makes it even more interesting
 

when you make a safety case 1:50 Passengers vs. 1:50 seats on an aircraft.
:hmm:

ah, the good old days! F27 had 2 cc, seat config was between 40-44

Safe ratio depends on the type of passengers. 1:50 would be plenty for young fit english speakers. 1:36 a bit pushed if there are communication difficulties, babies and young children, old or reduced mobility.

It certainly will
 

be an ongoing issue on all smaller aircrafts and in the future on extra large aircrafts( airbus talkes about configuring a A380 in a 800 y/c configuration). As mentioned in a previous post by SB, research conducted by Prof. Helen Muir from the Cranfield University is and has been a vital instrument in determining safety outcomes. Any union/company wishing to dispute these research outcomes would find it very difficult to persue the public opinion in all safety related incidents.:ok:

Cranfield has done some good stuff but lets not elevate what is essentially hypothesis backed by surreal prac exercises in an outmoded sim.

Good stuff aside, Cranfield has also been used to back some dodgy outcomes - therefore as an example, I accept one CC to operate two doors in an evac no more than I accept the notion that flying a long BOC sector solo with a full bladder is a good idea.

rule 1: be very careful of what academics claim to be fact................

Proof point: Jungle jet R2 slide that physically deploys at 42 degree angle....look at the pix of the DJ jet with the popped slide and then look at the evac data ( 3 crew - 4 doors).......oh....after saying WTF...then ask BTW: why is CASA STILL allowing the jets to remain in service with a 12 month rectification period.......

reality is that staged evac tests are surreal, rehersed and at the end of the day are works of fiction.

intesting points
 

you make, airtags. What do you suggest is/ or can be used as a benchmark in evaluating crew/pax ratio outcomes?:hmm:

I think what airtags is saying is that you can't simulate or at least hope to accurately simulate and therefore anticipate the outcome of an accident with an evac in a mock up....

The results extrapolated from mock up evacs can be misleading simply because you can prove anything if you want a certain viewpoint looked at...

In other words you can prove anything with statistics...politicians do it all the time....

I think it was RedTbar that raised the issue of the 320 in the Hudson.If both doors 1 sliderafts had been used they should have been capable of taking all the pax.However,after looking at the video it does look as though one door was opened without the slide at first then reopened with the slide raft deployed....Both doors two were unusable I think because of flooding.

How many cabin crew were there at the front of that 320 when it ditched?

In any situation how can one F/A open,guard and ensure correct deployment and carry out an evac from 2 adjacent doors at the same time?

If this is the case then how can CASA have justified this decision....

skybed there's some interesting work being done in relation to full factor simulation - granted these are essentially multi layer computer models but they have the advantage of taking physical data and overlaying factor that simply cannot be tested without serious risk to the participants.

I a number of these research papers (pdfs) which I'm happy to fwd.

The big trap is that CC ratios cannot be legislated on a type specific basis - and importantly determining a CC ratio is a 'whole of duty' consideration - this includes other essential functions such as fire, security and medical.

Remember Cranflield's work is evac focused and reliant largely on physical tests which are at best surreal and not representative of real life ops on an a/c. - Try repeating some of their tests with tired crew and 'pax' that don't know what they are attending the event for...... In fact watch the A380 evac demo carefully - the 78 seconds of well rehearsed actions even by the pax.

I remember seeing some evac tests on a doco - all nice and orderly until they offered 10 quid to the first 20 people out - jammed exits all around.

The Hudson was 1 to 50 - 3 FAs and 150 pax - they got them all out.

Another major in recent years was Air France in Toronto. 10 FAs and 297 pax they got them all out while the thing was burning including 2 babies, 3 wheelies and a blind pax - but would they have got them all out in that case with 1 to 50?

AF358 was technically 1:50. There were 6 type qualified cabin crew on board, which was minimum crew for the flight. As I recall, the others consisted of 3 supplemental non-type qualified cabin crew and 1 trainee.

True but why did L1 open without correct slideraft deployment at first then magically corrected later?

If both forward sliderafts had been correctly deployed then all pax would have been in the rafts and not standing on the wing with at least one falling into an icy Hudson river...

As Airtags said these evac simulations done especially when testing new aircraft should be done with crew who have done a sector previously and as with tech crew sim sessions some problems thrown at them such as simulated fire outside an exit and some slides failing after opening....

Also reports that the single aft primary crew member had to fight with passengers to stop them from opening the unmanned door whose threshold was under water.

How long would the aircraft have remained topside if the door had been opened........?

It certainly will
 

continue to create opinions either way.
One can only hope that there will be a sensible discussion on the CASA working group and knows (as airtags points out) modelling/ other factors are taken into consideration:ok:

no lowerlobe.. wasnt saying it was ok, i was just stating what we have.
I personally think 1 crew member per door, as you get on widebody aircraft should be applied to narrowbody aircraft.
I also dont agree with commuter aircraft such as the Jetsream or Fokker 50 being able to operate with 1 crew member
So no need for your comment or "just cos one airline does it, dont mean to say its ok" I was just stating a fact

reminds me years ago
 

when i was in the land of the long white cloud and on of the operators brought in a new 50 seater turbo prop and having not had this aircraft before in the country he was not sure if he wanted any cabin crew on it. he rang his mate then the minister responsible for it and ask him if he can have no cabin crew on it. The minister came back to him and advised of 2 required. he objected strongly and over a long lunch they settled on one cabin crew, which became defacto regs in NZ (that his story not mine).:mad: