Experienced pax vs very experienced CC seatbelt thread
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Final 3 Greens
I'd love to know how a CC member can decide, with any certainty, whether it's safe to go to the loo, when the belt sign is on, without asking the aircraft commander.
Please explain, i'm all ears..........
Please explain, i'm all ears..........
Whenever I decide to illuminate the seat belt sign I always brief the CC as to the expected endurance and severity of any turbulence. Therefore if asked by passengers if it's ok to visit the lav the CC can assess each passenger's ability to stay upright during (say) intermediate, light chop for a brief period. The twenty-something sporty person probably could. The granny with two dodgy hips probably couldn't.
You see? Unless you're actually an insider (as opposed to a FF, PPL or reggie spotter) there's often more to it than meets the eye.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok ok ok
I've made my peace with Flapfourty and she has made her peace with me, via private messages.
I do not consider airline flying the F1 of the air and me flying my Seneca IV as single crew being the Astra of the sky.
Whilst i fly slower and lower i have to contend more with weather, the flight is less automated and the workload generally higher, so I am led to believe from friends/ATPL's. It's like saying Alaska floatplane pilot are less of a pilot than twin pilots in England because they fly singles. They are all different types of flying but none better or worse or higher or lower than others. There are old pilots and bold pilots, there are those who feel they need to push down to rise themselves and those who do not feel this need.
So back to the intention of my statement.
As in any profession, through time a form of blindness appears in all eyes of staff, in this case pilots and cc alike. We are all aware of it (me in my work too) and we all fight it.
I's like to contribute to this fighting as follows:
Communications is vital between both crews one the one hand and pax on the other, simply because people fly more, THINK they know more and are more and more trained to use their individual brains in the current rat race.
Contrary to what some aviation crew think, it is unnatural for a person's brain to just leave their own well being to somebody else.
It is natural for any individual person to want to make their own judgement, and the thought you achieve best judgement by pax through not informing is old hat.
Providing the necessary information to the pax which will lead him to making the right decision (wearing the belt) is the way to go....
I advocate the safety belts sign on is only ever used during take off, landing and when risks dictate it, never to allow CC more room or time (unless emergency) or other secondary non-safety related reason
I advocate that crew (cabin or drivers) always explain when they keep the sign on outside normal periods (PIREPS of clear air turbulence etc)
The above will hopefully lead to fewer SLF using their ill informed brains at making natural but wrong decisions about their safety
And finally i would like to agree with another poster re the turbulence in the other thread. 30 injured on 400 pax 20 minutes before landing may not have so much to do with ignorant SLF but probably more with people wanting to go to the toilet before landing and failing to reach their seats in time when the FSS came on
I've made my peace with Flapfourty and she has made her peace with me, via private messages.
I do not consider airline flying the F1 of the air and me flying my Seneca IV as single crew being the Astra of the sky.
Whilst i fly slower and lower i have to contend more with weather, the flight is less automated and the workload generally higher, so I am led to believe from friends/ATPL's. It's like saying Alaska floatplane pilot are less of a pilot than twin pilots in England because they fly singles. They are all different types of flying but none better or worse or higher or lower than others. There are old pilots and bold pilots, there are those who feel they need to push down to rise themselves and those who do not feel this need.
So back to the intention of my statement.
As in any profession, through time a form of blindness appears in all eyes of staff, in this case pilots and cc alike. We are all aware of it (me in my work too) and we all fight it.
I's like to contribute to this fighting as follows:
Communications is vital between both crews one the one hand and pax on the other, simply because people fly more, THINK they know more and are more and more trained to use their individual brains in the current rat race.
Contrary to what some aviation crew think, it is unnatural for a person's brain to just leave their own well being to somebody else.
It is natural for any individual person to want to make their own judgement, and the thought you achieve best judgement by pax through not informing is old hat.
Providing the necessary information to the pax which will lead him to making the right decision (wearing the belt) is the way to go....
I advocate the safety belts sign on is only ever used during take off, landing and when risks dictate it, never to allow CC more room or time (unless emergency) or other secondary non-safety related reason
I advocate that crew (cabin or drivers) always explain when they keep the sign on outside normal periods (PIREPS of clear air turbulence etc)
The above will hopefully lead to fewer SLF using their ill informed brains at making natural but wrong decisions about their safety
And finally i would like to agree with another poster re the turbulence in the other thread. 30 injured on 400 pax 20 minutes before landing may not have so much to do with ignorant SLF but probably more with people wanting to go to the toilet before landing and failing to reach their seats in time when the FSS came on
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fail to see the problem with giving the CC a couple of extra minutes to get on top of things by leaving the seatbelt sign on if it's a short sector or there are unique circumstances.
