Lauda 320 UK report

[A0283]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-report-airbus-a320-214-contained-engine-failure-and-unnecessary-emergency-evacuation

2019 event

[Loose rivets]

What are the potential legal burdens of the captains?

[Superpilot]

Don't get the question.

Report says cc were only put on alert but the senior still evacuated.

[Fursty Ferret]

There is a reminder here to everyone to consider how fraught the tension might be in the cabin after potentially even a minor (to us) event.

[ECENE]

What puzzles me about the report is how much it focuses on lessons learned about passengers taking their baggage, in opposition to the consideration given to how unprepared the senior was, and more importantly why was she so.
No hunt for blame, but regulators really should see a problem here, and I am afraid it is spreading through the industry.

[Magplug]

The only way to stop passengers evacuating with their carry-on baggage is to make them check it in. The majority of airlines now offer 'Hand-baggage only' fares so the consumer thinks he can get a better deal by carrying a smaller suitcase onboard. This behaviour is completely driven by commercial considerations and is patently to the detriment of Flight Safety.

As always the primary concern of regulators is the continued commercial success of the country's airlines. It will take another Manchester air disaster where NOBODY survives a runway evacuation before a civil-servant ends up in the dock for permitting such a commercially led situation to arise.

[CW247]

I know in a perfect world, our lives are more sacred than our belongings. But we need to think a bit more critically about why the bag collection thin is still happening and what we can do. Just picture it, a plane evacuates on the runway after an engine fire. Pax escape on to the adjacent grass. They're picked up by a bus and taken to the terminal. The fire is put out. There is no damage inside the cabin. Everything is safe...

How are the bags and coats collected from the aircraft and reunited with their owners? When does it happen? How long after the incident? I guarantee even most of us aviation industry professionals don't know the logistics of such an undertaking. What would really help is if passengers were educated about how the bag reuinion might work, because most have this fear that their...

Laptop
Tablet
Wallet
Naked pics of girlfriend

...will either be:

Stolen by some scumbag (let's face it, this even in a disaster is real)
Be burned/destroyed
Confiscated as part of some long investigation


A 10 second blurb on a video safety announcement (video screens, low cost should be forced to install them) might go some way to address.

[A37575]

Exactly what is the point of dimming the cabin lights for night takeoff and landings? The folly of this policy was demonstrated when the report said visibility in the cabin was poor because the lights were dim. It certainly has nothing to do with preserving night vision for any night emergency evacuation since any pin point of bright lighting such as that used with individual seat reading lights on, destroys night vision instantly.

The FA's don't go up and down the cabin telling people to switch off their reading lights do they?. In an airliner you can bet the galley lights will be left on for takeoff and landing so that destroys the night vision of the nearest FA.
It is supposed to be good sense to count the number of seats ahead or behind you to the nearest exit. With a dimmed cabin that is difficult particularly for those passengers that need glasses even in bright light.

The pilots will have no night vision since that is already shot by bright runway and taxyway lights and landing lights. Normally, emergency lighting illuminates escape slides so that destroys night vision before you even go down the slide. So night vision as an excuse for dimming of cabin lights for emergency evacuation simply does not add up.

Far better to have cabin lights on bright to for takeoff and landings at night. At least the nearest emergency exits can be easily seen at leisure a long way off right up to the moment to power being cut (for whatever reason). Full night vision adaption takes at least 20 minutes . As time goes by, however, we gradually become able to detect a room's contents. This phenomenon is known as "dark adaptation," and it typically takes between 20 and 30 minutes to reach its maximum, depending on the intensity of light exposure in the previous surroundings.

It used to be policy for cabin lights to be dimmed so that passengers could enjoy the view of city lights. Well that was the usual reason given over the PA. It was never about night vision.

If night vision adaption is the official reason for dimming cabin lights then why not have total darkness in the cabin for quicker night adaption . Clearly that would not appeal to frightened passengers. Far better to consign night vision adaption to an Old Wives Tale and have cabin lights on Bright so passengers can read their briefing cards up to the last minute and see where things are including nearest exits. FA's can also see if any panicky passenger is standing up prematurely.

[Uplinker]

I think you will find:

With dimmed cabin lights, you will have more night vision than you would with a bright cabin.

With a bright cabin, the emergency door markings and lane markings to those doors will be much less visible than they will be in a dimmed cabin. If there is a crash, who will dim the lights after the crash? The CC next to the switch panel might be incapacitated.

