Experienced pax vs very experienced CC seatbelt thread
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: guildford
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G
I find you post fascinating.
As luck would have it, I've today attended a motivational thing run by Eddie Jones, the former Aussie rugby Coach.
They talked about creating a shared vision that catalysed behavioral environments within a team, and allowed, within certain prescribed boundaries, people's initiatives to flourish within an agreed fashion.
They also talked about responsibility, when to accept and execute it personally, when to delegate it and how people execute their responsibility differently under pressure. I found this very interesting as, apparently, when under pressure, I personally will revert totally to a relying on a factual approach supported by process (in other words, I completely move out of an interest in relationships, creativity or futures, into my left brain, and could not give a damn if people are upset as long as the right outcome is achieved.)
I found it very interesting, and, it certainly opened my eyes, whether PF or PnF, as to how to try and forge the best possible team relationships, to dispose of institutional heirarchy, and that, for me, extends past the crew and into including the pax as part of the greater team ethic, and trying to influence their (pax) behavior by positively recruiting them into 'our' team and sharing the consequences of their actions to them, rather than taking a more directive approach.
Does that all make sense? I have flown with Pacific Blue in Aus as pax and found their approach very similar to that outlined above and it worked.
The other interesting point re positive and negative motivation that came out of the talk was this- in the UK, there's a £100 penalty for filing a late tax return. Despite this, only 30-odd% are filed on time. In the US, there's a $100 bonus for getting it in on time- they have a greater than 70% success rate.
Telling, eh?
I find you post fascinating.
As luck would have it, I've today attended a motivational thing run by Eddie Jones, the former Aussie rugby Coach.
They talked about creating a shared vision that catalysed behavioral environments within a team, and allowed, within certain prescribed boundaries, people's initiatives to flourish within an agreed fashion.
They also talked about responsibility, when to accept and execute it personally, when to delegate it and how people execute their responsibility differently under pressure. I found this very interesting as, apparently, when under pressure, I personally will revert totally to a relying on a factual approach supported by process (in other words, I completely move out of an interest in relationships, creativity or futures, into my left brain, and could not give a damn if people are upset as long as the right outcome is achieved.)
I found it very interesting, and, it certainly opened my eyes, whether PF or PnF, as to how to try and forge the best possible team relationships, to dispose of institutional heirarchy, and that, for me, extends past the crew and into including the pax as part of the greater team ethic, and trying to influence their (pax) behavior by positively recruiting them into 'our' team and sharing the consequences of their actions to them, rather than taking a more directive approach.
Does that all make sense? I have flown with Pacific Blue in Aus as pax and found their approach very similar to that outlined above and it worked.
The other interesting point re positive and negative motivation that came out of the talk was this- in the UK, there's a £100 penalty for filing a late tax return. Despite this, only 30-odd% are filed on time. In the US, there's a $100 bonus for getting it in on time- they have a greater than 70% success rate.
Telling, eh?
Last edited by VS-Toga; 27th Feb 2009 at 18:41.
Bear Behind
I'm a good little sheep, usually, and I keep my belt loosely fastened at all times (flaps, I think, may remember me of old and knows me to be a FF with her airline as well as being an aviation professional).
But here's a question that's not so hypothetical - this was me last Friday.
Imagine, if you will, being in a bit of a hell-hole for a week and eating something which seriously disagrees with you - over a couple of days. Not serious enough to stop you from flying but serious enough that you're glad that the loo is nearby and that you have a pressing need, several times during the flight, to visit it
. I shall be no more graphic than that.
The return flight, where one experiences this repeated pressing need, is on one of flaps' finest, brand spanking new 777-300ERs and has a duration of almost 14 hours (I think flaps may now also be able to identify the route!). Of course, the routing takes us close - very close - to the Himalayas. And we all know what happens there, don't we?
Ping! FS on. Rattle, bang, shake. Rattle, rattle, bang shake. Drop 100 feet. Climb 100 feet. One pretty cc grabs a door on the galley as we drop. This goes on for aboot 30 mins. No biggie. FS sign on for another 20 mins without turbulence, though I know full-well, after having plied this route a dozen times over the last 18 months that it could return. But I have to use the loo. And I mean I REALLY have to use the loo. No nervous reaction. More a reaction to that dodgy chicken... what do I do?
Mrs flaps, you know I wouldn't want to upset your crew but I HAVE to go. NOW. And the FS signs on.
In that situation, I took the risk. Was I right? I don't really think I had a choice (luckily I was in 1F so I could reach the lav wall from my seat! I had something to grab on to the whole way). Don't shout at me Mrs flaps! I'm sorry!!!
Oh, and we can all predict when turbulence will come, btw... The very best turbulence detector is linked directly to the moment that hot coffee is being served. Never fails!
p-k-b
But here's a question that's not so hypothetical - this was me last Friday.
Imagine, if you will, being in a bit of a hell-hole for a week and eating something which seriously disagrees with you - over a couple of days. Not serious enough to stop you from flying but serious enough that you're glad that the loo is nearby and that you have a pressing need, several times during the flight, to visit it
. I shall be no more graphic than that.The return flight, where one experiences this repeated pressing need, is on one of flaps' finest, brand spanking new 777-300ERs and has a duration of almost 14 hours (I think flaps may now also be able to identify the route!). Of course, the routing takes us close - very close - to the Himalayas. And we all know what happens there, don't we?
Ping! FS on. Rattle, bang, shake. Rattle, rattle, bang shake. Drop 100 feet. Climb 100 feet. One pretty cc grabs a door on the galley as we drop. This goes on for aboot 30 mins. No biggie. FS sign on for another 20 mins without turbulence, though I know full-well, after having plied this route a dozen times over the last 18 months that it could return. But I have to use the loo. And I mean I REALLY have to use the loo. No nervous reaction. More a reaction to that dodgy chicken... what do I do?
Mrs flaps, you know I wouldn't want to upset your crew but I HAVE to go. NOW. And the FS signs on.
In that situation, I took the risk. Was I right? I don't really think I had a choice (luckily I was in 1F so I could reach the lav wall from my seat! I had something to grab on to the whole way). Don't shout at me Mrs flaps! I'm sorry!!!
Oh, and we can all predict when turbulence will come, btw... The very best turbulence detector is linked directly to the moment that hot coffee is being served. Never fails!
p-k-b
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panda-K-Bear
I sympathise with you for being in that position!
It is certainly not pleasant I know! I have (as crew) had to pop out of our crew rest to the loo during seatbelt sign on. Like you, there was an urgent need. I was lucky in that the crew rest was less than 1m from the toilet door, and it was in an area where there are no pax, so no one could see me. The rest of the crew weren't going to say anything!
The problem we have with passengers getting up is not the risk to themselves, but the risk to other passengers when you hit the real turbulence and go flying (as you know, I'm sure, that if you hit REAL severe turbulence (not what passengers generally call it) you will go flying) then you can injure other passengers quite easily.
Not a nice situation to be in!
I sympathise with you for being in that position!
It is certainly not pleasant I know! I have (as crew) had to pop out of our crew rest to the loo during seatbelt sign on. Like you, there was an urgent need
. I was lucky in that the crew rest was less than 1m from the toilet door, and it was in an area where there are no pax, so no one could see me. The rest of the crew weren't going to say anything!The problem we have with passengers getting up is not the risk to themselves, but the risk to other passengers when you hit the real turbulence and go flying (as you know, I'm sure, that if you hit REAL severe turbulence (not what passengers generally call it) you will go flying) then you can injure other passengers quite easily.
Not a nice situation to be in!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: king-size bed, goose feather duvet, deepest Sussex
Age: 65
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was CC back in the 80s, we always used to tell unsecured pax that 'they weren't insured' while they were walking around/going to the loo/getting things out of the overhead lockers while the FSB signs were on.
I am not sure whether that was actually (legally) the case but it usually got them to sit down and strap in - for a minute or two anyway!
I suppose that if a passenger were to be badly injured during turbulence, the amount of compensation/damages they might be awarded could be reduced or refused if they had contributed to the damage themselves by ignoring the signs and requests from CC to strap in.
I am not sure whether that was actually (legally) the case but it usually got them to sit down and strap in - for a minute or two anyway!
I suppose that if a passenger were to be badly injured during turbulence, the amount of compensation/damages they might be awarded could be reduced or refused if they had contributed to the damage themselves by ignoring the signs and requests from CC to strap in.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding positive reinforcement.
Would it be financially feasible (I'm certain it's technically feasible) to disable the passenger's in-flight entertainment if the seat belt is not fastened?
Regarding negative reinforcement.
How about a "kicking toddler" simulator in the seat back that is disabled by the seat belt being fastened?
Sven (tongue not entirely in cheek).
Would it be financially feasible (I'm certain it's technically feasible) to disable the passenger's in-flight entertainment if the seat belt is not fastened?
Regarding negative reinforcement.
How about a "kicking toddler" simulator in the seat back that is disabled by the seat belt being fastened?
Sven (tongue not entirely in cheek).
