Austrelian CC Ratio under threat

[capt.cynical]

From Crikey.com


11 . Plan to cut cabin crew ratios sneaks under the radar

Ben Sandilands (http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=21193bdb-93e4-4259-bf35-2ed747cef651&rid=c4f910c8-2f72-4c74-b156-4c0589b781bd) writes:

Under cover of media indifference, Australian airlines are trying to cut the ratio of flight attendants to passengers on domestic flights from one per 36 seats to 1:50.

There is more to this than efficient meal service. Cabin crew are there to get passengers out of a burning aircraft before they are killed by an otherwise survivable crash.

It is complex and difficult task. Think about it next time you are stuffed into a tiny seat some metres from the nearest exit. Add in thick smoke, screaming people, families trying to stick together or others paralysed with fear, all jamming an aisle that you usually take at least several minutes to traverse while boarding or disembarking.

Now think of the money the airlines can save by cutting back on the Australian standard ratio of 1:36, which is world’s best practice, to the 1:50 ratio found elsewhere. Now think again of that smoke-filled cabin.

This standard is being considered by a CASA working party which is reviewing an airline sponsored proposal to fall into line with the rest of the world.

The working party, which includes the Flight Attendants Association of Australia (FAAA) is due the provide CASA with a set of draft rule changes this month. A discussion period of some months would then follow before the proposed rule changes are approved.

There are of course other issues at play. All of the Australian carriers already use exemptions granted by CASA on a regularly renewable basis to crew the cabins of Boeing 737-800s and A320s with only four attendants rather than the five that would apply under the 1:36 ratio as they fit them with between 168-180 seats.

Qantas, Virgin Blue, Jetstar and Tiger use this variation of the rule.

But those exemptions crucially leave one cabin crew on station at each of the four major doors, two at either end of the fuselage, which have integrated emergency slide and raft assemblies.

The 1:50 rule saw the US Airways A320 that ditched into the Hudson River beside Manhattan in January crewed with only one attendant at the two rear doors, where he had to fight off passengers who were trying to open them even though the lower sill was below water.

Had either of those doors been fully popped the jet would have sunk more rapidly than it did, and well before the passengers had escaped to the wings from where most were transferred to rescue boats.

This is a story where the defence will be "safety isn’t compromised". And that will be a lie. This is all about cost cutting, not life saving.

[wirgin blew]

This is just another way to cut costs at the expense of safety. How low will we go before people wake up and see their safety is being compromised all to keep ticket prices down. Prices are at there lowest level in 17 years and in the meantime we are getting closer and closer to the bottom in terms of safety. We have worlds best practice here in Australia so let's keep it that way. Let's be pro active now instead of re active later. Why do people have to wait for deaths to spur them into action. Prevention is better than a cure.

[lowerlobe]

This is not so much about ticket prices....

Boards do not care what the pax pays for their seat instead they care about yields....and market share

If they lower the number of crew or reduce costs in any way they get a bonus...it's as simple as that.

Money is and always has been the motivator here....pure and simple.

[OldBoiler]

Passengers wont care less how many cabin crew are on board, so long as they can still get their Gold Coast flight for $29.

Re the above article of the A320 Hudson ditch with one flight attendant at the rear 2 doors....well guess what....Jetstar already operates the A321 with only the CSM at the front two doors!! The race to the bottom has not only begun, it's halfway over as far as I'm concerned. Now guess who has to operate L1 and R1 if the CSM is unable?? Passengers in row 1 of course.....after a 30sec brief!!!:ugh: Yeah, good luck with that one, just hope none of your loved ones are on board if that happens.

[ashlea]

What is the norm for airlines with A319s or A320s, for example? With my airline they assign 5 crew (LR1, LR2, R2A) but when I flew last week with bmi they seemed to only have 3 crew? The senior F/A was all by herself at the fwd of a 319!

[boardingpass]

at eJ it's 4 on the 319 with 156 seats, same on 320. On the 737 it's only 3 because it's 149 seats (SCCM up the front on her lonesome).

