1 in 50 cabin crew ratio. Acceptable safety?

[Gen. Anaesthetic]

Hi All,

Perhaps you might consider this belongs in the cabin crew forum, but I am posting this here because I think pilots should also be involved in this. From what I can see nothing has been posted on it yet.

In February CASA issued a notice of proposed rule making that would allow a cabin crew ratio of 1 cabin crew member to 50 passengers, instead of the existing 36 for aircraft with between 36 and 216 seats. I am always wary of opposing change, just because it is going to make things different, but as a Dash 8 Captain I do not find this acceptable at all. 1 cabin crew member dealing with 50 passengers in an emergency is not affordable or acceptable safety. It seems more like CASA bending to the whims of operators on the basis of flimsy international so called 'best practice'.

To have a look over the proposal and to make a comment, go to this site (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100043). Cutoff date for responses is April 6.

[murdoch_disliker]

Maybe a look at regulatory authorities around the world and their rules may shed some light on the norm. I would be surprised if there were any other contries that had the 1/35 rule, maybe its more of a reallignment to world norms than anything else.

[evilc]

1:50

Same ratio the rest of the world uses.
Same ration used in the evac demo of virtually all aircraft for the issue of the Type Data Certificate - therefore proven to work, ergo safe.1:36

Based on no rule or regulation to be found anywhere in ICAO or their SARPS
"Decided" upon by a few in CASA back in the F27 days as an appropriate ratio
Supported by the FAAA to protect member's jobs
For my money 1:50 is a no brainer. I want my job to remain tenable. If we want to compete with all other airlines in a globalized world then we need to get with the program here.

Now if an airline wants to add additional hosties as a point of difference in their service offering then they can go for it. But no airline should be forced to add additional crew when not required by regulations nor the manufacturer who has demonstrated the required number to evacuate passengers in the required 90 seconds.

Don't let union rhetoric cloud the truth.

[TBM-Legend]

G.A. don't go on an airline in the rest of the World! They have 1:50.

Frankly most aircraft like the Q300/ATR-42/DHC-7 etc only have one F/A seat station. Oz mods are expensive to fit the 2nd seat.

1:36 - Again Australia was trying to lead the World backwards in aviation..:sad:

[greybeard]

Don't we need one for each major exit?

Wide body had that requirement with a large Asian carrier in times past

What with no pilots, perhaps no cabin crew, no wonder ocean cruising is having a comeback

:ok:

[uz32]

Evilc

I guess a few hundred lost cabin crew jobs so your job can remain tenable is a fair deal.

[TBM-Legend]

...employment grows with business growth not 'feather bedding'!

[evilc]

You took the words right out of my mouth TBM - Thanks.

[tail wheel]

Was the DHC-8-300 not originally certified 56 pax? I thought the number of cabin attendants required was based on original type certification configuration, not operator configuration or actual load?

If I am correct Gen. Anaesthetic, (and I may not be) any rule change will not affect you?

[B772]

tail wheel. I believe it is nothing to do with passenger number certification but the number of passengers on board. For example I remember an AN B762 freighter departing with 12 passengers (all staff) and nil cabin crew. I think the limit at the time was 15 passengers.

[waren9]

Tail Wheel

Air Nelson with their Q300 have only 50 pax seats fitted and operate with one FA. Dont know if its on original certified capacity or if they have an exemption from NZ CAA for that config. Makes for plenty of leg room tho.

Anyway, Jetstar have benn operating beyond the 1:36 rule for quite a while now.

[Led Zep]

I don't think the ratio of 1:36 is backwards, but 1:50 is. You don't have one teacher per 50 kids, and let’s face it, when SLF get anywhere near an airport their IQ drops below room temperature. Not comparing apples with apples, you say? I couldn't imagine one person trying to direct 50 dithering passengers in an emergency evacuation would be very successful. We all know they never read the Safety on Board cards, let alone pay any attention to the brief, because it “won’t happen to them.”

Same ration used in the evac demo of virtually all aircraft for the issue of the Type Data Certificate - therefore proven to work, ergo safe.I disagree, a mock evacuation in a static airframe under controlled condition proves nothing and not comparable to the real thing.

I always thought that CASA's one saving grace was the 1:36 rule, but it seems shortly they will prove themselves to be completely aloof from the "Safety" part in their name. Why must this industry continue to subsidise ticket prices for the public by cutting back the pay and number of positions for staff? How about charging what it actually costs?!

[Dashtrash]

if only we could apply the same logic to airline management. perhaps a ratio of 1 manager per 50 aircraft seats. I'd rather see company money spent on keeping more than the minimum F/As instead of renaming and expanding management empires. Do we really need assistant manager/deputy manager/assistant deputy manager/airbus manager(when you only have airbus)/assistant airbus manager/standards manager/assistant standards manager/fleet requirements manager/assistant fleet requirements manager/ deputy.............etc

[Ken Borough]

Is anyone with a vested or emotional interest in this subject have either an objective opinion or able to make an objective submission? Surely one should be able to rely on the regulator to make a balanced decision without being influenced by things like job opportunities, either gained or lost?

[Artificial Horizon]

1:50 everywhere else in the world and it works nicely, when I flew the D8-300 in the UK it was with one flight attendent and was never an issue. This is just another case of CASA insisting on being different, I don't know why they do it, maybe trying to be leaders in aviation but as the whole ETDO fiasco shows even airlines operating in Oz just ignore most of these wierd adaptations when they can and apply the ETOPs standard like the rest of the world.......:ugh:

[hoboe]

1:50 everywhere else in the world and it works nicely.

...except when you are on a 20-30 minute qantas flight from YSSY to YSCB, when there is one extra flight attendant (in excess of the 1:50 rule) to serve all the politician fatcats their business class meal and alcohol.

