Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Austrelian CC Ratio under threat

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Austrelian CC Ratio under threat

Old 19th Aug 2009, 06:47
  #21 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
when you really only need 1 person to fight a fire.
I'm sure that the EP's department would like to hear from you Twiggs.....

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

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

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

I'll try a third time...

Twiggs,do you approve of the reduction in crew/pax ratio to 1:50?...is it a good idea or a bad idea?
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 07:09
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sorry twiggs - pegasus is on brief and you're wrong....
.... and [shortly] under the regime any operator who would be stupid enough to propose a 1 up fire fighting regime (unless its on a dash 200) in their safety case would see it rejected. They would be required to modify to the satisfaction of the regulator or risk show cause proceedings being initiated against their AOC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT
airtags is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 07:30
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airtags

You nailed it.
To use a PPrune adjective Twiggs is a sciolist.Or is that dilettante?
Or perhaps sciolist dilettante?
Prrune is so educational and informative.
Twiggs will read this and then send a PM to a Mod.In this she is vexatious
packrat is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 07:30
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you Lowerlobe. The point I was trying to make is that it's better to have a higher crewax ratio for just the scenarios that we are on board for: emergencies.

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

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

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

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

Anyway I'm getting past the point 1:50 RATIO IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYONE. Sure, it's doen overseas, but that doesn't mean we should do it also. Ever wondered WHY Aus aviation records have been good so far? I can bet this is a contributing factor- 1:36!
Boomerang_Butt is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 07:32
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PS: I didn't think this thread was THAT bad but we've been kicked out of the CC forum AGAIN! Thanks Twiggs
Boomerang_Butt is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 07:59
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airtags,
I never suggested that for a crew of 3 or more the procedure should be changed to less than 3.
My point is that there are plenty of aircraft flying around that have less than 3 crew and therefore cannot follow a 3 man procedure, unless ABP's are used.
I'm all for having more crew than the minimum.
I think though we lose focus when it comes to drills such as these.
It's funny in the mock up when we do a fire drill and 3 crew arrive at a galley with smoke evident, and all 3 dive for the phone to be a communicator.
twiggs is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 08:41
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
written by twiggs
I never suggested that for a crew of 3 or more the procedure should be changed to less than 3.
girl,I don't know where we got that idea
written by twiggs
when you really only need 1 person to fight a fire.
boys and girls,before someone goes to running off to the mods again I reckon we need to get back on track after the thread got hijacked which is how it got moved here.There is not a single person that really flys who wants the number to drop.
The only critics are the ones who don't know how it's done and are not going to be in the thick of it when it gets ugly.
PS: I didn't think this thread was THAT bad but we've been kicked out of the CC forum AGAIN! Thanks Twiggs
boomer,yup there was nothing wrong so it looks like someone got on the blower to the mods again.No prizes for guessing who.
roamingwolf is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 08:52
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is not a single person that really flys who wants the number to drop.
The only critics are the ones who don't know how it's done and are not going to be in the thick of it when it gets ugly.
Agreed.

Let's not even think about the potential effects of introducing a 1:50 ratio permanently along with this proposed 'Award Modernisation'... imagine... less crew + more hours + longer duty periods + less rest= ?????
Boomerang_Butt is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 11:12
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A JetStar inspired contract?
blow.n.gasket is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 22:00
  #30 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that if any of the pilot unions are seriously interested in safety then they should also be making representations to CASA...

This is a retrograde step which is truly short sighted and all efforts should be taken to try and prevent the accountants and management from achieving their goal.
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 22:56
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the pilots are very effectively battling this. There are part of the CASA working group along with reps from airlines and the FAAA
Pegasus747 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2009, 04:08
  #32 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If someone on pprune had her way there would be only 1 cabin crew on board with cameras to check for danger and buttons to open the other doors.

Remember it only takes 1 person to fight and deal with a fire.The other crew can keep going on with the meal service and even have time off.
RedTBar is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2009, 07:02
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Folks,
I think you will find, if you dig into history, that 1:36 had nothing to do with "safety", and everything to do with the fact that early F27-100 in Australia had 36 seats.
There is nothing sacrosanct about 1:36, and calculations of minimum crew to man any particular aircraft/configuration should be based on thorough risk analysis. Although an "ICAO" number, 1:50 should not be cast in stone, either.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2009, 11:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ashlea.... you think its bad with the SNR being alone at the front of the A319, how about me being sat alone at the front of a 757!!!! Welcome to my world! lol
jet2impress is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2009, 21:03
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
here at BA we often have crew sat at doors on their own!
A319... purser could be sat at 1L&R even if we ever had to return to base with 3 crew.
A321.. purser sits at doors 1 alone, crew member at doors 2 and 3 sit alone
B757.. CSD at doors 1 alone, purser at doors 3 alone, crew at doors 4 alone and if we ever went with 4 crew, number 2 at doors 2 alone

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

and in the UK, we have the 1:50 ratio
Channex101 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2009, 22:15
  #36 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
here at BA we often have crew sat at doors on their own!..............and in the UK, we have the 1:50 ratio
Channex101...So you believe that if someone else does something it's OK for you to do it?

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

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

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

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

We have one of the best safety records with Australian commercial aviation and I don't see the argument to copy other carriers as a convincing one....
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2009, 22:16
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Off track, again
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1:50 is the international standard. This is an industrial issue, not a safety issue.
aerostatic is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2009, 22:36
  #38 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So because NZ has done what a lot of other carriers have done makes it correct....being one of the other sheep......

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by lowerlobe; 20th Aug 2009 at 22:54.
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2009, 22:52
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
after talking to some guys who were

involved in writing/researching the 1:36 proposal (2000) and getting it passed, the main argument which then was accepted by CASA appears to be serious research done by cranfield university.a lady professor and her teams are the leading authorities on emergency evacuation on commercial aircrafts. They have written and researched a number of cases on evacuation in emergency situations on a variety of aircrafts.
that in the meantime VB and QF and otheres got excemptions appears to be a lack of regulatory oversight/controls/lobbying by cabin crew unions. its going to be very hard to change a precedent.
skybed is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2009, 00:09
  #40 (permalink)  
CD
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Although an "ICAO" number, 1:50 should not be cast in stone, either...
Just to clarify, ICAO doesn't actually specify a particular ratio. Chapter 12 of Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation relates to the requirements for Cabin Crew. Section 12.1 addresses the Standard for the assignment of emergency duties as follows:

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

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

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

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.