[Boomerang_Butt]

Interesting. In the accounts of the Hudson ditching, as far as i know all the cabin crew were female.

As for being by herself down there... well not too sure on the A320, but on tail-heavy aircraft like the 737-800, one crew member does stay down the back (to ensure doors are not opened) but that doesn't mean there is only ever one down there. The other crewmember goes to the cabin to oversee evacuation at the overwing exits. (I know this may not be the policy at all airlines but I'd guess it would be similar at most)

Sandilands needs to do more research, Qantas don't fly the 737-800 with 4 crew on a regular basis, that's only for crew sickness in a port without flight attendants. They fly the -400 with 4, but the 800 always has 5 in normal operations. So that's 2 facts wrong in the article. Better luck next time Ben.

[flitegirl]

Also, at Qantas, it is a Short Haul EBA requirement that the 737-800 have a crew compliment of 5 and the 737-400 have a compliment of 4.

[airtags]

MODS:
Can we please correct the spelling in the thread title - I know my spelling is rather tabloid but it does look a little dodgy to the rest of the world.
__________________________________________________________

The 1:36 ratio was given away from as early at 2006 and today almost every carrier has an exemption for reduced crew - some which expired on 30 June were quickly rushed through in an effort to avoid being caught by the proposed reforms.

The Unions or anyone else for that matter did not 'really' oppose* the reductions - not even on the jungle jets with one person being responsible for 2 doors ..(WTF!!!! and with the skewiffslide at R2 how the hell did anyone prove the evac efficiency!!!!)... Apart from a few whining lines recently in the SMH and a puff piece in crikey, the CC world has generally been out to lunch. However precedent now exists and you can't retro legislate.

From what I'm told the proposed changes require the airlines to lodge safety cases covering all of the duties CC carry out inc day of Ops/disruption stuff, fire, medical, security and a compliance statement in terms of fatigue. (better than the considerations given to pilots in the front seats).

This has to be better - at the moment all the airline has to do is quote the results of a highly stage managed evac test done by the airframe manufactuer - the so called 50%-90 second test. These tests are a joke as they are always done with a fresh 'top gun' crew that are well rehearsed and pretend pax that attend with the knowledge that they are going to be in an evac test.

What's more current exemptions are covert. No consultation, no scrutiny and the matter is handled behind cozy doors with CASA away from prying eyes or those with a bit of knowledge. Plus things like duty limits etc are EBA line items that are progressively being eroded.

In the new system I believe the 'safety case' becomes a public document (under FOI) and therefore if there is an incident the safety case document becomes a powerful stick to be used by the regulator and the civil courts. It also will apply to Overseas operators wanting to fly in Australian markets and those doing the wet lease shonkies.

The current exemptions are a joke. DJ's "automatic" renewals in June prove this as the reduction to 4 CC on the 737 is based on the o'wing exits being self help - ie., operated by briefed pax...YET in issueing the renewals CASA didn't even read the DJ CC manuals which still has L2 opening the door and then fighting their way AGAINST pax flow to the overwing - which is contrary to the Boeing directive and the evac data used to approve DJ's exemptions. ...all of this and not a single objection from CC or their union!!

Jetstar is just as bad and they in good company with QF who pioneered and perfected the use of changing the regulatory regime to bargain down costs in order to jack up Exec bonuses. Other airlines learned quickly and generally the regulator has been a paper tiger while successive Minister(s) have been too busy adding up their frequent flyer points to notice.

The time for action passed years ago and CC and their unions were asleep, out shopping or just ineffectual in opposing the exemptions - I suggest rather then wasting energy on stories that go nowhere that all crew focus on the flaws in the current expemtions and opose each and every safety case that affects them.

I say join the pilots and fight for decent fatigue and duty limits and rather than wasting time with reserve grade journalism start challening CASA and the Minister to g'tee that they will enforce the airline's individual safety cases and initiate "show cause" proceedings against the airline's AOC's if they say one thing in the safety case and then disregard it and do another.