So if it drops back to 1:35, does that mean they politicians commuting between the aforementioned ports get 1:35 plus one? Maybe if they only had 1:50 now, they (the politicians and regulators) would not be so keen to reduce the numbers further.

Cheers,

Hoboe.

[Artificial Horizon]

Ah, now, adding extra crew for commercial purposes is different. If an airline wants to go to the expense of carrying extra crew to complete service on a short sector then so be it. Just a note though, on the Dash 8 we used to do Belfast to the IOM which gave the single cabin crew member about 20 minutes to whip through the cabin with the service and she/he would complete it 9/10 times.:eek:

[B772]

I have just remembered that during the 1970's TAA talked of reducing the cabin crew on the 36 seat F27 to reduce their operating cost when Bizjets commenced a service to the North West Coast of Tas. Eastwest Loco may be able to confirm.

[Gen. Anaesthetic]

Interesting input from all sides here. For the record, I think it would be fair to say that I am a company man. Sure, I am a pilot but I find myself defending the company more often these days when talking to pilots than the other way around. So I really wouldn't say I am interested in doing this just to save jobs. I am well aware that the company requires efficiency and bums on seats so that I and others might still have a job (I'm also a shareholder!). I am also very aware though that there needs to be rational thinking in the way we operate and unfortunately we are occasionally faced with decisions that are poorly thought out.

One thing I forgot to mention in the initial post, when mock evacuations of the Dash 8 300 were undertaken with CASA watching for type certification, the first attempt failed. Bear in mind this was with 2 flight attendants. It was either 2 or 3 attempts that were allowed (I can't remember exactly), and it was only on the last attempt that passengers were successfully evacuated through the correct exit. The problem was very simply passenger control. Even though there was fire at one exit, a passenger opened the exit because the flight attendant couldn't adequately monitor everyone's actions all at once and stop people where necessary. I have a hard time believing it could be successfully done with one flight attendant, but if it could be done safely and repeatedly by average flight attendants then subject to further analysis of other emergency scenarios, I would have to say I am for it. I just can't see it though.

Of course this is just the Dash, and there may be other aircraft types that would fare much better in this scenario, in which case I would love to hear about it.

For the record also, I believe that whilst our company may be interested in 1:50 getting up, they are not presently interested in its application on a regular basis. I believe they are keen to continue with 1:36 but have the option to use 1:50 in exceptional circumstances. I haven't had that from the horses mouth though...

Evilc, fair point. I want my job to be tenable, but as the person responsible for the safety of all on board, I want to be able to get everyone off in a real evacuation, and I want to be able to get a fire out quickly. They are the 2 scenarios that bother me most and I worry that 1:50 will not allow that to happen, particularly on my aircraft. Sure 1:50 is the way things are done elsewhere in the world but having travelled fairly extensively I am actually far happier to be operating in Australia, from this perspective anyway. I will never forget being on an Airbus in Europe once. Probably only about half full, but before the aircraft even pushed back there were passengers from up the front coming down the back to claim the empty seats so the trim would have been completely different for takeoff to what was on the load sheet. I was looking at the flight attendants waiting for them to do something but they couldn't have cared less. Then I actually approached them, and still they showed no interest. Amazing. And this was a Oneworld alliance airline too; we're not talking some dodgy airline here.

Tailwheel, good question and I am afraid I don't know the answer. I've just had a look at the Dash 8 type data sheet on the FAA website but I couldn't see it. I'm a bit of an amateur in that department I'm afraid. The proposed rule actually says that 1:50 will not be allowed if the original type certification was based on less than 1:50. I presume they're talking about original type certification via the FAA (more research needed). But perhaps that means operators might seek to re-certify the aircraft on this basis? I kind of doubt it.

[Wizofoz]

B772,

That varies with jurisdiction.

I was with easyJet when they introduced the A319.

Without a lot of thought going into it, they had it certified for 156 Pax. Our 737s were 150 pax and we carried 3 CCs.

They were obliged, under JAR to put 4 on the A319 even if they didn't install the extra 6 seats, as it was certified for more than 150 Pax.

[Icarus2001]

My thoughts are that say using the Dash 8 example above. The company will gain approval for 1:50 but normally operate with 2 CC on board for service delivery reasons. This gives the flexibility then, if a CC goes sick at short notice, or for a recovery flight they can operate with one CC.

Taking a wider view here, when travelling on a packed commuter train in any Australian capital city, who helps you evacuate from the train carriage in an emergency? No power to run the pneumatic doors, no power to run hydraulic doors, carriage on its side, possible fire. You are on your own. We all accept this as normal, rational and safe. (whatever safe is, no such thing as absolutely safe)

Travel on a serious size ferry on Sydney harbour, or down to Tasmania on the car ferry, or over to any one of a number of Qld Islands. Do the staff numbers look like anything like 1:36?

We get very precious about aviation safety, this has ended up with full body scanners, no nail clippers and pilots who cannot take a 200gm can of tuna to work with them. Is this really what we want or need? Don't interpret this as me saying we should disregard safety, of course we should aim for safe operations. We should also look around at what goes on elsewhere and pick the relevant parallels.

For my money the manning of each exit is important not whether there are crew at say 1L and 1R so long as one is at that pair. I cannot see major issues with 1:50 if that is how many aircraft were certified anyway. It is in the same category to me as the TO distance charts having 15% added for Australian conditions; we just had to be different. The US has plenty of hot/high airfields but they seemed to cope with manufacturers data.

I think most operators will use this as a get out of jail free card when it comes to CC sickness and shortages.

