1 in 50 cabin crew ratio. Acceptable safety?
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Ansett 727 in Brisbane.
NJS/QFLink 146 in Brisbane.
Jetstar 717 in Hobart.
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.
Anyone recall any others?
Cheers.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditzy:767 to HNL
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
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
Last edited by packrat; 11th Apr 2010 at 02:01.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some configs of GE can operate below 7,,,,, not all configs
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.
Last edited by ditzyboy; 11th Apr 2010 at 01:45.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas has wall/curtains in B737-800 except B737-400. I am wondering whether they will do the same things??
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?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditzyboy: Give it Up
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)
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)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Last edited by ditzyboy; 11th Apr 2010 at 15:22.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1:50 Not safe, but legal !
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 ! ! !
and there is no doubt whatsoever that in an emergency situation it would be a disaster
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone recall any others?
Edited to add: Spet '06 it was.
pprune thread at the time here
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...-auckland.html
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 in 50 Cabin Crew
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
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NPRM 0905OS