a particular diagnosis. That is what the doctor is paid to do. A solicitor is not obliged to explain to his client the legal reasons behind every decision he makes. He may choose to do so, but he is paid for his professional judgement. Likewise, a professional pilot is not obliged to tell his passengers why he has decided the aircraft is safe to fly (or to provide details on fuel or any of the other examples Bealzebub gave). He is paid to exercise his professional judgement and that, ultimately, is all that counts.

That is not to say that non-communication or over-communication (in any of the above situations) is either acceptable or desirable. I think you need to get this into perspective. It seems you know a little too much about one issue. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing...

Bealzebub: thank you for your informed comment.

[Final 3 Greens]

Nicholas 49

With all due respect

A doctor is not obliged to explain to his patient why he has decided on a particular diagnosis. That is what the doctor is paid to do. A solicitor is not obliged to explain to his client the legal reasons behind every decision he makes. He may choose to do so, but he is paid for his professional judgement. Likewise, a professional pilot is not obliged to tell his passengers why he has decided the aircraft is safe to fly (or to provide details on fuel or any of the other examples Bealzebub gave). He is paid to exercise his professional judgement and that, ultimately, is all that counts.

That is a very naive statement.

Some of it is plain wrong. Why do solicitors 'take instructions' from their clients - not because they make the decisions, their clients do that, based on their recommendations and clients need to understand enough to decide, ergo lawyers (in my experience) share their thinking and the basis of it, to assist the client in instructing them.

The doctors I know would not act in a high handed fashion and arrogantly withold the reasons for a diagnosis, in fact they tell me that they often talk with their patients about the symptoms/potential causes and get feedback, before reaching a final conclusion, based on a combination of their own clinical judgement and the patients information.

I do agree that an aircraft captain does not have to share his decisions with the pax, but if he (or his crew) share with me that a cargo door has jammed and I know that cargo door failures have killed hundreds of pax, then I'll get interested and look for reassurance. If I don't get the reassurance, I'll de-plane. I don't really care what you think about that perspective.

I put it to you, that if (as reported) 71 people who had paid for a ticket then felt the need to buy a new ticket, at considerable cost, it is not in line with normal human nature to pay twice for the same service, unless there is a compelling driver.

Yes, I may travel on aircraft where there are MEL items and defered defects, without knowing. That I accept.

But as a final point, anyone who thinks that professionals such as lawyers and doctors can operate in a vacuum, without potential consequences, is naive.

As I have argued on this forum before, pilots are professional in the sense that they are paid to do a (highly skilled) job, but they are not professionals in the true sense of the definition, e.g. having a professional institute(s) that awards the qualifications/professional grades necessary to practice, being held accountable to a code of professional practice from that institute, etc. By institute, I mean for example the ICAEW, not a government body like the CAA.

So your comparison of the practice of pilots and professionals is not really viable.

[Nicholas49]

lawyers (in my experience) share their thinking and the basis of it, to assist the client in instructing them.

They synthesise the information and tell the client what they need to know, on a need to know basis. Just like the pre-flight passenger brief. The solicitor and pilot always know more than the client/passenger, but they do not trouble/confuse/bore them with all the details.

arrogantly withold the reasons for a diagnosis

That is not what I am talking about. Of course doctors give reasons. Do you want them to regurgitate the contents of medical school notes so you understand everything? I doubt it.

then I'll get interested and look for reassurance. If I don't get the reassurance, I'll de-plane. I don't really care what you think about that perspective.

You sound like the nightmare passenger. One of those 'I know best' types.

it is not in line with normal human nature to pay twice for the same service, unless there is a compelling driver.

Actually, yes I can believe it. Based on conversations between passengers I have overheard on aircraft, it surprises me not one iota. Read the above comments by a pilot on 'mob mentality' too.

anyone who thinks that professionals such as lawyers and doctors can operate in a vacuum, without potential consequences, is naive.

No one has said that. It shows you have not understood the point. :ugh:

they are not professionals in the true sense of the definition, e.g. having a professional institute(s) that awards the qualifications/professional grades necessary to practice, being held accountable to a code of professional practice from that institute

Will leave your last comment to a professional pilot for comment.

[airborne_artist]

I wonder if those complaining that the reference to Blackpool was ‘snobbish’ etc have considered that it was merely a way of suggesting that people who are so easily “terrified” might, instead of flying abroad for their holidays, go to a seaside resort which can be reached by road … even though driving on motorways is not without risk.

I made the reference to Blackpool, and FL has read my thoughts exactly. I can't imagine it being much of a holiday if people are so anxious about the flight at either end. Their response to this event suggests to me that they were already in a state of high anxiety before the request was made to move for W&B issues. My guess is that not all 71 were so anxious, but that the response by a minority then set off anxiety in the remainder of the 71.

As a Lancastrian I'm happy for as many as possible to spend their ££s in my county of birth rather than in a Spanish resort.

[doubledolphins]

For me the only real interest in the story is that a PMI charter flight wasn't full. Now that is news.

[Final 3 Greens]

Users like you are the reason why PPRuNe's reputation has been dragged down amongst, if you'll pardon the express, professional pilots.

Why would I object to you saying professional pilot?

Clearly people who fly aircraft for money are professional pilots.

All I was saying is that the occupation of being an airline pilot is not one of the recognised professions, where an independent institute controls the ability to practice by controlling qualifications/licensing. Typically in the UK, a royal charter is also granted, e.g. the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales.

To put this in context, highly skilled management consultants are not members of a recognised profession either, even though they have years of training and development in their roles and will almost certainly be educated to masters degree level and maybe hold a doctoral degree.

This does not n anyway demean airline pilots, for example who trusted to countersign passport photographs, in recognition of the responsibility of their profession.

My earlier point was made in response to Nicholas 49, who compared doctors, lawyers and pilots.

This point was invalid, because doctors and lawyers are members of institutes, who regulate their professions and where very strict codes of conduct and ethics exist around how they handle their clients.

Airline captains do not operate under this particular constraint, although they do have other constraints to consider.

Thus Nicholas's comparison was flawed. My comment meant no more or less than that.

[Katamarino]

It must be said, I think Barden is making a much better case for being ignored, with the 'high quality' of his postings here, than Final 3 Greens :bored:

At least the remaining passengers on board could spread out a bit into the extra space :ok: And those getting off have pumped twice as much money into aviation - great!

[Nicholas49]

So the comparison is 'flawed' is it? I agree that the comparison between a solicitor and accountant is more common than between a solicitor and airline pilot, but if you engage your brain you will see the similarities.

It is telling that, like in so many of your contributions on this site, you have failed to engage with any of the counter-arguments put to you. Instead, you seem content to decide whether a profession is a profession based purely on whether it has an institute with a royal charter! Are you aware of the self-serving and self-protecting nature of the traditional professional bodies? How many regular and mandatory assessments do solicitors sit once they have qualified? Doctors? Accountants? It almost seems that you are arguing that the CAA does not set standards. Please do elaborate, it is most interesting!

[gatbusdriver]

I think F3G makes sense. If I have not explained the situation well enough, and all he has understood was there was a problem with the cargo door, then he should ask further if he feels unsafe. Hopefully the CC can then pass on his concerns to me which would prompt a more informative PA. If he then chooses to deplane.....his choice.

What I can't stand are the pillocks who try to cause a scene, and then be leader of the gang. Had one the other day. Humid day, aircon on and the usual condensation dripping down. This idiot gets out his camera and starts taking pictures claiming that this is unusual and unsafe. The CM asks him what the problem is, only to then relay to me that he is an airport egineer (whatever that may be!) which clearly qualifies him to then say that there is a problem with the pressure of the aircraft (we are on stand with outflow valves open and doors open!). I begrudgingly asked the engineer to go and tell this idiot that all is ok (more for the benefit of the passengers around him who may have become anxious).

[greatoaks]

A tcx 752 with 71 less pax crammed in.....

That would have been a lot nicer flight :)

[Final 3 Greens]

Gatbus Driver

I can't imagine that I would feel unsafe on your flight :ok:

Also, I agree that rabble rousers are :\ pillocks.

Nicholas 49

I did type a long reply, but sadly there was a glitch and it got lost.

I will try again tomorrow, so please don't think I am ignoring you.