The current Minister has flick passed almost everything in the aviation portfolio to bureaucrats. These people in CASA, Dept of Tpt etc all parrot the Howard and the Rudd Govt's blind mantras of "Open Skies" and are on a mission to let anyone that can wet lease an aircraft operate in and out of Australia (some dodgy EU airlines are next on the list). Only a small percentage of these bureaucrats have any operational aviation experience.

If these new proposals to CC ratios do make Australian and OS/bilateral operators comply then that has to be a good thing. This issue is not just about CC - pilots are very supportive, especially in lobbying for FRMS and duty limits.

The sad thing is that I'll bet 99% of pilots and CC will agree that something has to be done - but very few will even bother to write to the Minister or their Local Member seeking an answer.

*re 'oppose' - points awarded to a very small number who did try but were skittled by crew complacency, B.S. buzzwords like "world's best practice" and a regulator that was too afraid to upset airlines.

AT

[lilflyboy262]

I just want to point out (I dont know if it already has been, as I havent read every post) But the ratio that they are proposing, is already in use here in NZ as well. And it is working fine.
With the size aircraft being operated across the Tasman, along with the passenger loads (On the current 737-300's) the loads are only around 120-135. This is still well below the needs of 1:50.
The -800's loads will only increase it by another 20-30 pax max.

Personally Im seeing it as a wasted attendant... you dont need 2 up front for business class on a 737.

[ozangel]

lilflyboy262...

so the whole point of the extra crew member is for service only?

Come on...

Open question to anyone seriously qualified to respond...

On a FULL 737-800 (up to 189 pax - which DJ can do), as a crew member at the back of the aircraft, do you GENUINELY believe you can make it to the overwing in a burning aircraft, in UNDER 30 seconds (assuming it will take you AT LEAST a minute to evacuate from there).

It's absurd that so many people seem to have convinced themselves that their EP training was based on fictional events...

Last week's crash in PNG, I lost a childhood friend. It now makes a total of 10 PERSONAL friends of mine who have perished in 5 separate air accidents in our region in just 5 years.

I have ABSOLUTELY NO faith in the regulator to make the tough or unpopular decision, nor any airlines ability to place safety before the already thick lining of their own pockets.

[RedTBar]

In the accounts of the Hudson ditching, as far as i know all the cabin crew were female.
Boomerang Butt,What has the sex of the F/A got to do with anything?
After watching the doco on the Hudson ditching it looked like the L1 door was opened in manual.It looked like when the door was first opened no slide deployed then later the slide raft mysterously appears.
Was this because the door was opened in manual then closed again and reopened in automatic.
I don't know if this rumour about one F/A at either end of the aircraft is true but if it is then it's nothing more than madness.How can 1 person look after 2 doors in an emergency?
Wasn't this the problem with the 737 in manchester and a passenger opened a door into the fire?
If the airline execs want to save money then they should give up something themselves that doesn't affect safety.If they don't care about service then fine but no one should be able to lower safety standards.

[Boomerang_Butt]

T-Bar, the point about the FAs being female was that Sandilands refers to the FA at the rear as being male. Just showing how a couple of 'facts' in his story were incorrect- he needs to do more research.

Not sure what airline you're talking about Lilflyboy, but the 2nd crew member in J class on QF is only up there for the take-off/landing portion of the flight (i.e. to man their door) During service they generally assist in economy pretty much right away.

Interesting that DJ require crew to make their way to the o/wing. At QF they are considered 'self-help'- the times we are trained to go to them include in a ditching (to launch rafts on the -800) or to assess outside conditions during an alert phase (when all pax should be still sitting, commands given as such)

Ideally, a crewmember would be able to make it to the o/wing, but realistically, this probably would not be the case (either due to pax flow or incapacitation), so the briefing is meant to cover this at least so the pax operate the exits correctly. Not too sure on the statistic now, but I do recall reading in the past that the overwings are still the most incorrectly opened exits in emergencies.

