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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!

Wiz, correct, Checkers knows the full story. Apparently there's some obscure clause buried in EASA OPS...

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 :ugh:) and someone tries again.

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

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

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

1:50 is a fantastic policy, the fewer F/A's I have to put up with, the better.

BD Bandit -

1:36, 1:50 and 1:for the flight deck........I was always taught never bite the hand the feeds you! (& some of us get fed better than others - back the CC)

:E
AT

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:yuk: need seriously being challenged in a court of law as well as a parliamentory enquiry.

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?

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?

Simple question, but does 1:50 include infants? If not how many additional could be carried?

Another question, only partially relevant.

Should cabin crew members have to proove (annually?) they can still fit through an overwing exit?

MP.

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 !

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 :D