1 in 50 cabin crew ratio. Acceptable safety?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody had any experience with this rule?
The rest of the world? There was a thread on this a while ago. No doubt someone will dredge up a link for you.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key to the CAO change is (as stated within the NPRM) that it will .....
Provide an avenue for an air operator to conduct operations using the number of cabin crew members used in an aircraft’s successful evacuation demonstration up to a ratio of 1 cabin crew member for every 50 passenger seats or part of that number.
If the Type Data Certificate does not include such a demonstration during the certification process then it won't be available on that aircraft type. If the demonstation has taken place (successfully) during type certification (proving that evacuation within 90 seconds using that ratio is possible), and the operator can show CASA that their emergency procedures will be able to achieve the same, then compliance with the new CAO would be achieved, as I understand it.
I'll be interested to see if CASA will still want a "safety case" and a partial evac demonstation. I'm guessing that with the new CAO published they would not, but we'll have to wait and see.
Given the rest of the world do the same (as waren9 points out) it will bring our Australian regulatory stance on this element in line with the rest of the world, which seems like common sense to me.
Provide an avenue for an air operator to conduct operations using the number of cabin crew members used in an aircraft’s successful evacuation demonstration up to a ratio of 1 cabin crew member for every 50 passenger seats or part of that number.
If the Type Data Certificate does not include such a demonstration during the certification process then it won't be available on that aircraft type. If the demonstation has taken place (successfully) during type certification (proving that evacuation within 90 seconds using that ratio is possible), and the operator can show CASA that their emergency procedures will be able to achieve the same, then compliance with the new CAO would be achieved, as I understand it.
I'll be interested to see if CASA will still want a "safety case" and a partial evac demonstation. I'm guessing that with the new CAO published they would not, but we'll have to wait and see.
Given the rest of the world do the same (as waren9 points out) it will bring our Australian regulatory stance on this element in line with the rest of the world, which seems like common sense to me.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: YPPH
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As cabin crew, I operated the ATR42 for an Irish airline that had one cabin crew member for 48 pax. If we had ever had to evacuate, I feel pretty confident that I would have been able to evacuate the aircraft safely given that there were two self help exits at the front of the cabin, just behind the forward cargo hold that were accessible by the flight crew if necessary.
Where I did feel vulnerable however is if there ever was a fire. With a larger crew complement, I was used to being trained to establish a fire-fighter, a communicator and a crowd controller. Being by myself, if there was a fire, I would have had to rely on ABPs.
Personally, I think it really should depend on the aircraft itself, the layout, the location of the exits, the type of exits fitted and the seating density. I used to fly for a carrier that had the A321 in a Y220 configuration. It was a CAA requirement for there to be 3 crew members for the two rear exits, due to the density. However in reality, the third crew member would just get in the way of the evacuation and I felt wasn't really needed.
Where I did feel vulnerable however is if there ever was a fire. With a larger crew complement, I was used to being trained to establish a fire-fighter, a communicator and a crowd controller. Being by myself, if there was a fire, I would have had to rely on ABPs.
Personally, I think it really should depend on the aircraft itself, the layout, the location of the exits, the type of exits fitted and the seating density. I used to fly for a carrier that had the A321 in a Y220 configuration. It was a CAA requirement for there to be 3 crew members for the two rear exits, due to the density. However in reality, the third crew member would just get in the way of the evacuation and I felt wasn't really needed.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's next? 1:74/76 so that the Q400/E170 can operate single F/A.
There will never be any objection by the Companies. It's squat to do with safety, all about saving a buck.
Just because it has been demonstrated that "it is possible under a controlled environment during certification" to evacuate 50 pax from a Dash 8 or 298pax from a 330 using only 1 or 6 F/A's respectively, doesn't mean it's right or safe.
There will never be any objection by the Companies. It's squat to do with safety, all about saving a buck.
Just because it has been demonstrated that "it is possible under a controlled environment during certification" to evacuate 50 pax from a Dash 8 or 298pax from a 330 using only 1 or 6 F/A's respectively, doesn't mean it's right or safe.
What suprises me as well is these 'evacuations' they do for the regulators seem to be conducted well 'aviation' people and all able bodied. When DJ started they went around to all the flying schools at Archerfield to get 'bodies' for the evac testing and their evacuations for CASA in a BN hangar were all people involved were generally less than 30, fit and at least student pilots. Big difference to that then a group of 15 elderley, a couple of kids with down syndrome and 2 wheelchairs isn't there ?!