Personally, I would not like to see the ratio go down further, purely because for most onboard emergencies (fire, dg etc) the drill requires 3 crew to participate. I'd like at least 2 more there to control the cabin & maintain flight deck surveillance at this time.

[twiggs]

Personally, I would not like to see the ratio go down further, purely because for most onboard emergencies (fire, dg etc) the drill requires 3 crew to participate. I'd like at least 2 more there to control the cabin & maintain flight deck surveillance at this time.

The drill does not require 3 to participate.
God knows how the solitary crew member on the dash-8 get's another 2 crew just so that it is possible to perform the fire drill. :ugh:

[Boomerang_Butt]

Twiggs, I am talking about the 737 here. Please re-read.

A Dash 8-100 is a LOT different in size to a B738...! :ugh:

[lowerlobe]

God knows how the solitary crew member on the dash-8 get's another 2 crew just so that it is possible to perform the fire drill.
Well,twiggs let me see if I understand you...

Because Dash-8's have 1 or 2 cabin crew then thats justification to lower the number of cabin crew to 1:50 on larger aircraft simply because they don't have the luxury of other cabin crew to assist????

Never mind the fact that the Dash-8 is a small aircraft even compared to a 737 ...

Perhaps Twuggs thinks that QF domestic only operate Dash-8's

Let's set the record straight Twiggs....Do you support the reduction from 1:36 to 1:50?

Yes or NO.....

[twiggs]

Yes Boomarang butt, but a fire on a 747 is no different to a fire on a dash 8.
My point is, the 3 crew for a drill is not an argument that is going to influence the decision to keep a 36:1 ratio because it is not a requirement as you put it, and you really only need 1 person to fight a fire.

[Pegasus747]

actually its a 3 person operation

1st person fights the fire
2nd person is the communicator
3rd person is the back up

Once you have put on a PBE smokehood you cant use the interphone and once you have fired off a BCF you need a smoke hood.

Twiggs with the greatest of respect i realise you are not a crew members but that is the Qantas Basic fire fighting drill for long haul crew

[lowerlobe]

Posted by Twiggs..when you really only need 1 person to fight a fire.
I must remember to tell that down at the local firestation next time I see them....So all those other firemen are really not needed Twiggs?

It does not matter how many crew you have, you use all available resources...that means having other crew as a backup/support and another as a communicator....hence the point about 3 crew working together.

Of course in a small aircraft such as the Dash-8 that is going to be a lot easier simply because if the size....but if you have the resources then you will use them won't you...

Twiggs..I will repeat my question...

Do you support the reduction of the crew/pax ratio from 1:36 to 1:50

[twiggs]

Pegasus,
I am well aware of the 3 roles in the procedure to fight a fire, but as I said, it is not a requirement.
The main one is the firefighter.
Yes it's nice to have the other two, but in the real world nice doesn't always happen.

[lowerlobe]

when you really only need 1 person to fight a fire.
I'm sure that the EP's department would like to hear from you Twiggs.....

When are those pre departure quiz's starting....

The government can save a fortune by having only 1 fireman at each station/fire truck as well.....and with bush fire season fast approaching it's good to know that it only needs 1 person to fight a fire....:yuk:
Yes it's nice to have the other two, but in the real world nice doesn't always happen.
Exactly the point of the thread twiggs:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

And why smart people don't want the ratio reduced to 1:50....because it's when the manure hits the turbine it's better to have as many crew possible....not to reduce them as much as possible.

I'll try a third time...

Twiggs,do you approve of the reduction in crew/pax ratio to 1:50?...is it a good idea or a bad idea?

[airtags]

sorry twiggs - pegasus is on brief and you're wrong....
.... and [shortly] under the regime any operator who would be stupid enough to propose a 1 up fire fighting regime (unless its on a dash 200) in their safety case would see it rejected. They would be required to modify to the satisfaction of the regulator or risk show cause proceedings being initiated against their AOC.

