1 in 50 cabin crew ratio. Acceptable safety?
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
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.
I have been a pax on the A319 when this has taken place. Counted them, 3 CC.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Reality
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
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
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.
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.
Last edited by B772; 3rd Apr 2010 at 01:41.
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!!
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!!
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Wiz, correct, Checkers knows the full story. Apparently there's some obscure clause buried in EASA OPS...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
) and someone tries again.
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
) and someone tries again.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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
Airline Passenger Safety - Sep 19, 2007
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
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."
Airline Passenger Safety - Feb 02, 2006
Airline Passenger Safety - Sep 19, 2007
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
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my informant tells me
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
need seriously being challenged in a court of law as well as a parliamentory enquiry.
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
need seriously being challenged in a court of law as well as a parliamentory enquiry.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The World
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BackdoorBandit:
Nice One! Definitely fighting words, but so very true.
Managers Perspective:
Absolute gold !! Seems we know exactly which airline would fail this proposed annual test !
1:50 is a fantastic policy, the fewer F/A's I have to put up with, the better.
Managers Perspective:
Should cabin crew members have to proove (annually?) they can still fit through an overwing exit?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
imagine this
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
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