Swimming
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,552
Likes: 25
From: ME
Swimming
I've just come across this recruitment advertisment, can anyone explain why there is a requirement to SWIM? . .. .Weight in Proportion to Height * Minimum height of 157.5 cm or 5' 2" * Live in the Dublin Aera * An additional European Language Preferred * A confident Swimmer . .. .Cheers.. .. .Mutt.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
[aka HKGpax]
Erm, unless I am mistaken, in the whole history of commercial jet aviation there has only been one successful attempt to ditch a big jet in the sea (and quite a lot of failed - as in almost no survivors - ones). Since everyone has lifejackets anyway I can't see that swimming needs to be very high on the requirements list.
And by the way, I'm surprised the airlines don't complain mightily about carrying all the lifejackets and stuff which must cost a fortune in fuel and have saved very very few lives. The cost benefit analysis must put that at many millions of dollars per life, which could surely be much better spent on, for example, ground control radar at airports which don't have them.
Erm, unless I am mistaken, in the whole history of commercial jet aviation there has only been one successful attempt to ditch a big jet in the sea (and quite a lot of failed - as in almost no survivors - ones). Since everyone has lifejackets anyway I can't see that swimming needs to be very high on the requirements list.
And by the way, I'm surprised the airlines don't complain mightily about carrying all the lifejackets and stuff which must cost a fortune in fuel and have saved very very few lives. The cost benefit analysis must put that at many millions of dollars per life, which could surely be much better spent on, for example, ground control radar at airports which don't have them.
Wicked Moderator
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
From: I-
Uhmmm....
I can clearly see that christep has not knowledge in safety at all
Just to give you an idea, swimming in my coutry is a mandatory requirement for Cabin Crew, you actually have to pass a swimming test showing abilities is different styles....
Ok fellow ppruners, who wants to start giving a lecture to christep about the rest???? ...
I can clearly see that christep has not knowledge in safety at all
Just to give you an idea, swimming in my coutry is a mandatory requirement for Cabin Crew, you actually have to pass a swimming test showing abilities is different styles....
Ok fellow ppruners, who wants to start giving a lecture to christep about the rest???? ...
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: Sydney Australia
Oh Christep,
Where do we begin with you? Do you live under a mushroom or are you just having a go to see who bites?
Well it worked - I'm biting.
Have you no idea about aviation and the mishaps that occur?
Do you understand the words liability and morale responsibility?
Have you any idea the role that cabin crew provides?
Or are you just sitting back enjoying the bloody mary's and watching the feature film?
There may not have been many successfull full ditchings in to the sea but should we get rid of the lifejackets and life rafts on that issue alone?
How about when the aircraft takes a nose dive off the end of the runway, and that runway leads straight in to water? e.g. SYD, old HKG etc
There have been incidents just like this and successful evacuations were carried out using all water emergency eqipment in the aircraft sections that required their use.
You CAN have an aircraft crash half on land, half on water. And what happens to the poor souls who can't swim? Or do we only allow pax that can swim competently to fly? There are many nations where swimming is not a strentgh, should we just ban them from hopping on a 747? Or do we just watch them drown?
Perhaps your theory would best suit the bean counters in this world but for world wide aviation safety it would be a tragedy.
I think Christep you need to do a bit of research in to this before you pass an obviously ill informed, uneducated view that I think is not only irresponsible but offensive!
Perhaps we could use you as a flotation device next time we ditch.
Where do we begin with you? Do you live under a mushroom or are you just having a go to see who bites?
Well it worked - I'm biting.
Have you no idea about aviation and the mishaps that occur?
Do you understand the words liability and morale responsibility?
Have you any idea the role that cabin crew provides?
Or are you just sitting back enjoying the bloody mary's and watching the feature film?
There may not have been many successfull full ditchings in to the sea but should we get rid of the lifejackets and life rafts on that issue alone?
How about when the aircraft takes a nose dive off the end of the runway, and that runway leads straight in to water? e.g. SYD, old HKG etc
There have been incidents just like this and successful evacuations were carried out using all water emergency eqipment in the aircraft sections that required their use.
You CAN have an aircraft crash half on land, half on water. And what happens to the poor souls who can't swim? Or do we only allow pax that can swim competently to fly? There are many nations where swimming is not a strentgh, should we just ban them from hopping on a 747? Or do we just watch them drown?
Perhaps your theory would best suit the bean counters in this world but for world wide aviation safety it would be a tragedy.
I think Christep you need to do a bit of research in to this before you pass an obviously ill informed, uneducated view that I think is not only irresponsible but offensive!
Perhaps we could use you as a flotation device next time we ditch.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
With respect Xenia & Iguanahead, I have a pretty good understanding of risk analysis and statistics, and I have spent quite some time reading up on this topic. I also have spent quite a lot of time reviewing NTSB & CAA accident reports, and databases such as that maintained over at http://www.airdisaster.com
My apologies for any offence caused, which was certainly unintentional. However, most of the response in this forum seems to be driven by emotion rather than logic.
It is clear, for example, that more lives would be saved by fitting aircraft with smoke hoods than with lifejackets (clearly most would be saved by fitting both). However. the airlines have repeatedly refused to fit them on the grounds of cost.
It is also clear that significant numbers of lives would be saved by having all the seats backwards-facing. This is rejected on grounds of cost and customer acceptability (though personally I am perfectly happy in the BA J-class).
In any environment you have to decide how much you are prepared to spend to save a life... this calculation is done for road safety, building fire regulations, etc. etc. Broadly, once the "price" is set in any particular environment then safety features which cost less than that amount per life saved are implemented and those which cost more are not.
In airlines it seems to me that in fact the lifejackets are a bit of an anachronism. They exist primarily for historical reasons (flying boats etc) because if today you built the regulations from scratch you would start (I think - I will need more time to get the detailed statistics) with backwards seating (which has more or less zero net cost if you are starting from scratch), then smoke-hoods, then, maybe, lifejackets (obviously there could be various other things in the list too).
As for the role of the cabin crew, I think I have a reasonable idea - I have spent a good proportion of the last 3 years in their company (my apologies if you're one of the CX crew that I have bored to death in the middle of the night on the LHR, SFO, LAX or CDG runs).
If the airlines' over-riding consideration in selecting cabin crew was to maximise the number of survivors in a crash-landing then the criteria for selection would be quite different, and more like those for firefighters (ability to carry an unconcious 200-pound body up the aisle and out of the exit whilst wearing a smoke-hood for example). In real life, it is a balance between providing the best service in the 99.99whatever% of cases where there are no problems and being most effective in a crash. The airlines know that very, very few passengers have "effectiveness of the cabin crew in a crash" at the top of their list of priorities when choosing an airline, and they choose their cabin crew accordingly.
Moreover, survivability of crashes doesn't seem to vary much by airline, but the rate of crashes does (Korean and China Airlines, for example, are above my acceptable threshold level). Having said that it is clear that there is much more chance of a, say, BA cabin crew being able to drag my unconcious 6'3", 250-pound body down the aisle than there is of a CX stewardess. There are reports on the SQ006 at Taipei which give mixed reviews at best to the effectiveness of the cabin-crew there, and I understand that at least one change was made in SQ's uniform/procedures to make the footwear more practical.
So, in summary, all I am saying that all these safety issues are a trade-off and that in an ideal world I would make the trade-offs slightly differently. No disrepect intended to any cabin crew, who generally do a pretty good job.
My apologies for any offence caused, which was certainly unintentional. However, most of the response in this forum seems to be driven by emotion rather than logic.
It is clear, for example, that more lives would be saved by fitting aircraft with smoke hoods than with lifejackets (clearly most would be saved by fitting both). However. the airlines have repeatedly refused to fit them on the grounds of cost.
It is also clear that significant numbers of lives would be saved by having all the seats backwards-facing. This is rejected on grounds of cost and customer acceptability (though personally I am perfectly happy in the BA J-class).
In any environment you have to decide how much you are prepared to spend to save a life... this calculation is done for road safety, building fire regulations, etc. etc. Broadly, once the "price" is set in any particular environment then safety features which cost less than that amount per life saved are implemented and those which cost more are not.
In airlines it seems to me that in fact the lifejackets are a bit of an anachronism. They exist primarily for historical reasons (flying boats etc) because if today you built the regulations from scratch you would start (I think - I will need more time to get the detailed statistics) with backwards seating (which has more or less zero net cost if you are starting from scratch), then smoke-hoods, then, maybe, lifejackets (obviously there could be various other things in the list too).
As for the role of the cabin crew, I think I have a reasonable idea - I have spent a good proportion of the last 3 years in their company (my apologies if you're one of the CX crew that I have bored to death in the middle of the night on the LHR, SFO, LAX or CDG runs).