- The regulator will not accept a 1 up fire fighting proedure on any RPT jet ops and if they did I'm sure the two FAAA's AIPA AFAP et al; would aggressively oppose it....besides its just dumb and would only be proposed by someone who does not fly for a living.

Reality is that a lot of the 1:36 exemptions that have been issued should not have been. DJ & JQ particularly. (& don't even get me started on the stupidity of 1 crew to operate 2 doors)

As for DJ still sending crew to the o'wing - and specifically L2 in a land evac - as I said before both the Boeing direction and the subsequent CASA requisite for reduced crew arising from Type III (self help) - sic. overwing - exits is very clear.

The big question is that why does DJ's Ops manual still require L2P to go against the pax flow and more importantly, WHY did CASA issue renewals in the dying days before the 30 June 09 expiry of DJ's exemptions for 737 a/c WITHOUT reviewing the Ops Manuals....

The answer is that the current system is totally stuffed and there is no apellant or discoverable means.

Fortunately, the new 20:16 NPRM & CAAP which will come into fore will stop these kind of cloistered outcomes and require a higher level of accountability from operators who have taken advantage of the system.

AT

[packrat]

You nailed it.
To use a PPrune adjective Twiggs is a sciolist.Or is that dilettante?
Or perhaps sciolist dilettante?
Prrune is so educational and informative.
Twiggs will read this and then send a PM to a Mod.In this she is vexatious

[Boomerang_Butt]

Thank you Lowerlobe. The point I was trying to make is that it's better to have a higher crew:pax ratio for just the scenarios that we are on board for: emergencies.

There's a web site where a TWA crew recounts an evac after an aborted takeoff & subsequent fire: paxing crewmembers were instrumental in assisting and goess to show that numbers are better when the crap hits the fan!

Sure a Dash 8 may only have 1 crewmember but their drill would take that into account. No need to take everything so LITERALLY! (yes I have worked on the Dash8) Would only take a few seconds to walk the length of the cabin if need be- on a 737 or bigger it takes more time.

The basic issue we are looking at here is SAFETY. Not, it will be easier to do the service...

Imagine doing a ditch on a 738 with 4 crew (as I assume DJ's EPs must cover) one down the back to make sure pax don't open doors, not sure how the other 3 would be distibuted but I would rather 2 crew at each point where rafts are being launched... you need one to maintain control while the other puts the rafts out- what then if you don't have that number- brief an ABP? get real in the panic that would ensue I highly doubt there'd be time for an effective briefing/instruction.

Anyway I'm getting past the point 1:50 RATIO IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYONE. Sure, it's doen overseas, but that doesn't mean we should do it also. Ever wondered WHY Aus aviation records have been good so far? I can bet this is a contributing factor- 1:36!

[Boomerang_Butt]

PS: I didn't think this thread was THAT bad but we've been kicked out of the CC forum AGAIN! Thanks Twiggs

[twiggs]

Airtags,
I never suggested that for a crew of 3 or more the procedure should be changed to less than 3.
My point is that there are plenty of aircraft flying around that have less than 3 crew and therefore cannot follow a 3 man procedure, unless ABP's are used.
I'm all for having more crew than the minimum.
I think though we lose focus when it comes to drills such as these.
It's funny in the mock up when we do a fire drill and 3 crew arrive at a galley with smoke evident, and all 3 dive for the phone to be a communicator.

[roamingwolf]

written by twiggsI never suggested that for a crew of 3 or more the procedure should be changed to less than 3.
girl,I don't know where we got that idea
written by twiggswhen you really only need 1 person to fight a fire.
boys and girls,before someone goes to running off to the mods again I reckon we need to get back on track after the thread got hijacked which is how it got moved here.There is not a single person that really flys who wants the number to drop.
The only critics are the ones who don't know how it's done and are not going to be in the thick of it when it gets ugly.
PS: I didn't think this thread was THAT bad but we've been kicked out of the CC forum AGAIN! Thanks Twiggs
boomer,yup there was nothing wrong so it looks like someone got on the blower to the mods again.No prizes for guessing who.