As a matter of historical interest can anyone give an example of a slides out evacuation carried out anywhere in Australia? New Zealand? How did it go?

[evilc]

You are quite correct Wiz

Tailwheel

CASA always works to the type data certificate. They have provided a number of operators with an exemption against the 1:36 reg, but it goes on the requirements of the TDC, not the seats fitted. So, as Wiz has experienced, if your aircraft is rated for 160 seats and you chose to operate with 150 seats fitted you still need 4 cabin attendants. The only way to get around this is if the certification process included a demo with 150 seats fitted using 3 attendants, but this is rare as manufacturers are keen to get the max number of seats certified.

An option is to provide CASA with a full evac demo (rather that a partial) to prove that 150 seats fitted in an aircraft certified for 160 works (given cabin layour etc). Last I knew CASA was reluctant to do this as they don't want to get into the business of Type Certification, unless an aircraft is built in this country of course.

Gen Anaesthetic

Laudable motives indeed and great to see someone genuinely concerned that this is not a retrograde safety step. I guess we can only look to the most recent cases to see if 1:50 works. The ditching of an A320 into the Hudson is probably one of the more recent. 1:50 crew compliment and all evacuated safely, despite a passenger opening a rear door when thay should not have (otherwise the aircraft would still be afloat today). Not a fire senario as your concerns raise, however most fire senarios in our industry are sadly a result of a catastrophic failure for which even a ratio of 1:2 would not ensure a positive outcome.

This will remain an emotive issue, particularly with unions involved. Just as we are seeing in relation to the Qantas maintenance issue - a union 5hitting in their own nest to further their cause. CASA's change to 1:50 is coming. Just ask the current Director of safety at CASA who is clearly set on our regulatory environment in Australia becoming aligned to the rest of the world.

[redsnail]

When Checkboard gets home he can fill in the details. easyJet do operate their A319s with 3 CC if 6 seats are "blocked".

I have been a pax on the A319 when this has taken place. Counted them, 3 CC.

[DEFCON4]

Sing Air has more CC on a jumbo than any other airline ergo the service they are able to offer is superior.
A team of ten people will always have the capacity to do more work than a team of eight.
The more people the better the potential service and the better the potential safety...ceterus paribus
Qantas onboard service has declined with the reduction of CC numbers.
As the real price of air travel continues to decline so too will safety and service.
Commercial airlines are no more than an airborne bus service.
Where do you draw the line? 12 CC on an Airbus A380 configured for 700 pax?
If the authorities would allow it airlines would do it in a heartbeat.
If the public accepted it there would be pilotless commercial aircraft tomorrow.
Draw the line somewhere for Gods sake

[B772]

jafa

Your posting reminds me of the 128 on an Ansett F28-1000 and 312 plus pets in the cabin on a B727-200 during the Cyclone Tracey evacuation and with normal cabin crew.

[Wizofoz]

Redo,

That's happened since I left. I know they were trying to get some sort of dispo to do that. I guess they achieved it!!

[redsnail]

Wiz, correct, Checkers knows the full story. Apparently there's some obscure clause buried in EASA OPS...

[evilc]

Yes, Red & Wiz, there is also such a clause (if I'm thinking of the same one as you) within our regs around the concept of "technical assessment".

If the manufacturer has carried out a detailed scientific assessment, from the actual evacuation demonstration completed during cetification, which shows that a reduced number of seats with a coinciding reduction in cabin attendants will still enable an evac in 90 seconds then some NAA's may accept this.

I understand CASA is lothe to accept this menthod as it is just a calculation and not the result of an actual demonstration. One step too far from the ultimate safety case - the demo, for CASA's liking. Must say I would sit in their camp on this one. An exemption in Oz in such a situation has been done once in recent time, but I doubt it will be accepted again, unless of course there is a change of CASA assessment personnel (which happens all to often :ugh:) and someone tries again.

[Sqwark2000]

tail wheel. I believe it is nothing to do with passenger number certification but the number of passengers on board. For example I remember an AN B762 freighter departing with 12 passengers (all staff) and nil cabin crew. I think the limit at the time was 15 passengers.


NZ operates on the number of seats installed theory, not actual punters carried or max design seat capacity.

In NZ, the AirNSN Dash-8's are configured with 50 pax seats to meet the 1 F/A requirement, despite being able to install 56. If they carry a piss poor load of 12 punters then they still require the 1 x F/A as they have 50 seats installed. Same with the ATR which requires 2 F/A regardless of load. We once carried 6 pax one early morning on a public holiday.

For staff travel purposes, the jump seat on the Dash 8 is not avail to staff if the cabin is full as this makes the pax count 51 and therefore requires the 2nd F/A. The jump seat is avail to staff who are current with Dash8 EP's I believe as they can classed as supernumerary crew.

S2K

[CD]

Interesting discussion all...

While I believe that there are some CAAs that permit a ratio of 1:50 passengers, the basic CASA proposal is based on the number of configured seats (1 cc per 50 seats installed).

There really is no "international standard" to speak of as ICAO hasn't specified one. 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."
This isn't the first time that a change to the Australian ratio has been proposed. However, this time it is likely to be adopted as CASA has already been permitting the practice through special authorizations as noted earlier. If the Australian ratio does change, it would leave Canada as the only large CAA with a ratio based on the number of passengers carried rather than the number of configured passenger seats. A similar proposal here that would have permitted the option of operating to the existing 1:40 passenger ratio or the proposed 1:50 seat ratio was stopped by the Transport Minister in 2006 following a public campaign opposing the change. An archived version of the website opposing the change can be seen here:

Airline Passenger Safety - Feb 02, 2006 (http://web.archive.org/web/20060202060405/http://airpassengersafety.ca/)
Airline Passenger Safety - Sep 19, 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20061004090817/www.airpassengersafety.ca/index.htm)

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the CASA proposal.

Since ~1967, when the requirement for a manufacturer to demonstrate the evacuation capablity of their aircraft was first introduced to the certifcation requirements, the ratio used has been 1 cc per 50 seats. This was due to the fact that it was the most critical ratio being permitted at the time in the various operating rules. So, even here in Canada where the ratio has been 1 cc per 40 passengers since ~1968, the Canadian manufacturers have used a ratio of 1:50 in order to market their aircraft worldwide. The Canadian operating rule will supercede the certification basis by requiring a lower ratio for Canadian operators.

For a sense of which aircraft were certified by the manufacturer via actual demonstration and which were completed via analysis, you can review the data at the following link. It is an FAA publication but includes the manufacturer information from a wide range of manufacturers:

Maximum Passenger Seating Capacity for Airplanes Used in 14 CFR Part 121 or 125 Operations (http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v03%20tech%20admin/chapter%2030/03_030_009.htm)

[evilc]

Great informative post CD. Thanks.

I think CASA have got the best chance to get the change through this time as the current Director of Safety has indicated in public that while he is happy to consult industry, he will not delay if there is an attempt to try and consult to consensus. This would be near impossible given the emotion. He has indicated he is more than prepared to make the final decision and his decisions so far are going the way of aligning Oz with the rest of the world.

Happy Easter

[BackdoorBandit]

1:50 is a fantastic policy, the fewer F/A's I have to put up with, the better.

[airtags]

BD Bandit -

1:36, 1:50 and 1:for the flight deck........I was always taught never bite the hand the feeds you! (& some of us get fed better than others - back the CC)

:E
AT

[skybed]

that the 1:36 was based on sound scientific research by cranbrock university and accepted by casa then. what bases do they use to change the ratio?
world's best practise, bringing it into line with other nations? who in casa is the expert and what is his/her reasoning? as far as i am concerned it is nothing more then giving in to the operators. reminds me of a nz regional carrier which got 50 seater turbo prop a long time ago and had 1:50. i ask the owner how he got 1 f/a to look after 50 pax. his answer was simple."the minister is a mate so i told him what i want and it was done".
the ever changing so called responsible persons in casa:yuk: need seriously being challenged in a court of law as well as a parliamentory enquiry.

[Tangan]

When did a crash investigation find that loss of life was the result of having too few cabin crew on board. The level of cabin crew training and their ongoing competence if far more important than numbers.

One point that seems to be missed here is that commuter type aircraft which carry 19 passengers or less are not required to carry any cabin crew. One would think those of you who defend the 1:36 ratio would also have an issue with this rule.

Is this discussion really about safety or is it about supporting cabin crew jobs.

Skybed..... just where is this "cranbrock university" that you refer to and what exactly was the sound scienitific research?

[Wod]

skybed, I think you need to calm down.

If the major regulators, USA, Brits, Europeans are happy with 1:50, why would Oz, over time not try to harmonise so that something approaching global standards should apply?

[Mr Whippy]

Simple question, but does 1:50 include infants? If not how many additional could be carried?

[Managers Perspective]

Another question, only partially relevant.

Should cabin crew members have to proove (annually?) they can still fit through an overwing exit?

MP.

[Cactusjack]

BackdoorBandit:
1:50 is a fantastic policy, the fewer F/A's I have to put up with, the better.

Nice One! Definitely fighting words, but so very true.

Managers Perspective:
Should cabin crew members have to proove (annually?) they can still fit through an overwing exit?


Absolute gold !! Seems we know exactly which airline would fail this proposed annual test !

[skybed]

would apply to pilots too, backdoorBandit and cactusjack, you both be out of a job;):}
wod; how many years has casa been waffling on about harmonising regulations with jar-ops,etc.more then a decade!
now there is another lot of so called safety experts in canberra using the magic "worlds best practise" as excuse trying to get the regulatory reform process over the line. as i said show me the safety case based on.......what information. several years ago it was demostrated the 1:36 is the best outcome.
also read under the cabin crew section (1:50)the open letter bev mansell wrote to the pollies. outstanding :D

[CD]

...just where is this "cranbrock university" that you refer to and what exactly was the sound scienitific research?
I suspect that it is actually Cranfield University (http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/) that is being referred to. Over the years, they have conducted numerous studies related to passenger safety. Here are a few additional links with their current information:

Cranfield: Aircraft Cabin Simulators (http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/soe/facilities/page5263.jsp)
Cranfield: Passenger Safety Research (http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/soe/departments/humanfactors/passenger/index.jsp)

Much of the research related to aircraft evacuations has been conducted by Cranfield as well as the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/) in the US and their Cabin Safety Research Team (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/aeromedical/cabinsafety/).

It is possible that one of the research documents being referred to might be the following: “Influence of cabin crew during emergency evacuations at floor level exits”, Civil Aviation Authority, CAA Paper 95006, 1995.

For additional information related to evacuations, there is quite a bit available at the following site:

Cabin Safety Research Technical Group (http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/cabin.stm)

Simple question, but does 1:50 include infants? If not how many additional could be carried?
As the ratio is to be based on the number of seats, rather than passengers, then infants that are transported on the laps of passengers are not counted towared the ratio for determining the number of cabin crew. Typcially, the limitation on the number of infants that can be lap-carried relate to the availability of supplemental oxygen and infant flotation equipment.

[cogwheel]

I know of one major airline in Oz where if a F/A went sick whilse o/s, then the return could take place provided the number of pax did not exceed the given ratio.

[packrat]

Minimum operational CC 7
Actual operating CC 7
One CC falls over then that aircraft aint goin nowhere irrespective of pax numbers
Cost/Risk Analysis at its best

[CD]

Acceptable safety? Forgive me, I do not understand the '' acceptable '' part.
Is that the new acceptable term doing the rounds, that there can be different levels of safety that are acceptable by the certifying authority?

Basically, I believe that the terminology is used to conform with the ICAO requirements for SMS. A summary follows:
The introduction of the concept of acceptable level of safety responds to the need to complement the prevailing approach to the management of safety based upon regulatory compliance, with a performance-based approach. Acceptable level of safety expresses the safety goals (or expectations) of an oversight authority, an operator or a service provider. From the perspective of the relationship between oversight authorities and operators/service providers, it provides an objective in terms of the safety performance operators/service providers should achieve while conducting their core business functions, as a minimum acceptable to the oversight authority. It is a reference against which the oversight authority can measure safety performance. In determining an acceptable level of safety, it is necessary to consider such factors as the level of risk that applies, the cost/benefits of improvements to the system, and public expectations on the safety of the aviation industry.

ICAO Doc 9859 - Safety Management Manual (SMM) (http://www.icao.int/fsix/_Library/SMM-9859_1ed_en.pdf)

[mrdeux]

World's best practice is a term invented to circumvent any argument or discussion. How can you possibly disagree with 'world's best practice'?

The reality is that every time I've ever seen it employed it was covering a procedure or practice that was anything but....

[Led Zep]

Acceptable Safety: but one degree away from being Unacceptable Safety.

[Eastwest Loco]

B772:

As far as I know the talks of 1 FA on the F27 36 seater was very short lived. It bit the dust as soon as mooted to F/A unions. We did occaionally run with one F/A when the other went U/S. I did man the EW F27 galley on more than a few occasions when one of the F/A's was ill and it was fun but busy with a max of 36 even on a 52 seater.

The 1:36 is an over water requirement only as I understand it. over land I believe is allowed at 1:50.

The F28 4000s ran at 2 for 72, but the maximum souls on board was from memory 80 including crew and infants, and Agents that had not properly advised rugrats caused major problem. Kentucky Fried Trave were and I believe still are the worst offenders.

Ratlink is currently running under dispensation with the Q400 in 74 seat config so it is doable to get over the limit.

Eeenie Weenie tried running 3 FAs on the 4000, but they just got in each others way. The girls and guys chose to go with two.
As for the safety aspect, look at the SQ accident with Sierra Papa Kilo at TPE. The SQ crews carry a more than adequate compliment of cabin crew, but the tiny girls were unable to crack some of the exits without the help of normal sized humans.

To a large degree it is a case of available grunt in a given FA.

I would rather fly with the current crew of experienced QF link and QF mainline healthy fit F/A's than delicate little 55kg flowers who need someone to save them. That sort of mindset invalidates pax/slf ratios.

1:50 is fine, but on longer sectors but preferably not over water in my humble ground-bound opinion.

Best all

EWL

[scrotometer]

the over water thing has no relevance. in europe its been 1:50 for as long as I can remember (10+ yrs). It used to be based on the number of seats installed but now it isn't.

a number of bus operators including easy has blocked off 6 seats in the 319 and have approval to run with 3 dollies just like a 149 seat 737.
we don't like it but its just how it is.

i think its just a case of oz coming into line with the rest of the world nothing more than that and while the bean counters can put that argument up showing precedent and casa accept it thats how it will be.

its all about money now, nothing else, anywhere else.

[Eastwest Loco]

As far as I am aware Scroto, that was and maybe still is the requirement in Oz.

We also had to install liferafts in row 1 of the F28-4000s after removing a 3 seat unit for the NLK flights. Similar had to be carried on the long range F27-500s.

You are right in that the buck rules the brain but Oz has done pretty well being over cautious for the past years.

Best regards

EWL

[CD]

in europe its been 1:50 for as long as I can remember (10+ yrs). It used to be based on the number of seats installed but now it isn't.
Actually, under both the former JAR-OPS and current EU-OPS, the ratio is based on the number of seats. Here is the current regulatory reference:
OPS 1.990
Number and composition of cabin crew

(a) An operator shall not operate an aeroplane with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 19, when carrying one or more passengers, unless at least one cabin crew member is included in the crew for the purpose of performing duties, specified in the Operations Manual, in the interests of the safety of passengers.

(b) When complying with subparagraph (a) above, an operator shall ensure that the minimum number of cabin crew is the greater of:

1. one cabin crew member for every 50, or fraction of 50, passenger seats installed on the same deck of the aeroplane; or

2. the number of cabin crew who actively participated in the aeroplane cabin during the relevant emergency evacuation demonstration, or who were assumed to have taken part in the relevant analysis, except that, if the maximum approved passenger seating configuration is less than the number evacuated during the demonstration by at least 50 seats, the number of cabin crew may be reduced by 1 for every whole multiple of 50 seats by which the maximum approved passenger seating configuration falls below the certificated maximum capacity.

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 859/2008 of 20 August 2008 (.pdf) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:254:0001:0238:EN:PDF)

[Icarus2001]

Here is an extract from the NPRM.

Cabin Crew Ratios - Proposed Amendment to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) Section 20.16.3

Provide an avenue for an air operator to conduct operations using the number of cabin crew members used in an aircraft’s successful evacuation demonstration up to a ratio of 1 cabin crew member for every 50 passenger seats or part of that number. The proposed change will be applicable to aircraft with a passenger seat configuration of more than 36 but not more than 216, engaged in charter or regular public transport operations.


So currently a 104 seat aircraft can carry 72 passengers with TWO cabin crew required. This can be achieved by capping passenger numbers. With this change, even with 72 passengers THREE cabin crew would be required as it is based on the number of seats not passengers on board.

Discuss.;)

[ditzyboy]

Minimum operational CC 7
Actual operating CC 7
One CC falls over then that aircraft aint goin nowhere irrespective of pax numbers
Cost/Risk Analysis at its best

Packrat -

763s can go out with 216 pax + 10 infants with 6 CC. Done it twice (once domestic, once ex-HKG).

[DEFCON4]

Had an extra day in HNL last year when an FA got food poisoning.
Aircraft:767
Airline: Qantas
Must agree with Packrat

[ditzyboy]

Must agree with Packrat

The operations manual disagrees. And I have operated short, as mentioned.

You may have had some other special requirements (longer sector?) or FAAA input in the decision for some reason? I am just going by what I have read and my own experience.

[Checkboard]

a number of bus operators including easy has blocked off 6 seats in the 319 and have approval to run with 3 dollies just like a 149 seat 737.

Not "a number of bus operators", just easyJet! The difference is that easyJet ordered the A319 with TWO overwing exits on each side in order to fit an extra 6 seats (nothing like having a unique type!)

The A319 was originally certificated with 150 pax seats and 3 cabin crew. A second certification was carried out on an A319 with an extra pair of Type III exits, 156 pax seats and 4 cabin crew. Agreement was reached with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for this aircraft to hold two certification classes, provided it was modified in accordance with an EASA approved procedure and mandatory maintenance procedures were in place, this is a special case which has been addressed "differently" by EASA.

[scrotometer]

maybe i should have been clearer.

the ezy 319s have 156 seats fitted, however the uk caa have given approval for 6 of these seats (which are still installed) to be blocked with a device which looks like a portable table thus rendering them unusable as a normal seat. it looks like a table top between the 2 seats in a row of three.

the a/c all technically have 156 seats installed and can be converted back to this config at any time but whilst there are only 150 usable we only have to have 3 tarts in the cabin.

the whole 319 fleet is being converted to this new config to save on the cost of carrying a 4th bikkie thrower. about 1/2 to 1/3 have been done to date.

as i said before its all about money and no doubt someone in the big orange hangar will get a bonus because of this genius move.
the fact that we are 1200 tarts short this summer and cant fill the slots has nothing to do with it of course.

scrote

[Checkboard]

Maybe I should have been clearer! ;) The reason the CAA allow the easyJet A319 to operate with three cabin crew (when the seat blocker is fitted), even though it is certified for 156 seats is because the same type is also certified with 150 seats. It is a peculiarity of the easyJet ordered A319s, not a general policy to allow a higher than 1:50 ratio of cabin crew:seats.

[scrotometer]

yes that is mostly correct apart from the one off dispo that the caa have given easy to have the two different certifications which normally wouldn't be allowed under eu ops.
our present fearless leader AH told us at sep day that easy was not the first operator to have 150 seat 319s and that this was the basis for their argument to be able to change them back. He also said that when it suited economically they would change them back to 156. I was sitting in front of him when he said it.
having said all that he does speak with forked tongue and as a rule i dont believe much he says but.

the point is that where a buck is involved rules can be manipulated by operators like the orange one and the regulators just fall into line.

[packrat]

1.How many types of 767 does Qantas operate?
2.What are their repsective pax configs?
3.After having a look at the EPs Manual what are the min operating crew for each?

[ditzyboy]

1.How many types of 767 does Qantas operate?

2

2.What are their repsective pax configs?

RR 244 max pax.

GE Various configurations. Up to 254 max pax.

3.After having a look at the EPs Manual what are the min operating crew for each?

RR - 8 CC - cannot reduce cabin crew due to exit configuration, regardless of pax load.

GE - 7 CC is standard for all configurations and minimum crew for a full load, with the exception of the domestic config. On the 254 max pax (domestic config) two Y seats are blocked to allow 7 CC ops. 8 CC required if these two seats sold.

GE (all configs) can ops with 6 CC with max load of 216 + 10 infants (as previously stated).

[Icarus2001]

the point is that where a buck is involved rules can be manipulated by operators like the orange one and the regulators just fall into line.

We are talking about commercial avaition. The buck is ALWAYS involved. That is why we have jobs. The airline is not just set up to give us all something to do during the week you know.:sad:

The rule is not being "manipulated" it is being complied with to the letter. Rules are not made in a vacuum, the operators all have input via industry lobby groups.

Anyway, back to AUSTRALIA. Can anyone recall an evacuation with slides at any time in Australia or New Zealand? I would love to read the report on how it went.

[uz32]

Packrat

Not in EP manual. Try CCOM Vol 2 15.2.2

[ditzyboy]

Anyway, back to AUSTRALIA. Can anyone recall an evacuation with slides at any time in Australia or New Zealand? I would love to read the report on how it went.

Final reports are attached to the following abstracts.

Ansett 727 in Brisbane. (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1992/aair/aair199202582.aspx)

NJS/QFLink 146 in Brisbane. (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/aair/aair200203243.aspx)

Jetstar 717 in Hobart. (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/aair/aair200502137.aspx)

[Icarus2001]

Thanks. I have only read the summary of each so far but the number of CC on board seems to be the least of the problems experienced!

Anyone recall any others?

Cheers.

[packrat]

The 767 to HNL is configged for 25 J and 204 Y
7 CC is the both the complement and the minima
1 CC not well.... aircraft dont go
Some configs of GE can operate below 7,,,,, not all configs

[clark y]

Icarus2001,

Also a QF747 was evacuated on the tarmac at Sydney in 2003.



Clark y.

