1 in 50 cabin crew ratio. Acceptable safety?
 

Hi All,

Perhaps you might consider this belongs in the cabin crew forum, but I am posting this here because I think pilots should also be involved in this. From what I can see nothing has been posted on it yet.

In February CASA issued a notice of proposed rule making that would allow a cabin crew ratio of 1 cabin crew member to 50 passengers, instead of the existing 36 for aircraft with between 36 and 216 seats. I am always wary of opposing change, just because it is going to make things different, but as a Dash 8 Captain I do not find this acceptable at all. 1 cabin crew member dealing with 50 passengers in an emergency is not affordable or acceptable safety. It seems more like CASA bending to the whims of operators on the basis of flimsy international so called 'best practice'.

To have a look over the proposal and to make a comment, go to this site. Cutoff date for responses is April 6.

Maybe a look at regulatory authorities around the world and their rules may shed some light on the norm. I would be surprised if there were any other contries that had the 1/35 rule, maybe its more of a reallignment to world norms than anything else.

1:50

• Same ratio the rest of the world uses.
• Same ration used in the evac demo of virtually all aircraft for the issue of the Type Data Certificate - therefore proven to work, ergo safe.

1:36

• Based on no rule or regulation to be found anywhere in ICAO or their SARPS
• "Decided" upon by a few in CASA back in the F27 days as an appropriate ratio
• Supported by the FAAA to protect member's jobs

For my money 1:50 is a no brainer. I want my job to remain tenable. If we want to compete with all other airlines in a globalized world then we need to get with the program here.

Now if an airline wants to add additional hosties as a point of difference in their service offering then they can go for it. But no airline should be forced to add additional crew when not required by regulations nor the manufacturer who has demonstrated the required number to evacuate passengers in the required 90 seconds.

Don't let union rhetoric cloud the truth.

G.A. don't go on an airline in the rest of the World! They have 1:50.

Frankly most aircraft like the Q300/ATR-42/DHC-7 etc only have one F/A seat station. Oz mods are expensive to fit the 2nd seat.

1:36 - Again Australia was trying to lead the World backwards in aviation..:sad:

Don't we need one for each major exit?

Wide body had that requirement with a large Asian carrier in times past

What with no pilots, perhaps no cabin crew, no wonder ocean cruising is having a comeback

:ok:

Evilc

I guess a few hundred lost cabin crew jobs so your job can remain tenable is a fair deal.

...employment grows with business growth not 'feather bedding'!

You took the words right out of my mouth TBM - Thanks.

Was the DHC-8-300 not originally certified 56 pax? I thought the number of cabin attendants required was based on original type certification configuration, not operator configuration or actual load?

If I am correct Gen. Anaesthetic, (and I may not be) any rule change will not affect you?

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.

Tail Wheel

Air Nelson with their Q300 have only 50 pax seats fitted and operate with one FA. Dont know if its on original certified capacity or if they have an exemption from NZ CAA for that config. Makes for plenty of leg room tho.

Anyway, Jetstar have benn operating beyond the 1:36 rule for quite a while now.

if only we could apply the same logic to airline management. perhaps a ratio of 1 manager per 50 aircraft seats. I'd rather see company money spent on keeping more than the minimum F/As instead of renaming and expanding management empires. Do we really need assistant manager/deputy manager/assistant deputy manager/airbus manager(when you only have airbus)/assistant airbus manager/standards manager/assistant standards manager/fleet requirements manager/assistant fleet requirements manager/ deputy.............etc

Just a thought
 

Is anyone with a vested or emotional interest in this subject have either an objective opinion or able to make an objective submission? Surely one should be able to rely on the regulator to make a balanced decision without being influenced by things like job opportunities, either gained or lost?

1:50 everywhere else in the world and it works nicely, when I flew the D8-300 in the UK it was with one flight attendent and was never an issue. This is just another case of CASA insisting on being different, I don't know why they do it, maybe trying to be leaders in aviation but as the whole ETDO fiasco shows even airlines operating in Oz just ignore most of these wierd adaptations when they can and apply the ETOPs standard like the rest of the world.......:ugh:

...except when you are on a 20-30 minute qantas flight from YSSY to YSCB, when there is one extra flight attendant (in excess of the 1:50 rule) to serve all the politician fatcats their business class meal and alcohol.