If you are walking along a country lane at night and one of your colleagues is using a torch - that won't destroy all your night vision unless they shine it right into your eyes. Similarly, a tightly focussed reading light in an otherwise dim cabin, or the runway approach lights at night, will not completely destroy your night vision. Whereas, a bright cabin or cockpit most certainly will. Imagine getting to a door and having to jump out onto a slide without being able to see anything and not being able to see clearly for several mins.

Re seat rows, you don't need to see clearly to count the rows - you can do it by feel. Maybe you have not done exercises in smoke filled cabin trainer rigs, but pilots and cabin crew have.

If the PA told passengers the dimming was to "enjoy the city lights", that was so as not to alarm them with the real reason.

[DaveReidUK]

In the UK:

CAP 789 - Requirements and Guidance Material for Operators

15 Cabin Lighting

15.1 The dimming of interior cabin lights, particularly when taking off and landing at night, is recommended

[J.O.]

The other (and more important) reason for dimming cabin lights is to give the cabin crew a better chance of seeing and assessing the outside conditions through that tiny window to determine if an exit is safe to use - or not. I can't recall which one but there was an accident report done several years ago which identified problems seeing outside because of the brightness of the cabin lighting. This led to the dimming of the lights being SOP in most of the world.

[PilotLZ]

I tend to disagree that dimming the cabin lights makes no sense. For the experiment, I recommend that you try to leave only the emergency lighting on next time you have a couple of spare minutes on the ground at night. It's not even close to the normal cabin lights in terms of illumination. And the procedures assume the worst-case scenario, in which normal lighting becomes unavailable on the ground for whatever reason. The slide lights are not a culprit either as they are not directed into the eyes of descending passengers. Their purpose is to illuminate the area right in front of the slide so that people have some idea of what they will be stepping onto once they jump off the slide and start running away from the troubled aircraft.

[Smilin_Ed]

Most passengers do not understand that when they get into an airplane, they are entering into a survival situation and if the airlines were to publicize that, the public would go berserk. I have seen passengers remove billfolds and even passports from their pockets when sitting down. Then, even in non-emergency situations, they will leave those items behind yet they are spring loaded to get that suitcase from the overhead. There's no such thing as a rational passenger.

[Tee Emm]

Quote from an FA in the official report:

She attempted to contact FA3 at the rear of the aircraft, initially without success. She reported that it felt like a long time that she was trying to contactFA3. There was confusion while they attempted to communicate using a combination of the interphone, hand signals and the PA. The darkness in the cabin made the use of hand signals difficult and she could not see well enough to understand signals given by FA3.
Unquote.
Interesting point. With dimmed cabin lighting the length and width of the cabin affects the distance passengers and cabin crew can see. More obvious in a large aircraft than a A320/737 type. A dimmed cabin makes use of hand signals difficult. Maybe FA should be equipped with lighted wands like police manning booze buses and learn semaphore....

[possel]

What puzzles me about the report is how much it focuses on lessons learned about passengers taking their baggage, in opposition to the consideration given to how unprepared the senior was, and more importantly why was she so.
No hunt for blame, but regulators really should see a problem here, and I am afraid it is spreading through the industry.
Yes there is - page 25.
The SFA had recently been promoted after a relatively short time as an FA. During her time as FA, there was a period where she did not fly due to the operator’s bankruptcy. As a result, she did not meet the operator’s requirement for promotion in terms of duration of operational experience. Her initial training course as an FA was within a large group which may have resulted in aspects not being fully explained or understood by all that attended. The pressure to have staff operationally available for flights after the bankruptcy and change of operator meant that the subsequent training for SFA was purely theoretical and short in comparison to the operator’s more recent practice. These factors may have meant that the SFA was not well prepared for her role in the emergency.

All FA practical training for emergencies involved a practice evacuation. None of them had practiced a return to normal operation. This may have resulted in a false expectation that all emergencies would result in an evacuation.

Overall, it seems that the SFA’s emotional response to the emergency was aggravated by her general inexperience and the communication difficulties the FAs encountered. Despite meeting regulatory requirements, there were weaknesses in her training that meant she was not well prepared for the situation. Together this resulted in an overwhelming ‘flight’ response in which she felt the need for herself and everyone else in the cabin to escape the situation as quickly as possible. She did not contact the pilots and ended up commanding an evacuation. The operator has undertaken to implement a range of improvements to FA training and to instruct FAs to attempt to establish communication with the flight deck before commanding an evacuation.

[asdf1234]

Hopefully the recommendations made by the AAIB in their report will lead to EASA introducing regulations mandating the locking overhead bin solution. It seems to me to be the only practical way of stopping passengers evacuating with their luggage.

As for dimming the cabin lights, it serves multiple purposes. Yes, it aids in developing a form of night or low light vision, but it also reminds passengers that they can expect the exterior of the aircraft environment to be dark. Air travel enables people to cross multiple time zones and international travellers may not always be aware of the night/day situation. Finally, the CC need visibility out of the aircraft prior to deploying doors and slides. A darkened cabin during the hours of darkness enables them to see out of the windows.

[DaveReidUK]

Hopefully the recommendations made by the AAIB in their report will lead to EASA introducing regulations mandating the locking overhead bin solution.

I don't think it will. The AAIB stopped short of explicitly recommending lockable bins.

[Lookleft]

Until the Regulators and airlines stop treating cabin crew as "trolley dollies" and as a way of generating ancillary revenue then this sort of event will continue to happen. The primary purpose of the cc is to ensure the safety of the passengers. That requires more than firehosing them with information within the absolute minimum of time and setting high standards for practical and theory exams. Its not going to happen because it costs too much. The main reason the SFA called an evacuation was pure fight or flight and she chose flight. The best way to suppress this response is through effective training and careful selection of personnel. To allocate the SFA role based on who is senior on the day is crazy.

[double_barrel]

How much recurrent training and evaluation do CC get? And does it involve realistic decision making in complex and confused environments, or just 'procedures'?

[wiggy]

Two days annually for our lot.

Some of that training/eval was scenario based, done in mock up cabins and often involved comms via interphone with "tame" flight crew sat in another room or another cabin in the mock up.

Results were often interesting to say the least.

[36050100]

The only way to stop passengers evacuating with their carry-on baggage is to make them check it in. The majority of airlines now offer 'Hand-baggage only' fares so the consumer thinks he can get a better deal by carrying a smaller suitcase onboard. This behaviour is completely driven by commercial considerations and is patently to the detriment of Flight Safety.

Another potential hindrance to an evacuation may occur when family members are sat in separate parts of the cabin. Dad sitting in an aisle seat in row 3 isn't going to move forward to the exit and get put of the way. Pound to a penny he will try to go back to row 8 to usher wife and kids out. An airline policy which requires folks to pay to ensure they can sit together will one day bite someone on the @rse...

[scotneil]

Thank you A 37575 for a very interesting article on night vision: first time I ever flew (1979, Air Malta) cabin lights were dimmed for a few minutes before, and maybe 1 minute after, takeoff; explained to passengers that it was to maintain night vision. Flew KLM Schipol - Gla a few years ago, and while taxying, cabin lights were dimmed and turned to full power a few seconds later (and perhaps 5 min before takeoff) - don't think cabin crew had any idea of why they were doing it ! Seems it's a waste of time anyway, and with today's a/c equipped with floor emergency lighting, is unnecessary. Was interested to learn about 20 min adjustment to "full" night vision - implications for crew on a ship's bridge.

[WHBM]

I know most of the pax don't have the experience of incident reports that posters here do, but the follow-up of "leave your bags behind" has been regularly subject to adverse comment by those who have followed the regulations, which of course the investigators never report on, it being left to the general media. Instead of returning items as a matter of priority, investigating authorities have this "touch nothing till we all come" attitude which leads to possessions, correctly left behind, being inaccessible for days, for no purpose. Car keys to drive home, car park tickets, passports, credit cards, money, all that. Eventual recovery has the items "lost" (no surprise there, especially the valuable ones), returned way after the event, etc. Sure, you should have these on the person, and normally you would, but as security in departures has likely just made you take all this stuff out of your pockets and put it into your laptop bag, there's generally a good proportion still there.

Two recent major evacuations had major criticisms of all this, including passengers being left with no means to continue their own journey. It's especially bad at outstations with just a handling agent, but happens at main hubs as well. The pax from the BA evacuation at Las Vegas were taken to hotels, on BA's account, but those unable to produce a credit card, left behind in the aircraft, for the slightest incidentals on top they might use were given the bum's rush in no uncertain terms by standard US hotel check-in procedures. And you try and board the replacement aircraft with no passport ...

[BDAttitude]

Very sensible comment. Stuck in a country where every employee - even at a coffee bar - has to follow processes with the flexibility of a drilled monkey, without existence defining credit card or social security number and passport, that's a perspective. Do also include prescription medicine, which is hard to replace within hours and will cost a fortune in fees for a consultancy you will not get without credit card ...

[double_barrel]

WHBM, That’s a fair point. Personally, I always keep phone, wallet and passport in my pocket for that reason. Some people would also be very reluctant to abandon required medicines.

For those without pockets, perhaps an approved very small grab bag could be defined. Maybe explicitly advising that as part of the passenger brief would act as a reminder to leave everything else behind in case of an evacuation?

[Herod]

I do the same as double_barrel. However, back in about '07 there was a security alert in UK which resulted in all possessions going into the hold. I was travelling with just hand-luggage, but that, including car keys and phone, had to go in the hold. We were allowed to retain only wallets and passports. If that bag had been lost (and remember, this was applying to ALL UK departures), I would have ended up at destination without the keys for the car, which was in the park. Also, no phone to call my wife to collect me. Stuff of nightmare. Luckily the bag arrived safely, but it had been a worrying flight.

[asdf1234]

Whilst there is always a price to pay for convenience, would you be happy to state to a fatal aircraft investigation board that your convenience was more important than the lives lost of the people sat behind you, lives lost because you needed your carry on from the overhead bin? Or would you be happy telling the family of a deceased passenger that their loved one died because you didn't want the inconvenience of checking in to a hotel without a credit card? The answer will determine what kind of person you are, and what kind of world you wish to live in. I know where I stand and I vote for lockable overhead bins.

[Herod]

asdf1234. IF you read my post, you would see that I do the same as double_barrel. That is, I have my wallet, passport, keys and phone in my pockets, so I DO NOT have to remove anything from the overhead bin. My post concerned the day that even car keys and phone could not be carried on board, even in pockets. Next time, please read before ranting.

[asdf1234]

HEROD - I don't rant here, ever. My comments were not directed at you, witness my comments about checking in to a US hotel which you had not referred to in your post. I reply to the last comment as I find it hard to find the "Reply to thread" button.

[Herod]

Easy enough to remove the bit of your post where you referred to me though. Time to move on. Sorry mods, thread drift.

[BDAttitude]

Nobody said he/she would behave like that in case of emergency.
We would only see reasons why people would behave like that beyond pure dumbness.
Regarding my personal philosophy... I always used to have my passport only on the body, however I definetily approve that I would most likely be shelterless in some parts of the world without CC, so I'll add one in future - the whole wallet would be to cumbersome.
Not needing medication, I see this as a big issue, though. You can see the amount some people carry at security check. I can see why people would not want to leave without.

[WHBM]

Whilst there is always a price to pay for convenience, would you be happy to state to a fatal aircraft investigation board that your convenience was more important than the lives lost of the people sat behind you, lives lost because you needed your carry on from the overhead bin? Or would you be happy telling the family of a deceased passenger that their loved one died because you didn't want the inconvenience of checking in to a hotel without a credit card? The answer will determine what kind of person you are, and what kind of world you wish to live in. I know where I stand and I vote for lockable overhead bins.
I honestly don't remember such a histrionic situation actually arising from any evacuation. Sure there are continuing reports of bags being taken (the one that always struck me was the woman standing on the outer wing of Sully's A320 floating in the Hudson, firmly holding on to the handle of her roller suitcase), but only to the extent of "how silly".

Regarding your big bunch of house keys, a standard evacuation briefing is to "remove sharp objects from your pockets as they may tear the slide". Now apart from the fact that genuinely sharp objects were banned by security from about 50 years ago, what can this apply to other than such keys. And yet there is a desire among the aviation-knowledgeable above to have them with you. Incidentally, being aware of the heavyweight structure of such slides, has anyone ever known them to be torn by possessions. "Remove high heeled shoes" is another one. What provision is made to continue walking afterwards.

[asdf1234]

The AAIB report reminds us that "CS-25.80312 requires that all passengers and crew can be evacuated within 90 seconds." and that the EASA "...stated that emergency evacuations had also been captured as a candidate
safety issue within their safety risk portfolio for commercial air transport (fixed wing)...".

The AAIB Safety Recommendation to include carry-on luggage in the CS.25 timed evacuation will show that aircraft can no longer be evacuated in 90 seconds due to pax behaviour.

Let's hope the EASA are quick to act.

[NoelEvans]

I agree with a lot of the posters here that the "passport, wallet and phone in your pockets" is good enough, leave the rest.

However, I spoke to someone yesterday who said they don't have pockets that would carry all that so would have to carry off a small bag... I suggested that that would result in one hand being occupied holding it and not available to help themselves if really needed. My suggestion was a 'waist belt' for those things to which the answer was "but they're not comfortable" so my answer was "Wear it for take-off and landing and have it off for the rest of the time", which was taken as a good suggestion.

Regarding"Remove high heeled shoes" is another one. What provision is made to continue walking afterwards.... people should do some thinking for themselves. Do they have appropriate footwear for any evacuation? We always wear our hiking boots onto a flight rather than pack bulky items like that, but we don't wear them for the whole flight -- however they stay fully laced up until comfortably after take-off and are laced up again well before landing, just in case we need to get out in a hurry. I cannot understand people who are only in their bare or stocking-ed feet for take off and landing, how are they going to run away from the aeroplane with possible broken bits around? Like that lady in the high heels...

People do need to think for themselves.

It is time that a prosecuting authority took to prosecuting everyone who leaves an evacuated aircraft with hand baggage. The legal situation should be absolutely clear cut and some highly publicised prosecutions with severe penalties are needed to get the message home.

[DaveReidUK]

The AAIB report reminds us that "CS-25.80312 requires that all passengers and crew can be evacuated within 90 seconds." and that the EASA "...stated that emergency evacuations had also been captured as a candidate
safety issue within their safety risk portfolio for commercial air transport (fixed wing)...".

Yes, though it's actually CS 25.803 (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/CS-25%20Amendment%2024.pdf).

P124 & P297.

[BDAttitude]

Regarding... people should do some thinking for themselves. Do they have appropriate footwear for any evacuation? We always wear our hiking boots onto a flight rather than pack bulky items like that, but we don't wear them for the whole flight -- however they stay fully laced up until comfortably after take-off and are laced up again well before landing, just in case we need to get out in a hurry. I cannot understand people who are only in their bare or stocking-ed feet for take off and landing, how are they going to run away from the aeroplane with possible broken bits around? Like that lady in the high heels...

Wholheartedly agree. That's what we do as well when travelling for leissure.
However as long as people can be seen climbing mountains in flip-flops, and a certain type of female business traveller is on board -

People do need to think for themselves.

this is not going to happen.

It is time that a prosecuting authority took to prosecuting everyone who leaves an evacuated aircraft with hand baggage. The legal situation should be absolutely clear cut and some highly publicised prosecutions with severe penalties are needed to get the message home.
This board for sure will cheer, when the first significant fine or even more will be imposed.
However it's still not going to help. Evacuations are fortunately rare events and if they happen SLF will have all different things in their heads but not the criminal code of some country they might be accidentally visiting. So beyond retalliation nothing is gained.

Anyway. This incident was not a real emergency evacuation but erroneous one, initiated by a rogue trolley dolly. Devil's advocate asking, if that changes anything? What about refusing to leave the plane while an engine is still running - and no fire apperent. Would't that be sensible?

[Roj approved]

. "Remove high heeled shoes" is another one. What provision is made to continue walking afterwards.

My Flight attendant wife always wears high heels when we pax, I don’t know why? But, she changes into flat shoes for take off and landing, preparing for an evacuation event.

[lomapaseo]

Before we get too deep in redesigning rules and regulations. Just remember that people pay for a cheap ride with similar comfort to a bus or train when taken in total. Except they get there faster. It isn't a case of being stupid as it's more like their freedom for their idea of comfort. Just nobody buys a ticket to experience a carnival ride with a rough ending

So you're not about to change people when it comes to less comfort for the price

[xetroV]

I honestly don't remember such a histrionic situation actually arising from any evacuation.

Does this one count?

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/621198-sheremetyevo-superjet-100-flames.html

[WHBM]

Regarding... people should do some thinking for themselves. Do they have appropriate footwear for any evacuation? ... People do need to think for themselves ... It is time that a prosecuting authority took to prosecuting everyone who leaves an evacuated aircraft with hand baggage.
If the supposedly aviation-knowledgeable main board of the carrier cannot think for themselves to the extent of what impact charging (sometimes VERY substantially) for hold baggage is going to have on cabin clutter and associated evacuation process, what hope for Joe Soap sat back in Y ... ?

[infrequentflyer789]

I agree with a lot of the posters here that the "passport, wallet and phone in your pockets" is good enough, leave the rest.

Well, that ain't good enough for me, not any more. For several years now I've been one of those in the "fun" position of depending on medication (lots of it) to keep me alive. Passport wallet and phone I can fit in a pocket, travel documents too (used to - started to rely more on electronic copies of those now), the meds I cannot, and they won't fit in a waist belt either. The meds must be carried in cabin baggage, doctors' instructions, to do otherwise is to travel against medical advice and thus void insurance too. I may need access to them on board if pills time is during the flight - some of them are time critical, must be taken same time each day within an hour.

I should clarify that I could fit the actual pills (even a weeks worth, or maybe two) in a pocket, probably a fairly large coat pocket, but nevertheless on my person, in a pocket, but I am not allowed to do that. Flying internationally (which is all my flights), the rules require me to transport the pills in original packaging. Prescription meds packaging varies, but is invariably much much larger than the actual pills, pharmacy stockpiles are mostly air. You don't get a choice of packaging either, for me sometimes some of the packets are twice the size of the previous prescription, same drug different brand.

So, what I do is:

medication (which is always sufficient for planned trip plus extra days for possible delay etc.) is in a small cabin bag, underseat sized, and it goes under seat, not in an overhead.
backup medication (because I never travel with only one set) is in checked baggage, or if travelling cabin-only it'll be in a travelling companion's cabin bags (solo travel is not a likely occurrence, would require extra planning).
meds bag will have shoulder strap for quick grabbing and hands-free carrying, because it's coming with me
if I do get separated from the meds bag in an evac, first backup plan is that I will turn out to have hit my head coming down the slide, with my meds and history that means straight to hospital anywhere with vaguely competent medical (if I'm without that and without the drugs, I'm probably dead anyway) - once in hospital I can get my meds sorted out, I can list all of them, the doses, the times, and have written copies of the list on my person anyway.
if all else fails I have enough experience that I can probably appear to have a stroke and get shipped to hospital that way - there might not be anything new on CT/MRI but there is plenty of old damage for them to look at.


People do need to think for themselves.

Your problem is that if everyone thinks for themselves then inevitably some of them are going to come up with a different conclusion to you - probably because their circumstances or perspectives are different (see example above). You can't have both "people think for themselves" and "people do exactly as I say".

[Uplinker]

Interesting. So..,..you are not allowed to put a week's worth of daily pills into one of those pill boxes with 7 compartments you see people using?

Who is it who says you have to keep pills in the original packaging, what is their reasoning for that, and is their diktat legally enforceable? Genuine questions.

Noel, you are an airline professional and understand the risks because you do regular safety and CRM courses. But remember that many passengers don't know the risks in the first place, and many leave their brains at home when they go on holiday. How many passengers, (or positioning crew for that matter), do you see reading the safety card as they first sit down?

[Magplug]

@infrequentflyer789.... Do you consider your personal medical needs and the baggage you need to cart them around override the safe and timely evacuation of the other 200+ passengers? A passenger that has special needs is always seated such that they will not impede the majority of other passengers in the event of an evacuation. They will be attended to by the crew when the aircraft is clear.

It sounds very much that flying is an activity that presents you with several medical challenges: From your description.... Being removed from prompt access to a medical facility being the primary one. The need for such large quantities of meds also being rather significant. Do you appraise the airline of these risks before you fly? Or you just say nothing, turn up (because it's my right), and share the risk of a medical diversion or an impeded evacuation without a second thought to your fellow humans?

[DaveReidUK]

Who is it who says you have to keep pills in the original packaging, what is their reasoning for that, and is their diktat legally enforceable? Genuine questions.

Many medicines banned by some countries are perfectly legal elsewhere (you can't take codeine into the UAE, for example). Given that it's ultimately down to the bearer to prove that the drugs he/she is carrying are legal, it's prudent to retain the original packaging and also the prescription for anything that might be in doubt.

[Uplinker]

Ah. OK.

I think if it were me, and the pills were vital to my life, I would decant a day or so's worth of the pills into a small pill box, which would live round my neck or in a small bum bag or similar, on my person. I would keep the packaging in my hold bag if I ever needed to prove their bona fides. I would probably get a doctor's letter describing the meds as well.

[Tee Emm]

I tend to disagree that dimming the cabin lights makes no sense.

As a matter of interest, Cathay Pacific cabin lights are left fully on for night takeoff and landings. Clearly there are different opinions between airlines. Personally I much prefer to have cabin lights bright so at least I can see what is happening the full length of the cabin with my glasses on.
Horses for courses

[Ian W]

The other (and more important) reason for dimming cabin lights is to give the cabin crew a better chance of seeing and assessing the outside conditions through that tiny window to determine if an exit is safe to use - or not. I can't recall which one but there was an accident report done several years ago which identified problems seeing outside because of the brightness of the cabin lighting. This led to the dimming of the lights being SOP in most of the world.

I don't think that you could have flown recently. 'Window' seat pax on arrival in the aircraft slam the blind hard down and proceed to access their social media or phone or text etc., Indeed, most flights these days with all blinds down are more like being in the hold of a freighter (and I have done enough of that too). I have suggested previously that window blinds should be 'up' (off) for takeoff and landing for the reasons you suggest. Nobody appears to be interested, which makes me think that despite the protestations of safety being number 1 priority, a lot of what is done is just a ritual dance that nobody really remembers the reason for nor takes seriously. The problem with this approach is if the cabin crew seem to be just going through the motions then the pax will not take in what they are being told and will try to walk back against the evacuating stream to get their oversize roll-aboard out of the overhead, and if they are seen doing that then others will too.

I would suggest a different approach which is to say WHY something is being briefed (and be truthful). if nobody in the airline knows why it is done then don't brief it/do it as a requirement until someone identifies a reason. Similarly, as someone suggested up thread - tell pax that if they evacuate they will need to leave all bags behind so all important documents/meds/keys should be in pockets or belts. Do this before boarding for obvious reasons. Same with footwear and clothing - it should be suitable for going down a slide then running away from an aircraft over bits of broken aircraft and ideally not be flammable.

I realize that there is a fine line between scaring off the pax and keeping them safe but safety is the number one priority is it not?

[CAAAD]

The engine failure is interesting. I seem to remember that there is a design requirement which prohibits the use of components which can be assembled incorrectly.

This particular fault must have been pretty well known considering the popularity of the engine type.

But the AAIB missed the target by settling for enhanced inspection, always the easy way out. Should have proposed a design change of the IGV and a design review of the whole engine for other similar mistakes.

[NoelEvans]

Noel, you are an airline professional and understand the risks because you do regular safety and CRM courses. But remember that many passengers don't know the risks in the first place, and many leave their brains at home when they go on holiday.Quite true! I heard a comment years ago from Cabin Crew that passengers check their brains in with their bags. That was in 'the old days'. I think your comment about leaving them at home is far more up to date. One would think that they might take some interest in their own safety though. Although...

How many passengers, (or positioning crew for that matter), do you see reading the safety card as they first sit down?I always, when travelling on holiday or 'positioning', make a point of reading the safety card, looking for the emergency exits and watching the safety demo (even those horrible pseudo-funny BA ones...), even for an aeroplane that I might be type-rated on. Primarily to remind myself of what is where and what might be different but also to try to set an example to other pax around. Our kids were 'indoctrinated' with this and we allowed them to unstrap to be able to kneel on the seats to watch the safety demo then strap in again (as had just been demonstrated!).

About the medication thing:
Have you told the airline of your special needs? (I think that question has already been asked.)
If your medication is so important that you need it every few minutes, then surely a small amount can be carried in a pocket or bum-bag to deal with an evacuation?
Surely if your medication is that important, then after you have evacuated (leaving it all in that potentially burning wreck and by doing so not hindering others from escaping) you report your medical problem to the emergency services that will be attending and they can assist you in getting an emergency supply? Surely those people behind you trying to escape are more important than your temporary medication inconvenience?

I cannot stand the sort of morons that travel as pax so often: I remember a highly publicised depressurisation on a well-known Irish airline where one of the morons sent a photo to a newspaper looking down the cabin of the 'rubber jungle' with the comment "No-one had told us what to do", yet there on the set back right in front of him in his photo was the demo sticker showing him what to do, exactly as he had been told in the demo...!!! (Another beauty from that one was another moron comment that "the ground was getting closer all the time" -- yes, and the ground gets closer all the time on every landing!!

Our first visit to NZ we had this safety demo video: The Most Epic Safety Video Ever Made; the second time was this: An Unexpected Briefing and the last time was this: Worlds Coolest Safety Video. We flew on one of their B737s once but sadly didn't get this one: Nothing to Hide! Those are good ways of getting attention... But then the pax were nicer there too, and on all our domestic flights were standing back to allow people in rows ahead to disembark first, something unheard of with most of the world's "got to be first off to go and wait for my bags" morons.

(Am I showing too much of a dislike for pax?)

[DaveReidUK]

But the AAIB missed the target by settling for enhanced inspection, always the easy way out. Should have proposed a design change of the IGV and a design review of the whole engine for other similar mistakes.

As far as I can see, the AAIB didn't make any engine-related recommendations related to the investigation.

[CAAAD]

DaveReid,
Well yes, they made no recommendation, but they did seem to indicate that they went along with the easy way out.

[Uplinker]

infrequentflyer789

See, the problem is, you say you must take your bag of meds with you. Another person whose hand-written manuscript for a book that took them 2 yrs to write will want to take that. The student whose dissertation is in their bag. The person with the only set of photographic negatives of family memories. The person carrying plans for a secret invention. The courier carrying commercially sensitive documents. The person who needs to self inject insulin. People who don't want to be without their make-up.

You and all these folk could be the ones holding up or obstructing other passengers in an emergency evacuation because you want to take your bags off. It is a selfish attitude and could result in the death of other people, from smoke inhalation or burns, or crush injuries. (You sound even more selfish and fraudulent when you say you would actually fake injuries in order to push-in to the top of the queue to the local hospital)

All the examples above, including yours have easy answers which do not require taking cabin bags off.

If you would die without your meds, then for a start, you should be declaring your special medical needs to the airline, and, if it was me; I would have a 1 day supply of pills, taken out of their packaging, around my neck. If you get stopped by security and they demand to know what the pills are, you can show them the packaging they came from in your bag and your list and your doctor's letter and your insurance document.

.....Your problem is that if everyone thinks for themselves then inevitably some of them are going to come up with a different conclusion to you - probably because their circumstances or perspectives are different (see example above). You can't have both "people think for themselves" and "people do exactly as I say".

Passengers will never have done an evacuation drill. Nor will they have partaken in regular SEP, (Safety and Emergency Procedures) training, that all aircrew regularly undertake. Passengers do not appreciate the risks. Passengers do not know what to do. Most passengers don't read the safety card in their seat pocket. Most passengers ignore the safety demonstration and some read their newspaper during it. So, passengers have to be told what do in an emergency. They have to be shouted at, because it needs to happen NOW, without them trying to think it through - there simply isn't time. The certification is 90 seconds to evacuate everyone from an airliner. In an emergency, passengers must do what they are told quickly.

That's the "do what I say" bit.

The "think for yourself" bit is; if we had to evacuate and I lost my cabin bag/meds/manuscript/make-up/iPad/wallet/passport etc; how would I cope? What could I do to replace them? Also: read the safety card and listen carefully to the safety demo.

[wiggy]

If you're not a fashionista and don't mind looking like a para on D-Day one possible solution to the pills/passport/documents/car keys/house keys/mobile phone/wallet problem is what is now know as "wearable luggage"...

[Maninthebar]

May invite attention at Security! :-)

[Uplinker]

FWIW, if I am a passenger I wear a short sleeved shirt with a breast pocket, and a fleece. (And black jeans).

I can modulate my personal temperature on the aircraft by wearing or removing the fleece. I put my passport and boarding card and phone in my shirt breast pocket. My wallet, (with credit cards, driving licence and paper money) is in my jean's back pocket. My keys, (one front door key, one car key with remote fob, one bike lock key), are in my jeans front pocket. I normally wear a wrist-watch.

If I had to get up and leave in a hurry, I could do so with just these items on my person, and not need to take my cabin bag. If I needed to take a taxi and book into a hotel, and buy more clothes etc, I could do so with my credit card.

The fleece would keep me warm outside if required and I look fairly smart and presentable in that and the black jeans :ok:

[wiggy]

May invite attention at Security! :-)

Not sure it would as long as it goes through the X-ray and you don't attempt to go through the archway wearing it.

The stuff as been around for a while, it seems to mainly by those attempting to avoid the ancillary charges levied by one or two airlines..


https://www.skyscanner.net/news/best-wearable-luggage-jackets-reviewed-beat-airline-baggage-charges

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/travel/ryanair-says-pocket-packing-won-t-take-off-as-wearable-luggage-launches-1.8147#:~:text=The%20JakToGo%2C%20designed%20by%20an,clothes %20and%20other%20personal%20items%E2%80%9D.


Personally I'm not that extreme - I do pretty much as Uplinker describes.