[ditzyboy]

Some configs of GE can operate below 7,,,,, not all configs

A GE is a GE is a GE. All can ops with 6 CC with 216 pax + 10 infants. The International config, which is actually 25J 204Y (or 202 Y with tech crew rest activated), can operate with 6 CC and capped pax numbers.

There may be other reasons that the aircraft would not depart HNL without a full CC compliment (long range sector or union reasons?), but it has nothing to do with the particular config of the GE. The config has no bearing on CC emergency procedures, barring very minor equipment location differences.

I noticed that you just now said 767 to HNL (DEFCON was sating from HNL). Please note that reduced crew can only be from non-crew ports (as per our CCOM and it may even be a CASA requirement?). So are we getting our wires crossed there? In relation to your Cost/Risk analysis comment, we have been sending out 734s at min crew for years. I guess the fact it works most of the time is good enough for the bean counters. That's all that seems to matter.

[ditzyboy]

I have only read the summary of each so far but the number of CC on board seems to be the least of the problems experienced!

If you read further you may see that, in my opinion, the number of cabin crew did assist with the evacuation and it's outcome.

Ansett 727
There was two flight attendants assigned to supervise the overwing exits. TWO(!). One left and one right (they would not be there under the new ratio). The one on the right noticed what she thought was burn marks or oil on the wing and blocked the right overwing exit. It turns out the discolour was from the APU exhaust (I think?). My point is that a trained pair of eyes noticed a possible hazard. An ABP may not.

The left overwing flight attendant noticed pax running to the wingtip and began to yell "follow the arrows" to direct pax to the back of the wing. That was not procedure at the time and was adopted not only by Ansett after this incident.

Then there is the little(!) matter of Ansett believing that all main door slides would inflate automatically. This is how they trained the flight attendants and it was not the case. The forward main doors were opened and the slides did not inflate (as they were manual inflation only). The FAs immediately pulled the manual inflation handle. Would an ABP (who has not been briefed)?

NJS 146
Two paxing flight attendants assisted in the relay of information to the flight deck and assisted pulling passengers of the slide. The very short slide on the 146 can allow for pax to bundle together at the bottom. The paxing flight attendant at each slide pulled the pax clear.

Passengers in this incident comment that they could not see either operating flight attendant from the cabin (at L1 and L2) during the evacuation. Another passenger commented that other passengers collected hand luggage and held up the evacuation. If more crew had been onboard both situations may have been avoided.

Jetstar 717
Although a very light passenger load, the overwing flight attendant (which will be the position dropped under the proposed legislation) played a pivotal role in controlling the evacuation. She saw all pax head to the front and directed some of them to the rear to avoid the bottle neck. When she then noticed a bottleneck at the tailcone exit she redirected the remaining pax forward.

The L1 flight attendant physically prevented a man from jumping out during door opening, before the slide had inflated. Would an ABP have known the slide was yet to begin it's inflation sequence (the door was 3/4 the way open and it is common belief of pax that the slide would have been ready to go)?

These are just example and, of course, my opinion. The cabin crew in the above incidents also made a couple of procedural errors, I will admit. This happens in almost all evacuations. I just wanted to highlight a couple of points which I think demonstrate the position that more cabin crew is only better from a safety perspective.

[Qansett]

I flew on Alaska Airlines many times. They have 3 cabin crews on B734, B738 and MD90.

The problem is that there are not enough crew during the flight safety demonstration. 1 crew is in the jumpseat in L1 and is holding mic - about announcement and flight safety demonstration while two other crew are in the aisle performing manual demo (of course AS don't have TVs).

However, there's a wall/curtain between business and Y section but the curtain was opened. So one crew have to perform their manual demo in both classes. Cabin crew has to show it in the business and then ran to the Y and re-do again and then back to the business to show another one then redo in Y again..and them come back again. lol

Qantas has wall/curtains in B737-800 except B737-400. I am wondering whether they will do the same things??

[Qansett]

ditzboy... how come you know so much about ansett history so well?

[ditzyboy]

Qantas has wall/curtains in B737-800 except B737-400. I am wondering whether they will do the same things??

The 73H could either just have three FAs in the aisle or the CSM can participate as we have both a video demo and audio back up. If the back up fails and we have reduced crew we have a procedure to verbally brief J pax prior to the main demo.

We already have to do a demo between two areas at L3 on the A333. While we do not physically demonstrate the equipment twice we do have to move between the exit row and the centre bulkhead row as the pax in the E and F seat cannot see a screen or a FA during the demo. It is messy and not much crew know about it anyway.

how come you know so much about ansett history so well?
I don't. I just read the reports.

[Qansett]

ah it make sense!

On QF 763ER, at the back of the fuselage, why is there only one cabin crew performing demo at the back? Either which aisle he/she wants? Mostly, they always in the right aisle.

[ditzyboy]

On QF 763ER, at the back of the fuselage, why is there only one cabin crew performing demo at the back?

Due to the number of cabin crew. One FA for Business (right aisle). Five FAs in Economy. There is an odd number.

Either which aisle he/she wants? Mostly, they always in the right aisle.

It is always the left side, actually.

[packrat]

After realizing a contradiction in your own post you go back and edit it to suit your argument.
The FA was sick in HNL so the a/c could not operate from HNL.
A replacement FA was paxed dwon from LAX.
Not other reason other than the a/c coud not operate below 7 CC(from HNL)

[ditzyboy]

There was no contridiction at all. It was you that referred to a flight TO Honolulu. But we're talking about a flight FROM Honolulu. I got confused and was attempting to make sure we were on the same page.

You mentioned that different config'd GE have different minimum crewing levels. That is not the case (with the exception of the 254 pax config being capped at 252 to require the standard 7 CC).