So if it drops back to 1:35, does that mean they politicians commuting between the aforementioned ports get 1:35 plus one? Maybe if they only had 1:50 now, they (the politicians and regulators) would not be so keen to reduce the numbers further.

Cheers,

Hoboe.

Ah, now, adding extra crew for commercial purposes is different. If an airline wants to go to the expense of carrying extra crew to complete service on a short sector then so be it. Just a note though, on the Dash 8 we used to do Belfast to the IOM which gave the single cabin crew member about 20 minutes to whip through the cabin with the service and she/he would complete it 9/10 times.:eek:

I have just remembered that during the 1970's TAA talked of reducing the cabin crew on the 36 seat F27 to reduce their operating cost when Bizjets commenced a service to the North West Coast of Tas. Eastwest Loco may be able to confirm.

Interesting input from all sides here. For the record, I think it would be fair to say that I am a company man. Sure, I am a pilot but I find myself defending the company more often these days when talking to pilots than the other way around. So I really wouldn't say I am interested in doing this just to save jobs. I am well aware that the company requires efficiency and bums on seats so that I and others might still have a job (I'm also a shareholder!). I am also very aware though that there needs to be rational thinking in the way we operate and unfortunately we are occasionally faced with decisions that are poorly thought out.

One thing I forgot to mention in the initial post, when mock evacuations of the Dash 8 300 were undertaken with CASA watching for type certification, the first attempt failed. Bear in mind this was with 2 flight attendants. It was either 2 or 3 attempts that were allowed (I can't remember exactly), and it was only on the last attempt that passengers were successfully evacuated through the correct exit. The problem was very simply passenger control. Even though there was fire at one exit, a passenger opened the exit because the flight attendant couldn't adequately monitor everyone's actions all at once and stop people where necessary. I have a hard time believing it could be successfully done with one flight attendant, but if it could be done safely and repeatedly by average flight attendants then subject to further analysis of other emergency scenarios, I would have to say I am for it. I just can't see it though.

Of course this is just the Dash, and there may be other aircraft types that would fare much better in this scenario, in which case I would love to hear about it.

For the record also, I believe that whilst our company may be interested in 1:50 getting up, they are not presently interested in its application on a regular basis. I believe they are keen to continue with 1:36 but have the option to use 1:50 in exceptional circumstances. I haven't had that from the horses mouth though...

Evilc, fair point. I want my job to be tenable, but as the person responsible for the safety of all on board, I want to be able to get everyone off in a real evacuation, and I want to be able to get a fire out quickly. They are the 2 scenarios that bother me most and I worry that 1:50 will not allow that to happen, particularly on my aircraft. Sure 1:50 is the way things are done elsewhere in the world but having travelled fairly extensively I am actually far happier to be operating in Australia, from this perspective anyway. I will never forget being on an Airbus in Europe once. Probably only about half full, but before the aircraft even pushed back there were passengers from up the front coming down the back to claim the empty seats so the trim would have been completely different for takeoff to what was on the load sheet. I was looking at the flight attendants waiting for them to do something but they couldn't have cared less. Then I actually approached them, and still they showed no interest. Amazing. And this was a Oneworld alliance airline too; we're not talking some dodgy airline here.

Tailwheel, good question and I am afraid I don't know the answer. I've just had a look at the Dash 8 type data sheet on the FAA website but I couldn't see it. I'm a bit of an amateur in that department I'm afraid. The proposed rule actually says that 1:50 will not be allowed if the original type certification was based on less than 1:50. I presume they're talking about original type certification via the FAA (more research needed). But perhaps that means operators might seek to re-certify the aircraft on this basis? I kind of doubt it.

B772,

That varies with jurisdiction.

I was with easyJet when they introduced the A319.

Without a lot of thought going into it, they had it certified for 156 Pax. Our 737s were 150 pax and we carried 3 CCs.

They were obliged, under JAR to put 4 on the A319 even if they didn't install the extra 6 seats, as it was certified for more than 150 Pax.