[Boomerang_Butt]

There is not a single person that really flys who wants the number to drop.
The only critics are the ones who don't know how it's done and are not going to be in the thick of it when it gets ugly.

Agreed.

Let's not even think about the potential effects of introducing a 1:50 ratio permanently along with this proposed 'Award Modernisation'... imagine... less crew + more hours + longer duty periods + less rest= ?????

[blow.n.gasket]

A JetStar inspired contract?:eek:

[lowerlobe]

I think that if any of the pilot unions are seriously interested in safety then they should also be making representations to CASA...

This is a retrograde step which is truly short sighted and all efforts should be taken to try and prevent the accountants and management from achieving their goal.

[Pegasus747]

the pilots are very effectively battling this. There are part of the CASA working group along with reps from airlines and the FAAA

[RedTBar]

If someone on pprune had her way there would be only 1 cabin crew on board with cameras to check for danger and buttons to open the other doors.

Remember it only takes 1 person to fight and deal with a fire.The other crew can keep going on with the meal service and even have time off.:D:D:D:D

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I think you will find, if you dig into history, that 1:36 had nothing to do with "safety", and everything to do with the fact that early F27-100 in Australia had 36 seats.
There is nothing sacrosanct about 1:36, and calculations of minimum crew to man any particular aircraft/configuration should be based on thorough risk analysis. Although an "ICAO" number, 1:50 should not be cast in stone, either.
Tootle pip!!

[jet2impress]

Ashlea.... you think its bad with the SNR being alone at the front of the A319, how about me being sat alone at the front of a 757!!!! Welcome to my world! lol:{

[Channex101]

here at BA we often have crew sat at doors on their own!
A319... purser could be sat at 1L&R even if we ever had to return to base with 3 crew.
A321.. purser sits at doors 1 alone, crew member at doors 2 and 3 sit alone
B757.. CSD at doors 1 alone, purser at doors 3 alone, crew at doors 4 alone and if we ever went with 4 crew, number 2 at doors 2 alone

B767.. number 7 at doors 3R sits alone, where as there are 3 crew sat up at doors 2!!!

and in the UK, we have the 1:50 ratio

[lowerlobe]

here at BA we often have crew sat at doors on their own!..............and in the UK, we have the 1:50 ratio
Channex101...So you believe that if someone else does something it's OK for you to do it?

If someone else jumps off a cliff you would do it simply because it was OK for him to do it.....
everything to do with the fact that early F27-100 in Australia had 36 seats.
LeadSled....That may be true or a nice little story but if I remember the F27 had 2 cabin crew and at least 3 exits plus an underwing emergency exit as well for only 36 pax...I would like to see a modern aircraft with an exit for every 9 passengers as well as 1 F/A for every 18 passengers....

For this to be looked at you have to do a risk assessment as you said.That involves looking at how many pax there are,how many exits there are and how many slide failures you might expect as well as Murphy's law rearing it's ugly head as usual....

But.....at the end of the day if you have more crew then you have a better chance of an incident being survivable than if you are running with less crew...

To say that another airline does it does not make a procedure or policy correct....

We have one of the best safety records with Australian commercial aviation and I don't see the argument to copy other carriers as a convincing one....

[aerostatic]

1:50 is the international standard. This is an industrial issue, not a safety issue.

[lowerlobe]

So because NZ has done what a lot of other carriers have done makes it correct....being one of the other sheep......:E

So Australia has a higher standard than the international standard....I'm happy with that.
This is an industrial issue, not a safety issue.
Absolute rubbish.....why not make it 1:75 then if it's only an industrial issue and safety is not at risk...

This is simply about cost cutting....nothing more nothing less and safety is the victim as usual if the accountants get their way....