I have no idea why a FA was paxed down from LA. The FA was not required as a GE can ops with 6 CC and capped pax from a non-crew port. This is made very clear in the CCOM. UZ32 posted the reference to the page in the manual.

Are you still saying I am wrong? Care to reference your information by something other than personal account?

I notice you have edited your post to fix the error in your config. Does a 767 to HNL not carry a third pilot? The config in that case is 202Y (tech crew rest activated).

[4Greens]

From an academic point of view of risk management and safety, there are really only two guidelines:

1. There must be one cabin crew member for each exit. Six exits, six cabin crew minimum.

2. There should always be at least two cabin crew on every commercial aircraft. Same reason as two pilots, one may be incapacitated.

All the rest is commercial imperatives overiding safety.

[ooizcalling]

Have flown in Europe and Africa with 1 FA on Fokker 50's, and there is no doubt whatsoever that in an emergency situation it would be a disaster. Especially when you consider different nationalities, cultures and languages involved. Even in ,shall we say, 'civilised' single language countries (like Oz) just look around and see who is taking notice of the safety briefing . . . maybe 50% on a good day. If they do 'align' themselves with the rest of the world's 1:50 ratio, and they probably will, then the mindset of the crew must be, in the event of an emergency, just to do your best under the circumstances, and what can't be achieved is not your fault but those who OK'd the 1:50 rule. Statisticaly they will probably get away with it for many a year, but is it safe ? No way José ! ! !

[Icarus2001]

and there is no doubt whatsoever that in an emergency situation it would be a disaster Maybe there is NO DOUBT in your mind but that does not make it so. You are, as are we all, entitled to an opinion.

1. There must be one cabin crew member for each exit. Six exits, six cabin crew minimum. Well we do not have that now, do you consider the current situation unsafe?

2. There should always be at least two cabin crew on every commercial aircraft. Same reason as two pilots, one may be incapacitated. So do you believe a Metro or Beech 1900 with 19 passengers should have cabin crew? What about a Citation with 4 pax? A Kingair with 7 pax? A Chieftain with 7 pax?

[waren9]

Anyone recall any others?


AirNZ 737 blew the slides and evacuated on a taxiway after landing in AKL a couple of years ago I think. Smoke in the cabin or cockpit IIRC.

Edited to add: Spet '06 it was.

pprune thread at the time here

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/243407-air-nz-737-turn-back-evacuation-auckland.html

[AussieAviator]

As a proffessional pilot I was interested to find this little gem tucked away on the CASA web site, and was wondering what airlines in Australia may take it on as policy. A 50 seat turbo-prop as an example would probaly be hard work for one F/A in a emergency evacuation. Has anybody had any experience with this rule? I have posted this here as it would affect the tech crew just as much as the CC.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NPRM 0905OS (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100043)

[Capt Claret]

I think Macair had 1:50 on their ATR just prior to their demise.

[waren9]

Has anybody had any experience with this rule?



The rest of the world? There was a thread on this a while ago. No doubt someone will dredge up a link for you.

[Tidbinbilla]

The search function is your friend. Merged for your convenience :rolleyes:

[evilc]

The key to the CAO change is (as stated within the NPRM) that it will .....

Provide an avenue for an air operator to conduct operations using the number of cabin crew members used in an aircraft’s successful evacuation demonstration up to a ratio of 1 cabin crew member for every 50 passenger seats or part of that number.

If the Type Data Certificate does not include such a demonstration during the certification process then it won't be available on that aircraft type. If the demonstation has taken place (successfully) during type certification (proving that evacuation within 90 seconds using that ratio is possible), and the operator can show CASA that their emergency procedures will be able to achieve the same, then compliance with the new CAO would be achieved, as I understand it.

I'll be interested to see if CASA will still want a "safety case" and a partial evac demonstation. I'm guessing that with the new CAO published they would not, but we'll have to wait and see.

Given the rest of the world do the same (as waren9 points out) it will bring our Australian regulatory stance on this element in line with the rest of the world, which seems like common sense to me.

[VS-LHRCSA]

As cabin crew, I operated the ATR42 for an Irish airline that had one cabin crew member for 48 pax. If we had ever had to evacuate, I feel pretty confident that I would have been able to evacuate the aircraft safely given that there were two self help exits at the front of the cabin, just behind the forward cargo hold that were accessible by the flight crew if necessary.

Where I did feel vulnerable however is if there ever was a fire. With a larger crew complement, I was used to being trained to establish a fire-fighter, a communicator and a crowd controller. Being by myself, if there was a fire, I would have had to rely on ABPs.

Personally, I think it really should depend on the aircraft itself, the layout, the location of the exits, the type of exits fitted and the seating density. I used to fly for a carrier that had the A321 in a Y220 configuration. It was a CAA requirement for there to be 3 crew members for the two rear exits, due to the density. However in reality, the third crew member would just get in the way of the evacuation and I felt wasn't really needed.

[Normasars]

What's next? 1:74/76 so that the Q400/E170 can operate single F/A.:yuk:

There will never be any objection by the Companies. It's squat to do with safety, all about saving a buck.

Just because it has been demonstrated that "it is possible under a controlled environment during certification" to evacuate 50 pax from a Dash 8 or 298pax from a 330 using only 1 or 6 F/A's respectively, doesn't mean it's right or safe.

[puff]

What suprises me as well is these 'evacuations' they do for the regulators seem to be conducted well 'aviation' people and all able bodied. When DJ started they went around to all the flying schools at Archerfield to get 'bodies' for the evac testing and their evacuations for CASA in a BN hanger were all people involved were generally less than 30, fit and at least student pilots. Big difference to that then a group of 15 elderley, a couple of kids with down syndrome and 2 wheelchairs isn't there ?!