If the airlines' over-riding consideration in selecting cabin crew was to maximise the number of survivors in a crash-landing then the criteria for selection would be quite different, and more like those for firefighters (ability to carry an unconcious 200-pound body up the aisle and out of the exit whilst wearing a smoke-hood for example). In real life, it is a balance between providing the best service in the 99.99whatever% of cases where there are no problems and being most effective in a crash. The airlines know that very, very few passengers have "effectiveness of the cabin crew in a crash" at the top of their list of priorities when choosing an airline, and they choose their cabin crew accordingly.
Moreover, survivability of crashes doesn't seem to vary much by airline, but the rate of crashes does (Korean and China Airlines, for example, are above my acceptable threshold level). Having said that it is clear that there is much more chance of a, say, BA cabin crew being able to drag my unconcious 6'3", 250-pound body down the aisle than there is of a CX stewardess. There are reports on the SQ006 at Taipei which give mixed reviews at best to the effectiveness of the cabin-crew there, and I understand that at least one change was made in SQ's uniform/procedures to make the footwear more practical.
So, in summary, all I am saying that all these safety issues are a trade-off and that in an ideal world I would make the trade-offs slightly differently. No disrepect intended to any cabin crew, who generally do a pretty good job.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: Sydney,NSW, Australia
Just for the record, Airlines don't "decide" to waste their money on lifejackets, they are carried due to CASA regulation, as are rafts. When Aviation Safety Authorities dictate that it is a safety requirement you will get your smoke hoods to. (Although wouldn't it be difficult to evacuate a blazing inferno in minimal time with a smoke hood around your head??? maybe it's just me.....)
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
Oh dear, this is pedants' corner today isn't it? Of course I realise that the minimum safety equipment requirements are set by the national regulators not by the airlines. However, there is absolutely nothing to stop airlines equipping their planes with smoke hoods as well if they wish to do so.
After the loss of life on a Britsh Airtours flight at Manchester a few years ago (see http://www.airdisaster.com/special/s...-bakt28m.shtml and http://www.aaib.dtlr.gov.uk/formal/gbgjl/gbgjl.htm ) where over 50 people died from smoke inhalation the Air Accident Investigation Board recommended that:
"4.24 The Civil Aviation Authority should urgently give consideration to the formulation of a requirement for the provision of smokehoods/masks to afford passengers an effective level of protection during fires which produce a toxic environment within the aircraft cabin."
There was substantial lobbying from the airlines that this would simply cost too much money, and no such regulations were forthcoming.
After the loss of life on a Britsh Airtours flight at Manchester a few years ago (see http://www.airdisaster.com/special/s...-bakt28m.shtml and http://www.aaib.dtlr.gov.uk/formal/gbgjl/gbgjl.htm ) where over 50 people died from smoke inhalation the Air Accident Investigation Board recommended that:
"4.24 The Civil Aviation Authority should urgently give consideration to the formulation of a requirement for the provision of smokehoods/masks to afford passengers an effective level of protection during fires which produce a toxic environment within the aircraft cabin."
There was substantial lobbying from the airlines that this would simply cost too much money, and no such regulations were forthcoming.
Wicked Moderator
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
From: I-
Well....
Do you believe you have the right to come into our forum and call us "pedant"
We are all professionals in the industry, sorry you are NOT...
I am in my office now (I am involved with safety training) therefore no time to reply to you at the minute... but will get back to you later!!!!
Do you believe you have the right to come into our forum and call us "pedant"
We are all professionals in the industry, sorry you are NOT...
I am in my office now (I am involved with safety training) therefore no time to reply to you at the minute... but will get back to you later!!!!
Moderator
Joined: Feb 1998
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
From: Europe
HKGPax, legislation is slow.
The airline business is hidebound and loath to spend money on anything that doesn't immediately improve the bottom line.
Passengers are fickle and many do not give a flying f*ck about the safety features provided by the airline they choose. Again, it's the price that counts; in this case the cheapest fare.
So while your recommendations certainly have merit; I doubt if I ever will see PBE's for our pax during my working life.
I used to carry with me a portable PBE on my travels for use in hotel fires and the like.
Reading this thread reminds me that I should get a new one. The previous one was bought via the company, but they have stopped providing that service.
The only links I could find on the web were these 2.
1 & 2
Neither of them in Europe, which makes shipping and import taxes rather high.
Anyone can provide me with the name of a European manufacturer, I'd be grateful.
PS: Oh and Chris, regarding your remark about "most of the response in this forum seems to be driven by emotion rather than logic". I would't say most, but some are.
That is in fact one of the main differences between your stereotype pilot and your stereotype FA.
Still and all, it isn't exactly as if emotion, irrationaility and juvenile response were absent in the other forums, is it now?
The airline business is hidebound and loath to spend money on anything that doesn't immediately improve the bottom line.
Passengers are fickle and many do not give a flying f*ck about the safety features provided by the airline they choose. Again, it's the price that counts; in this case the cheapest fare.
So while your recommendations certainly have merit; I doubt if I ever will see PBE's for our pax during my working life.
I used to carry with me a portable PBE on my travels for use in hotel fires and the like.
Reading this thread reminds me that I should get a new one. The previous one was bought via the company, but they have stopped providing that service.
The only links I could find on the web were these 2.
1 & 2
Neither of them in Europe, which makes shipping and import taxes rather high.
Anyone can provide me with the name of a European manufacturer, I'd be grateful.
PS: Oh and Chris, regarding your remark about "most of the response in this forum seems to be driven by emotion rather than logic". I would't say most, but some are.
That is in fact one of the main differences between your stereotype pilot and your stereotype FA.
Still and all, it isn't exactly as if emotion, irrationaility and juvenile response were absent in the other forums, is it now?
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
Xenia,
This all seems to be getting a bit over-heated! I have been trying hard to formulate what I intended to be a rational discussion of the value and pros and cons of different safety equipment / procedures from the perspective of a very frequent passenger. In the last couple of years I have spent as much of my life in planes as many cabin crew so I think that my safety there is something on which I have the right to an opinion.
Unfortunately people seem to be taking my comments as an attack on cabin crew, which couldn't be further from the truth! My comment about pedantry was specifically in reply to Skypryncess who obviously felt the need for a clearer distinction between what is governed by regulation, and what is at the discretion of the airline.
I would be very interested to hear if cabin crew (particularly those with some expertise in this area such as yourself) have a further info or experience on the tradeoffs between cost and safety, and I had assumed (I hope correctly) that cabin crew might be interested in hearing from some SLF on this topic. My apologies if this is not the case - let me know, and I won't post in this forum again.
This all seems to be getting a bit over-heated! I have been trying hard to formulate what I intended to be a rational discussion of the value and pros and cons of different safety equipment / procedures from the perspective of a very frequent passenger. In the last couple of years I have spent as much of my life in planes as many cabin crew so I think that my safety there is something on which I have the right to an opinion.
Unfortunately people seem to be taking my comments as an attack on cabin crew, which couldn't be further from the truth! My comment about pedantry was specifically in reply to Skypryncess who obviously felt the need for a clearer distinction between what is governed by regulation, and what is at the discretion of the airline.
I would be very interested to hear if cabin crew (particularly those with some expertise in this area such as yourself) have a further info or experience on the tradeoffs between cost and safety, and I had assumed (I hope correctly) that cabin crew might be interested in hearing from some SLF on this topic. My apologies if this is not the case - let me know, and I won't post in this forum again.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
Flaps,
Thanks for your comments. So to come back to the original question, why do the airlines require cabin crew to swim? Is it a regulatory requirement? If not why do the airlines restrict the availability of crew in this way since, as you say, the passengers couldn't care less (personally my mind is more exercised by the elaborate training that the CX girls have to go through to manage the wrap skirts they have which were obviously designed by a man - probably one sitting in the exit row opposite the crew seats )
By the way, PBE (of a very basic type) is required in hotels in most Asian countries - why not see if one of your LH colleagues could get their hands on a few when they are next over here? They are generally in the wardrobe
By the way, I'm not "Chris" - my "handle" was "HKGpax" but we've lost them for the time being and "christep" is my login (related to my real name, but not in the way you guessed).
Thanks for your comments. So to come back to the original question, why do the airlines require cabin crew to swim? Is it a regulatory requirement? If not why do the airlines restrict the availability of crew in this way since, as you say, the passengers couldn't care less (personally my mind is more exercised by the elaborate training that the CX girls have to go through to manage the wrap skirts they have which were obviously designed by a man - probably one sitting in the exit row opposite the crew seats
)By the way, PBE (of a very basic type) is required in hotels in most Asian countries - why not see if one of your LH colleagues could get their hands on a few when they are next over here? They are generally in the wardrobe
By the way, I'm not "Chris" - my "handle" was "HKGpax" but we've lost them for the time being and "christep" is my login (related to my real name, but not in the way you guessed).
Moderator
Joined: Apr 1998
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
From: err, *******, we have a problem
Once again the dangerous myth that every ditching will be unsurvivable is trotted out. This disconcerts me somewhat; yes, it will be much harder to pull off a reasonable impact on the sea given all the variables, but we'll all damn well give it our best shot. The last thing I want is Cabin Crew behind me who are resigned to dying because of dis-information, and the last thing any sensible passenger would want is someone who is not ready to get their (the pax, that is) rear end out of the seat and motivated towards a wet exit in double-quick time.
Anyway, for starters here's a quote from an NTSB study on my hard-drive, specifically NTSB/SS-00/01, SAFETY STUDY Emergency Evacuation of Commercial Airplanes;
The 1985 study referred to is NTSB Air Carrier Overwater Emergency Equipment and Procedures, Safety Study NTSB/SS-85/02 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 1985)
You can preach doom as much as you like, but ditchings are, and have been survivable. It's not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon, is definitely not risk-free and I can think of several places I'd rather put an airliner down than the ocean or a lake but I'd do it if there was nowhere better to go, and I'd expect us all to swim away from it. You can expect to die if you so wish; that is not my job.
Interestingly, there was an article in the BALPA log about a year ago on this very issue; mentioned the fact that over rough but generally flat terrain, such as the wastes of Northern Canada, it might be better to choose a shallow lake close to shore to alight upon rather than the land itself due to the seemingly flat but actually very rough nature of the terrain. Food for thought...
Anyway, for starters here's a quote from an NTSB study on my hard-drive, specifically NTSB/SS-00/01, SAFETY STUDY Emergency Evacuation of Commercial Airplanes;
In 1985, the Safety Board released two safety studies that addressed evacuation
issues. The first study examined air carrier overwater emergency equipment and
procedures. The Safety Board studied 16 survivable water contact accidents that occurred between 1959 and 1984; most of these water accidents were inadvertent, occurred without
warning, involved substantial airplane damage, rapid flooding of the cabin, and a high
chance of injury. As a result of the study, improvements were made in life preserver
design, packaging, accessibility, and ease of donning; crew postcrash survival training;
and water rescue plans for airports near water.
issues. The first study examined air carrier overwater emergency equipment and
procedures. The Safety Board studied 16 survivable water contact accidents that occurred between 1959 and 1984; most of these water accidents were inadvertent, occurred without
warning, involved substantial airplane damage, rapid flooding of the cabin, and a high
chance of injury. As a result of the study, improvements were made in life preserver
design, packaging, accessibility, and ease of donning; crew postcrash survival training;
and water rescue plans for airports near water.
You can preach doom as much as you like, but ditchings are, and have been survivable. It's not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon, is definitely not risk-free and I can think of several places I'd rather put an airliner down than the ocean or a lake but I'd do it if there was nowhere better to go, and I'd expect us all to swim away from it. You can expect to die if you so wish; that is not my job.
Interestingly, there was an article in the BALPA log about a year ago on this very issue; mentioned the fact that over rough but generally flat terrain, such as the wastes of Northern Canada, it might be better to choose a shallow lake close to shore to alight upon rather than the land itself due to the seemingly flat but actually very rough nature of the terrain. Food for thought...
Last edited by Sick Squid; 9th April 2002 at 09:27.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: Sydney,NSW, Australia
This post relates to the back seat drivers out there. I needed no clarification re: you comment chris, though perhaps you do and therefore should go back an read your own comment. 1 If it were deemed that smokehoods were a vital part of our safety equipment we would have them. Closed topic, safety is not left to the airlines alone rather the aviation safety authority in which a given airline resides. 2 A PBE whilst being useful for short times when fighting fires is also dangerous when used by inexperience people. Incorrect fitting = oxygen leak = fuel = passengers faces exploding. 3 those annying bits of cloth hanging from your headrest are not there just to irritate you. They are designed for the specific purpose of being breathed through to prevent smoke inhilation. Those are my thoughts, I may be an emotional flight attendant but I have never stooped to visiting other forums to make personal attacks on thier occupants. Oh and yes, I swim very well and may even save someones life one day. Yes we do have life jackets, will we always have time to put them on? And as far as misspent millions, as far as I and many other Safety Professionals are concerned, if a lifejacket works once it is totally worth the expense.