I noticed that you posted a comment about carrying extra fuel for unplanned contingencies being a good and smart thing though.....

Why do you order and carry extra fuel....Normally,you land with considerable fuel still in the tanks but your happy because it's there for unforeseen events.

Most pilots and all cabin crew would be happy to keep the 1:36 ratio but management and accountants as usual can't see the forest for the trees...:ugh:

[skybed]

involved in writing/researching the 1:36 proposal (2000) and getting it passed, the main argument which then was accepted by CASA appears to be serious research done by cranfield university.a lady professor and her teams are the leading authorities on emergency evacuation on commercial aircrafts. They have written and researched a number of cases on evacuation in emergency situations on a variety of aircrafts.
that in the meantime VB and QF and otheres got excemptions appears to be a lack of regulatory oversight/controls/lobbying by cabin crew unions. its going to be very hard to change a precedent.:{

[CD]

Although an "ICAO" number, 1:50 should not be cast in stone, either...
Just to clarify, ICAO doesn't actually specify a particular ratio. Chapter 12 of Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation relates to the requirements for Cabin Crew. Section 12.1 addresses the Standard for the assignment of emergency duties as follows:

An operator shall establish, to the satisfaction of the State of the Operator, the minimum number of cabin crew required for each type of aeroplane, based on seating capacity or the number of passengers carried, in order to effect a safe and expeditious evacuation of the aeroplane, and the necessary functions to be performed in an emergency or a situation requiring emergency evacuation. The operator shall assign these functions for each type of aeroplane.
Most States have chosen a ratio based on the seating capacity (1 cc per 50 seats). There are a few that have selected 1 cc per 50 passengers.

The most conservative right now remain Australia at 1:36 passengers and Canada at 1:40 passengers. However, even here in Canada, the DH83, CRJ and ATR42 can all operate at 1:50 seats and there is a proposal to provide an option to all carriers to be able to use a 1:50 seats ratio.

It's interesting that this proposal in on the table in Australia again ... I recall that earlier this decade it had been turned down.

[skybed]

when you make a safety case 1:50 Passengers vs. 1:50 seats on an aircraft.
:hmm:

[indamiddle]

ah, the good old days! F27 had 2 cc, seat config was between 40-44

[Metro man]

Safe ratio depends on the type of passengers. 1:50 would be plenty for young fit english speakers. 1:36 a bit pushed if there are communication difficulties, babies and young children, old or reduced mobility.

[mrpaxing]

be an ongoing issue on all smaller aircrafts and in the future on extra large aircrafts( airbus talkes about configuring a A380 in a 800 y/c configuration). As mentioned in a previous post by SB, research conducted by Prof. Helen Muir from the Cranfield University is and has been a vital instrument in determining safety outcomes. Any union/company wishing to dispute these research outcomes would find it very difficult to persue the public opinion in all safety related incidents.:ok:

[airtags]

Cranfield has done some good stuff but lets not elevate what is essentially hypothesis backed by surreal prac exercises in an outmoded sim.

Good stuff aside, Cranfield has also been used to back some dodgy outcomes - therefore as an example, I accept one CC to operate two doors in an evac no more than I accept the notion that flying a long BOC sector solo with a full bladder is a good idea.

rule 1: be very careful of what academics claim to be fact................

Proof point: Jungle jet R2 slide that physically deploys at 42 degree angle....look at the pix of the DJ jet with the popped slide and then look at the evac data ( 3 crew - 4 doors).......oh....after saying WTF...then ask BTW: why is CASA STILL allowing the jets to remain in service with a 12 month rectification period.......

reality is that staged evac tests are surreal, rehersed and at the end of the day are works of fiction.

[skybed]

you make, airtags. What do you suggest is/ or can be used as a benchmark in evaluating crew/pax ratio outcomes?:hmm:

[lowerlobe]

I think what airtags is saying is that you can't simulate or at least hope to accurately simulate and therefore anticipate the outcome of an accident with an evac in a mock up....