What's the problem?
What's the problem?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all a bit silly.
Seat belts are there to be worn, whatever the conditions. I'm ex-mil and got into the habit of wearing a seat-belt in an aircraft well before it became mandatory in the UK for car drivers. IT SAVES LIVES, that's why the militray fit them, among other reasons.
Yes, I am that old! Yes, I am stuck in my ways. Yes, I am still alive
and so are those people reading this, seat belts or not. But some of you wouldn't be if you'd ignored the sign.
Grow up! Flaps has a valid point and macho posturing does nothing to calm pax who might otherwise have obeyed the requests of CC.
Seat belts are there to be worn, whatever the conditions. I'm ex-mil and got into the habit of wearing a seat-belt in an aircraft well before it became mandatory in the UK for car drivers. IT SAVES LIVES, that's why the militray fit them, among other reasons.
Yes, I am that old! Yes, I am stuck in my ways. Yes, I am still alive
and so are those people reading this, seat belts or not. But some of you wouldn't be if you'd ignored the sign.
Grow up! Flaps has a valid point and macho posturing does nothing to calm pax who might otherwise have obeyed the requests of CC.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johnfairr (and everybody)
I'm still military. I'm a SAR helicopter pilot. We bring people on board our aircraft mostly in a state of extreme stress (if they weren't when we found them, they are by the time we have hoisted them through 100' of space).
You would not believe the things that people do if we don't ensure that they are sat down strapped in - in the middle of a major emergency, in the dark, when the crew are a bit busy with the world outside.
There was an incident in the late 70s (just after we got Sea Kings where the cockpit and the cabin are on the same level) when the handling pilot, in the middle of rescuing a bunch of people, was hugged by a completely naked and very comely female survivor . . .
The point I'm headed for is that, regardless of what you think you know, and regardless of what you think is going on, the crew have both knowledge and issues of which you are completely unaware. Everybody do what you are told unless you are definitely going to die if you don't.
And to airline staff (and my brother-in-law is a BA 744 Capt, so my Xmas will be fraught if you F**k me about), remember that the SLF have bladders, and may have been 5 hours through check-in etc (ever tried to take a legal gun on an airliner?) and may be quite stressed before they start (my wife lives in perpetual irrational fear of her husband or her brother dying in a horrible aircraft accident - and an airliner in the Hudson and a helicopter in the North Sea in the same month hasn't helped).
Its all about consideration for each other. I appreciate that the travelling public generally don't consider, but CC, if you could prompt the pilots so I can have a pee as soon as possible after top of climb in a 15 min gap or so before you start shoving trolleys round, I would be so much on your side.
BTW, flew ANZ in Jan for the first time in 30 yrs of travel - love ya!
Sven
I'm still military. I'm a SAR helicopter pilot. We bring people on board our aircraft mostly in a state of extreme stress (if they weren't when we found them, they are by the time we have hoisted them through 100' of space).
You would not believe the things that people do if we don't ensure that they are sat down strapped in - in the middle of a major emergency, in the dark, when the crew are a bit busy with the world outside.
There was an incident in the late 70s (just after we got Sea Kings where the cockpit and the cabin are on the same level) when the handling pilot, in the middle of rescuing a bunch of people, was hugged by a completely naked and very comely female survivor . . .
The point I'm headed for is that, regardless of what you think you know, and regardless of what you think is going on, the crew have both knowledge and issues of which you are completely unaware. Everybody do what you are told unless you are definitely going to die if you don't.
And to airline staff (and my brother-in-law is a BA 744 Capt, so my Xmas will be fraught if you F**k me about), remember that the SLF have bladders, and may have been 5 hours through check-in etc (ever tried to take a legal gun on an airliner?) and may be quite stressed before they start (my wife lives in perpetual irrational fear of her husband or her brother dying in a horrible aircraft accident - and an airliner in the Hudson and a helicopter in the North Sea in the same month hasn't helped).
Its all about consideration for each other. I appreciate that the travelling public generally don't consider, but CC, if you could prompt the pilots so I can have a pee as soon as possible after top of climb in a 15 min gap or so before you start shoving trolleys round, I would be so much on your side.
BTW, flew ANZ in Jan for the first time in 30 yrs of travel - love ya!
Sven
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All those of you SO mortally offended , then just go. Please. Now.
You won't be missed. The moderator you are trying to claim some sort of moral high-ground over would be, however, and has done more for this site than any of you probably ever will.
You really do miss the point sometimes. We sit and watch this site, day in, day out, moving posts, deleting threads, occasionally intervening, and we see the same trends appearing time and time again. Someone with a peripheral interest or knowledge will post some absolute, it will be contradicted, they will get on their high horse, some will defend them, others will attack the person who had the temerity to confront the "free speech" of the initial poster....
...then someone will post looking for a pilots-only site verified by some licence inspection palava....
.. then a moderator will be flamed for having the temerity to have an opinion.
Never mind that the moderator in this instance is someone I would happily have looking after the cabin on any aircraft under my command, any day.
Get over yourselves, and get on with it. It was a poorly phrased post in the first place, making global statements not backed up by experience. You want experience? Here you go.... 12,000 hours or so, most in command of airliners, and the belts signs on for cabin-related stuff twice. And that stuff wasn't simple convenience, it was to clear galleys of over-exuberant passengers when a service was about to take place.
Flame me now, if you like. I don't give a stuff what you think, but I do care when I see my friends and fellow moderators being attacked for simply speaking the truth, in their own inimitable way. Once any of you writing above has contributed as much value to the site as Flaps 40 I'll take you seriously, but till then.... sorry. Keep trying.
Love and hugs,
Squid
(Moderator, formerly of this parish, patroling other pastures now.)
PS. The going rate to phone someone who gives a **** is 10p. Dig deep in your wallets, oh ye so sorely aggrieved.
You won't be missed. The moderator you are trying to claim some sort of moral high-ground over would be, however, and has done more for this site than any of you probably ever will.
You really do miss the point sometimes. We sit and watch this site, day in, day out, moving posts, deleting threads, occasionally intervening, and we see the same trends appearing time and time again. Someone with a peripheral interest or knowledge will post some absolute, it will be contradicted, they will get on their high horse, some will defend them, others will attack the person who had the temerity to confront the "free speech" of the initial poster....
...then someone will post looking for a pilots-only site verified by some licence inspection palava....
.. then a moderator will be flamed for having the temerity to have an opinion.
Never mind that the moderator in this instance is someone I would happily have looking after the cabin on any aircraft under my command, any day.
Get over yourselves, and get on with it. It was a poorly phrased post in the first place, making global statements not backed up by experience. You want experience? Here you go.... 12,000 hours or so, most in command of airliners, and the belts signs on for cabin-related stuff twice. And that stuff wasn't simple convenience, it was to clear galleys of over-exuberant passengers when a service was about to take place.
Flame me now, if you like. I don't give a stuff what you think, but I do care when I see my friends and fellow moderators being attacked for simply speaking the truth, in their own inimitable way. Once any of you writing above has contributed as much value to the site as Flaps 40 I'll take you seriously, but till then.... sorry. Keep trying.
Love and hugs,
Squid
(Moderator, formerly of this parish, patroling other pastures now.)
PS. The going rate to phone someone who gives a **** is 10p. Dig deep in your wallets, oh ye so sorely aggrieved.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bucket and spade
There is no problem except the psychology that the SLF consider the belts a safety issue and if they perceive it is used for other means they stop trusting the system.
It s all about the little boy crying wolf without reason till one day he was chased by the wolf and nobody listened
So why not extinguish the SBO lights, and ask the SLF by intercom to give the crew a few minutes the space to get organized?
Most bar those who urgently need the toilet I am sure will be happy to comply... And so now you've created more room for the staff and still maintained the integrity of the safety system
There is no problem except the psychology that the SLF consider the belts a safety issue and if they perceive it is used for other means they stop trusting the system.
It s all about the little boy crying wolf without reason till one day he was chased by the wolf and nobody listened
So why not extinguish the SBO lights, and ask the SLF by intercom to give the crew a few minutes the space to get organized?
Most bar those who urgently need the toilet I am sure will be happy to comply... And so now you've created more room for the staff and still maintained the integrity of the safety system
Mmmmm, am I glad that my last job (scheduled airline) involved seatbelts on from boarding to engine stop. No arguments at all there! Ah, the trusty old Trislander. Livestock were another issue tho! Just how do you strap in a dog (of the canine variety!)?
Alas, no loos
and no Hosties 
on the Trusty Tris! Mind you, just how many times did I hear the jokes along the lines of “Oi, mate, where’s the Stewardess then?” or “How are you going to serve the coffees then?” when doing my Safety Brief leaning across the back of my seat? Most of my answers got a laugh from my Pax! 
Anyway, hopefully, having lightened the tone here abouts, back to the serious issue under discussion ………… for others to argue over.
PS Apologies to Flaps40 et al – can I say “Hosties”? Dang! Oh well!
Alas, no loos
and no Hosties on the Trusty Tris! Mind you, just how many times did I hear the jokes along the lines of “Oi, mate, where’s the Stewardess then?” or “How are you going to serve the coffees then?” when doing my Safety Brief leaning across the back of my seat? Most of my answers got a laugh from my Pax! Anyway, hopefully, having lightened the tone here abouts, back to the serious issue under discussion ………… for others to argue over.
PS Apologies to Flaps40 et al – can I say “Hosties”? Dang! Oh well!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm backing flaps forty on this one.
I'm not "intensive" slf nor do I spend my weekends tootling around the countryside in my piper cub thinking I know something about the actualities of commercial aviation...
Only once in 9 years of flying have I known the seatbelt signs be swithced on for a situation other than turbulence - and that was to prevent pax fistycuffs breaking out in the back galley of a 777.
On occasion it may seem like a carefully planned conspiracy to Mr Amateur Aviation in row 3 ...but light chop can turn very nasty in a matter of moments, it doesn't happen very often but when it does...well believe me when I say those cabin ceilings don't give very much...!
These so called reports of cabin crew merrily phoning up the flight deck to ask for those pesky pax to be be ordered back to their seats just doesn't ring true....well certainly not in my experience.
I don't treat my pax like cattle nor do I want them out of the way...they pay my wages and are entitled to excellent, SAFE, service.
I'm not "intensive" slf nor do I spend my weekends tootling around the countryside in my piper cub thinking I know something about the actualities of commercial aviation...
Only once in 9 years of flying have I known the seatbelt signs be swithced on for a situation other than turbulence - and that was to prevent pax fistycuffs breaking out in the back galley of a 777.
On occasion it may seem like a carefully planned conspiracy to Mr Amateur Aviation in row 3 ...but light chop can turn very nasty in a matter of moments, it doesn't happen very often but when it does...well believe me when I say those cabin ceilings don't give very much...!
These so called reports of cabin crew merrily phoning up the flight deck to ask for those pesky pax to be be ordered back to their seats just doesn't ring true....well certainly not in my experience.
I don't treat my pax like cattle nor do I want them out of the way...they pay my wages and are entitled to excellent, SAFE, service.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bunkrest
Totally agree..... so if not during take off and landing, why not inform the pax of the reason?
Seems here are two types of crew here. Those who have learned to communicate and those who just do not see the necessity to do so because after all they are the gods of the air
(for the record I remain in my seat belted up whenever the light is on and also when the light is off unless I need to go to the bathroom and the light is off, don't start thinking i m one of the rogues....)
Totally agree..... so if not during take off and landing, why not inform the pax of the reason?
Seems here are two types of crew here. Those who have learned to communicate and those who just do not see the necessity to do so because after all they are the gods of the air
(for the record I remain in my seat belted up whenever the light is on and also when the light is off unless I need to go to the bathroom and the light is off, don't start thinking i m one of the rogues....)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vanHorck,
I'm talking about, for example, having the seatbelts sign on for 22 minutes after takeoff as opposed to 19 minutes. If it might help the CC. On a short sector. Very rarely happens - some captains suggest it now and again though.
No need for a passenger announcement - we're busy flying the aircraft.
Perfectly reasonable, I'm sure you'd agree?
I'm struggling to see the big drama
Regards,
B&S
I'm talking about, for example, having the seatbelts sign on for 22 minutes after takeoff as opposed to 19 minutes. If it might help the CC. On a short sector. Very rarely happens - some captains suggest it now and again though.
No need for a passenger announcement - we're busy flying the aircraft.
Perfectly reasonable, I'm sure you'd agree?
I'm struggling to see the big drama
Regards,
B&S
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just read through this thread and I've already forgotten what the original issue was. However....
I find it amazing that pax/slf think that we put the seat belt sign on for no reason. I guess these are the same people that think we tell them to turn off their phone/ipod/laptop/blackberry and take earphones out as well as anything else we ask you to do, that we do it for fun or just to annoy you.
Believe it or not, we do what we're trained to do. It's a legal requirement to check each seat belt when the sign comes on. I cannot force you to stay seated, but I can explain to you why you need to stay in your seat. A lot of the replies I get is: "But the guy in front of me went to the loo". Are you a sheep? (obviously not uttered to the pax in question).
What really winds me up though, is parents happily unstrapping their small children to let them go "potty" when the sign is on. Children cannot make an educated choice. If they're still anywhere near potty training, bring a "pull-up" type nappy/diaper or two. Then at least you can fit it whilst wearing the seat belt and child is not embarassed about wetting their pants.
Lastly, some people have posted about being stressed, the queue for check-in, security, boarding in a hurry etc. You can go to the toilet before push-back. The waste isn't like on the train. It goes into a tank, so you're not going to do anything to the people on the ground when you flush the toilet. Any airline that won't let you go on the ground before engines are started is making up excuses/stories.
For those crew who has to ask for the seat belt sign to come on because of raunchy/obnoxious behaviour from some pax (ie stag parties etc), a quick question: Why do you let them board and/or get to the stage where they behave like that? It's a criminal offence to be intoxicated on most airliners in the modern world. Don't let them on or don't serve them alcohol. It will avoid trouble if dealt with appropriately.
Ok, rant over, just had to get that off my chest.
Gg
I find it amazing that pax/slf think that we put the seat belt sign on for no reason. I guess these are the same people that think we tell them to turn off their phone/ipod/laptop/blackberry and take earphones out as well as anything else we ask you to do, that we do it for fun or just to annoy you.
Believe it or not, we do what we're trained to do. It's a legal requirement to check each seat belt when the sign comes on. I cannot force you to stay seated, but I can explain to you why you need to stay in your seat. A lot of the replies I get is: "But the guy in front of me went to the loo". Are you a sheep? (obviously not uttered to the pax in question).
What really winds me up though, is parents happily unstrapping their small children to let them go "potty" when the sign is on. Children cannot make an educated choice. If they're still anywhere near potty training, bring a "pull-up" type nappy/diaper or two. Then at least you can fit it whilst wearing the seat belt and child is not embarassed about wetting their pants.
Lastly, some people have posted about being stressed, the queue for check-in, security, boarding in a hurry etc. You can go to the toilet before push-back. The waste isn't like on the train. It goes into a tank, so you're not going to do anything to the people on the ground when you flush the toilet. Any airline that won't let you go on the ground before engines are started is making up excuses/stories.
For those crew who has to ask for the seat belt sign to come on because of raunchy/obnoxious behaviour from some pax (ie stag parties etc), a quick question: Why do you let them board and/or get to the stage where they behave like that? It's a criminal offence to be intoxicated on most airliners in the modern world. Don't let them on or don't serve them alcohol. It will avoid trouble if dealt with appropriately.
Ok, rant over, just had to get that off my chest.
Gg
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we want PAX to belt up when the FSB light is on, and preferably all the time for their own safety (and others), they need to be aware of what can happen to an unsecured body in severe turbulence. Couldn't a suitable bit of video using realistic CGI be added to the safety presentation? Each person that sees it and gets the message is one less potential injury. Obviously you don't want to unnecessarily alarm people, just explain it like car seat belts. You very rarely need them, but when you do need them, you are very glad you buckled up.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gg
I'm sure you, like just about anyone who thinks that flying is a vocation rather than a job, promulgate SB warnings as they should be - every time it is required, every time it is advisable, and not otherwise.
However, it only takes one occasion of leaving the SLF strapped down for 2 hrs after take off and nothing much happens to educate the flying sheep that this is a warning in the same class as they are used to on the motorways - ie stuck up at the first hint of trouble and not switched off until shift change.
In my aircraft we can use brute force. I feel for you that have to do customer relations. But unless the industry a) makes active efforts to switch off SB unless essential,
b) Explains (with films in the departure lounge??)that this is a real risk
C)Imposes sanctions on passengers who don't belt up and advertises that they have done so
Pax will continue to be awkward and people will continue to get hurt.
The industry must (continue to) be forceful to be kimd.
Sven
I'm sure you, like just about anyone who thinks that flying is a vocation rather than a job, promulgate SB warnings as they should be - every time it is required, every time it is advisable, and not otherwise.
However, it only takes one occasion of leaving the SLF strapped down for 2 hrs after take off and nothing much happens to educate the flying sheep that this is a warning in the same class as they are used to on the motorways - ie stuck up at the first hint of trouble and not switched off until shift change.
In my aircraft we can use brute force. I feel for you that have to do customer relations. But unless the industry a) makes active efforts to switch off SB unless essential,
b) Explains (with films in the departure lounge??)that this is a real risk
C)Imposes sanctions on passengers who don't belt up and advertises that they have done so
Pax will continue to be awkward and people will continue to get hurt.
The industry must (continue to) be forceful to be kimd.
Sven
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been caught out by the seat belt signs being switched on whilst in the toilet I can tell you even in light turbulence it is not nice to be on your feet.
Just made it back as CC came down checking seatbelts were on.
Do I wear the belt all the time - yes, in fact as with a car I am uncomfortable if I haven't got it on.
I may be old fashioned but in any situation if a request is made that will enhance my safety and that of others I WILL follow it, an attitude that has kept me injury free for over 50 years!
And as for the earlier spats, having had the privilege of meeting Flapsforty and a number of other moderators and knowing some other CC & FD crew if they make a point or out the seatbelt light on it is for a good reason!
Just made it back as CC came down checking seatbelts were on.
Do I wear the belt all the time - yes, in fact as with a car I am uncomfortable if I haven't got it on.
I may be old fashioned but in any situation if a request is made that will enhance my safety and that of others I WILL follow it, an attitude that has kept me injury free for over 50 years!
And as for the earlier spats, having had the privilege of meeting Flapsforty and a number of other moderators and knowing some other CC & FD crew if they make a point or out the seatbelt light on it is for a good reason!
Last edited by west lakes; 20th Feb 2009 at 22:17.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is an interesting thought to make wearing the belts full time when seated mandatory.
It would make sense from a safety point of view, but I guess given human nature, more people would stand in the aisle so as to avoid wearing them, making safety worse....
And it is only this human nature that I am about.
Many posters on both sides of the argument are right in their statements, but I hear no crew going to the core, which is that safety is enhanced if communications with the pax are improved. THAT is the real issue.
It has to do with the change of culture, culture of aviation but also culture of the pax.
I feel aviation is sorely behind on communicating, perhaps due to money constraints and in the case of the belts it affects safety.
The crew are not the cause, just getting the blows. Communications about delays (timely and with honest reasons) are sadly now simply not accepted by the pax because too often they have been lied to or not been informed at all. That is the pax stress somebody was talking about earlier. It comes on top of feeling like sardines in a can at customs, security and the waiting at the gates (and please don t start about paying peanuts and getting monkeys it s not about that, it s the PSYCHOLOGY of how they feel).
So now they arrive on the plane. They (too) are stressed. They fly often and can't wait to get their book out of the bin, or their laptop or go to the loo, or take their jacket off.
The belt sign stays on without explanation. A mother (wrongly!) feels it s for CC comfort reasons, and allows her kid to go to the potty. WRONG WRONG WRONG, but it is how people think!
So again, up front it s aviate, navigate, communicate, in the back i'd suggest communications as a priority would help no end
We've spent a lot of time discussing just a little detail in aviation. Respect to all, we all do our best
It would make sense from a safety point of view, but I guess given human nature, more people would stand in the aisle so as to avoid wearing them, making safety worse....
And it is only this human nature that I am about.
Many posters on both sides of the argument are right in their statements, but I hear no crew going to the core, which is that safety is enhanced if communications with the pax are improved. THAT is the real issue.
It has to do with the change of culture, culture of aviation but also culture of the pax.
I feel aviation is sorely behind on communicating, perhaps due to money constraints and in the case of the belts it affects safety.
The crew are not the cause, just getting the blows. Communications about delays (timely and with honest reasons) are sadly now simply not accepted by the pax because too often they have been lied to or not been informed at all. That is the pax stress somebody was talking about earlier. It comes on top of feeling like sardines in a can at customs, security and the waiting at the gates (and please don t start about paying peanuts and getting monkeys it s not about that, it s the PSYCHOLOGY of how they feel).
So now they arrive on the plane. They (too) are stressed. They fly often and can't wait to get their book out of the bin, or their laptop or go to the loo, or take their jacket off.
The belt sign stays on without explanation. A mother (wrongly!) feels it s for CC comfort reasons, and allows her kid to go to the potty. WRONG WRONG WRONG, but it is how people think!
So again, up front it s aviate, navigate, communicate, in the back i'd suggest communications as a priority would help no end
We've spent a lot of time discussing just a little detail in aviation. Respect to all, we all do our best
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't usually visit this forum, but here is my point of view anyway.
Unless it is bumpy, I switch off the seat belt sign with the after take-off checklist, somewhere between 4000 and 8000 ft. I switch it back on at 10000 ft on the way down. In the cruise I only switch it on if it is more turbulent that, say, a commuter train journey - in other words, you can hardly stand up.
My main consideration is to allow passengers the right (and it's a very basic human right by any standards) to go to the loo when they need to. I only allow myself to deny them this right for the shortest period of time if I think there is a real likelihood they will fall over and injure someone else.
Apart from that, who am I to decide that someone has to remain strapped to their seat during the cruise for no good reason? I am a pilot, not a dictator.
Unless it is bumpy, I switch off the seat belt sign with the after take-off checklist, somewhere between 4000 and 8000 ft. I switch it back on at 10000 ft on the way down. In the cruise I only switch it on if it is more turbulent that, say, a commuter train journey - in other words, you can hardly stand up.
My main consideration is to allow passengers the right (and it's a very basic human right by any standards) to go to the loo when they need to. I only allow myself to deny them this right for the shortest period of time if I think there is a real likelihood they will fall over and injure someone else.
Apart from that, who am I to decide that someone has to remain strapped to their seat during the cruise for no good reason? I am a pilot, not a dictator.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so pax want communication as to why the seat belt sign is on, right? But at the same time they won't believe us, regardless what we say. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. To be honest, I think people are getting so used to bad manners and bad customer service (anywhere, not necessarily on planes) that they think everyone's "got it in for them" and are lying.
We all have to admit, that most pax don't listen to the pa's. It's like an invisible button in their heads. As soon as we (cc or pilots) start talking on the pa, the pax switch off. As mentioned by someone before, we also have language barriers. I've now started a little dictionary of my own, where I write down (phonetically -sorry for spelling) "please sit down", "fasten seat belt" and suchlike in different languages.
An example of how pax don't pay attention or have common sense, today, after the safety briefing and cabin secure, we got the "dings" as usual, telling us that take off is happening NOW. A pax gets up to go to the toilet. Doh! I had to shout, as I didn't have time to get to the pa hand set. This pax sat down again pdq, but believe it or not, the other pax around that area stared at me with disgust because I shouted! They didn't get it that I had no choice. After take off, I went down to the pax and apologised for shouting and explained why. This pax apologised to me, and we were both happy with that. Other pax talking amongst themselves, saying things like "oh, I thought she was being rude when she was shouting".
Again, damned if we do, damned if we don't
Gg
Ps. In regards to the suggested movies showing the consequenses of turbulence and not wearing seat belts, I think we'd have even more pax scared of flying. Statistics show 40% don't like flying as it is, so that would take the percentage higher and possibly lose us more pax in the process.
We all have to admit, that most pax don't listen to the pa's. It's like an invisible button in their heads. As soon as we (cc or pilots) start talking on the pa, the pax switch off. As mentioned by someone before, we also have language barriers. I've now started a little dictionary of my own, where I write down (phonetically -sorry for spelling) "please sit down", "fasten seat belt" and suchlike in different languages.
An example of how pax don't pay attention or have common sense, today, after the safety briefing and cabin secure, we got the "dings" as usual, telling us that take off is happening NOW. A pax gets up to go to the toilet. Doh! I had to shout, as I didn't have time to get to the pa hand set. This pax sat down again pdq, but believe it or not, the other pax around that area stared at me with disgust because I shouted! They didn't get it that I had no choice. After take off, I went down to the pax and apologised for shouting and explained why. This pax apologised to me, and we were both happy with that. Other pax talking amongst themselves, saying things like "oh, I thought she was being rude when she was shouting".
Again, damned if we do, damned if we don't
Gg
Ps. In regards to the suggested movies showing the consequenses of turbulence and not wearing seat belts, I think we'd have even more pax scared of flying. Statistics show 40% don't like flying as it is, so that would take the percentage higher and possibly lose us more pax in the process.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Continental Europe
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VanDork, you keep going on about poor communication. Trust me, it is very difficult to communicate with someone who refuses to listen. Know anyone like that? Next time you go to the aeroplane bathroom, next to the attendant call button there is a return to seat light, and next to that there is a really really big mirror.