The results extrapolated from mock up evacs can be misleading simply because you can prove anything if you want a certain viewpoint looked at...

In other words you can prove anything with statistics...politicians do it all the time....

I think it was RedTbar that raised the issue of the 320 in the Hudson.If both doors 1 sliderafts had been used they should have been capable of taking all the pax.However,after looking at the video it does look as though one door was opened without the slide at first then reopened with the slide raft deployed....Both doors two were unusable I think because of flooding.

How many cabin crew were there at the front of that 320 when it ditched?

In any situation how can one F/A open,guard and ensure correct deployment and carry out an evac from 2 adjacent doors at the same time?

If this is the case then how can CASA have justified this decision....

[airtags]

skybed there's some interesting work being done in relation to full factor simulation - granted these are essentially multi layer computer models but they have the advantage of taking physical data and overlaying factor that simply cannot be tested without serious risk to the participants.

I a number of these research papers (pdfs) which I'm happy to fwd.

The big trap is that CC ratios cannot be legislated on a type specific basis - and importantly determining a CC ratio is a 'whole of duty' consideration - this includes other essential functions such as fire, security and medical.

Remember Cranflield's work is evac focused and reliant largely on physical tests which are at best surreal and not representative of real life ops on an a/c. - Try repeating some of their tests with tired crew and 'pax' that don't know what they are attending the event for...... In fact watch the A380 evac demo carefully - the 78 seconds of well rehearsed actions even by the pax.

[Kiwiconehead]

Remember Cranflield's work is evac focused and reliant largely on physical tests which are at best surreal and not representative of real life ops on an a/c.

I remember seeing some evac tests on a doco - all nice and orderly until they offered 10 quid to the first 20 people out - jammed exits all around.

The Hudson was 1 to 50 - 3 FAs and 150 pax - they got them all out.

Another major in recent years was Air France in Toronto. 10 FAs and 297 pax they got them all out while the thing was burning including 2 babies, 3 wheelies and a blind pax - but would they have got them all out in that case with 1 to 50?

[CD]

AF358 was technically 1:50. There were 6 type qualified cabin crew on board, which was minimum crew for the flight. As I recall, the others consisted of 3 supplemental non-type qualified cabin crew and 1 trainee.

[lowerlobe]

The Hudson was 1 to 50 - 3 FAs and 150 pax - they got them all out.

True but why did L1 open without correct slideraft deployment at first then magically corrected later?

If both forward sliderafts had been correctly deployed then all pax would have been in the rafts and not standing on the wing with at least one falling into an icy Hudson river...

As Airtags said these evac simulations done especially when testing new aircraft should be done with crew who have done a sector previously and as with tech crew sim sessions some problems thrown at them such as simulated fire outside an exit and some slides failing after opening....

[ditch handle]

Also reports that the single aft primary crew member had to fight with passengers to stop them from opening the unmanned door whose threshold was under water.

How long would the aircraft have remained topside if the door had been opened........?

[skybed]

continue to create opinions either way.
One can only hope that there will be a sensible discussion on the CASA working group and knows (as airtags points out) modelling/ other factors are taken into consideration:ok:

[Channex101]

no lowerlobe.. wasnt saying it was ok, i was just stating what we have.
I personally think 1 crew member per door, as you get on widebody aircraft should be applied to narrowbody aircraft.
I also dont agree with commuter aircraft such as the Jetsream or Fokker 50 being able to operate with 1 crew member
So no need for your comment or "just cos one airline does it, dont mean to say its ok" I was just stating a fact

[mrpaxing]

when i was in the land of the long white cloud and on of the operators brought in a new 50 seater turbo prop and having not had this aircraft before in the country he was not sure if he wanted any cabin crew on it. he rang his mate then the minister responsible for it and ask him if he can have no cabin crew on it. The minister came back to him and advised of 2 required. he objected strongly and over a long lunch they settled on one cabin crew, which became defacto regs in NZ (that his story not mine).:mad: