Emergency Row Seats
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergency Row Seats
A totally innocent question for you professionals.
I am strictly speaking disabled. Can park where I like in other words, 'cos I have the Blue Badge thingy.
Now, as a flyer of some experience, I know that exit row seats are not to be used by people with reduced mobility. Sounds very sensible.
Just a couple of thoughts, though (well more than a couple actually):
1) As a frequent flyer who in fact listens to the safety speech every time, although I could recite it in my sleep, I know for example whether my life vest is below my seat or above my head. I know how to open the, shall we say, over wing door, because I read the notice. I memorise the exits before sitting down. If in an exit row, I store all my kit overhead, never under the seat. Without being told.
2) Because I limp rather badly, CC often ask me not to sit in an exit row. Doing their job, no complaints. But....
3) I frequently see obese / inattentive / clearly tired Pax sitting in those rows.
4) Struggling a little bit up the stairs to the plane does not mean that I could not have the door open in a few millisecs after the order, and I would be out of the way quicker than if I had to plod my way down the aisle, holding up able bodied passengers who also would like to get out as soon as poss.
I would welcome views from you people who take care of us.
I am strictly speaking disabled. Can park where I like in other words, 'cos I have the Blue Badge thingy.
Now, as a flyer of some experience, I know that exit row seats are not to be used by people with reduced mobility. Sounds very sensible.
Just a couple of thoughts, though (well more than a couple actually):
1) As a frequent flyer who in fact listens to the safety speech every time, although I could recite it in my sleep, I know for example whether my life vest is below my seat or above my head. I know how to open the, shall we say, over wing door, because I read the notice. I memorise the exits before sitting down. If in an exit row, I store all my kit overhead, never under the seat. Without being told.
2) Because I limp rather badly, CC often ask me not to sit in an exit row. Doing their job, no complaints. But....
3) I frequently see obese / inattentive / clearly tired Pax sitting in those rows.
4) Struggling a little bit up the stairs to the plane does not mean that I could not have the door open in a few millisecs after the order, and I would be out of the way quicker than if I had to plod my way down the aisle, holding up able bodied passengers who also would like to get out as soon as poss.
I would welcome views from you people who take care of us.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wings folded, we live our working lives by a very strict set of rules and procedures. Only in extremis and after careful evaluation, can we deviate from those procedures or go against those rules.
Something being merely illogical under otherwise normal circumstances does not qualify as "in extremis"; hence the request for you not to sit in the exit row. But you knew that.
As for obese / inattentive / clearly tired Pax sitting in those rows, the same litmus test applies.
Obese pax are not considered ABPs under the law and should not be sitting on an exit row. When FAs allow this they either work for a company they know will not back them up in the possibly ensuing confrontation, or they have not been taught the non-confrontational and least embarrassing way of doing so.
Whatever the reason, they are breaking the law and in your example I would "non-confrontationally confront"
the FA in charge with the situation.
Inattentive pax should be made to pay attention by the FA doing the overwing briefing, and he/she should check to make sure the information has been taken on board and digested by the pax in question.
Failure to do so is again breaking he law, and you as a passenger are more than entitled to point this out in a level and polite manner.
Pax are are an important part of the safety chain, and pointing out an irregularity is "part of your job" as a passenger.
Clearly tired pax will without a doubt be fully awake thanks to the adrenaline rush of an emergency. While a tired pap is less than ideal on an exit row, the law does not mention them.
Airlines by way of us FAs oblige you as passengers to strictly adhere to a number of legally mandated safety procedures.
You as a passenger can expect and demand we adhere to them as well.
Something being merely illogical under otherwise normal circumstances does not qualify as "in extremis"; hence the request for you not to sit in the exit row. But you knew that.
As for obese / inattentive / clearly tired Pax sitting in those rows, the same litmus test applies.
Obese pax are not considered ABPs under the law and should not be sitting on an exit row. When FAs allow this they either work for a company they know will not back them up in the possibly ensuing confrontation, or they have not been taught the non-confrontational and least embarrassing way of doing so.
Whatever the reason, they are breaking the law and in your example I would "non-confrontationally confront"
the FA in charge with the situation.Inattentive pax should be made to pay attention by the FA doing the overwing briefing, and he/she should check to make sure the information has been taken on board and digested by the pax in question.
Failure to do so is again breaking he law, and you as a passenger are more than entitled to point this out in a level and polite manner.
Pax are are an important part of the safety chain, and pointing out an irregularity is "part of your job" as a passenger.
Clearly tired pax will without a doubt be fully awake thanks to the adrenaline rush of an emergency. While a tired pap is less than ideal on an exit row, the law does not mention them.
Airlines by way of us FAs oblige you as passengers to strictly adhere to a number of legally mandated safety procedures.
You as a passenger can expect and demand we adhere to them as well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Flaps, but you have not really addressed my question.
For example, I used the euphemism "tired" to describe pax who are out of their skull. Some I have seen would require quite a dose of adrenalin to get them going. There are of course those on the last leg of a major journey, who may just be "tired" in the classic sense.
I was not looking for support for my preference to sit in an exit row, which often confers better leg room, (useful for somebody with a physical handicap), but really my question was to do with the philosophy of denying an exit row seat to somebody with mobility difficulties (I prefer not to be PC and freely state that I am crippled).
If I could not heave open the door, then it would of course be a major snag. But I can.
Now, I know that the CC cannot make that kind of assessment as PAX enter the plane, and they follow their training. I have no complaints whatsoever on that level.
I am not the kind of passenger who tries to take over the responsibilities and authority of the CC, nor challenge their legitimate commands.
As a passenger with well over one million kilometers of air travel behind me and quite a few miles in my pilot's logbook, before I was disabled, I am merely musing about what is the ideal?
A pissed, but otherwise able bodied, PAX next to an exit, or a sober, experienced, well informed, but limping PAX?
For example, I used the euphemism "tired" to describe pax who are out of their skull. Some I have seen would require quite a dose of adrenalin to get them going. There are of course those on the last leg of a major journey, who may just be "tired" in the classic sense.
I was not looking for support for my preference to sit in an exit row, which often confers better leg room, (useful for somebody with a physical handicap), but really my question was to do with the philosophy of denying an exit row seat to somebody with mobility difficulties (I prefer not to be PC and freely state that I am crippled).
If I could not heave open the door, then it would of course be a major snag. But I can.
Now, I know that the CC cannot make that kind of assessment as PAX enter the plane, and they follow their training. I have no complaints whatsoever on that level.
I am not the kind of passenger who tries to take over the responsibilities and authority of the CC, nor challenge their legitimate commands.
As a passenger with well over one million kilometers of air travel behind me and quite a few miles in my pilot's logbook, before I was disabled, I am merely musing about what is the ideal?
A pissed, but otherwise able bodied, PAX next to an exit, or a sober, experienced, well informed, but limping PAX?
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wings, I did not understand that by tired you meant drunk. I´m not good with euphemisms.
Sorry to sound like a broken record and I do not intend to lecture you, merely answer your reasonable question, but carrying a drunk passenger is against the law.
So a drunk passenger should not be on board at all. Not on a normal row and not on an exit row.
In answer to your hypothetical question, I´d say that you would be a safer option than a drunk person.
But it´s a hypothetical choice and not one that we can make.
Since flight safety rules are made to be adhered to and enforced by people of different cultures, ages, levels of education & experience, they have, like most rules, aspects that might be better in a perfect world.
We as group, FAs, are not able to judge accurately the amount of impairment of a handicapped passenger, not the impact that impairment would have on the carrying out of certain safety tasks. So to be on the "safe" side, it is a blanket rule.
In the same way, without a breathalizer or blood test at hand, we are unable to judge the exact level of inebriation of a suspected drunk. But we do have a few 'tools' that allow us to judge if a person is de facto drunk or stoned & not allowed to fly.
The process is far from perfect, and we as a group do not always enforce our rules the way we should. As I said, there´s various reasons for that, IMO mainly to do with the philosophy, hiring and training practices of the airlines concerned.
Another relevant factor are the various aviation authorities around the world. Some are sufficiently funded, many are not. Some are able to operate independently, some are closely tied to their local airlines.
Some parliaments feel that the income, prestige and employment generated by their local airline(s) are more important than enforcing aviation law.
All of it causing some aviation authorities to be strict and actually trying to make a positive difference, and others to behave like paper tigers who in addition look the other way. And I am not just talking about emerging countries here.
It is not a perfect world, and like I said before, the rules are not always immediately logical. But they are what we have to stick to unless we are in an emergency and make a carefully considered decision to deviate from the rules.
The drunk is not allowed on board, and you are not allowed to sit next to the exit.
That is the best and most honest answer I can give you.
Sorry to sound like a broken record and I do not intend to lecture you, merely answer your reasonable question, but carrying a drunk passenger is against the law.
So a drunk passenger should not be on board at all. Not on a normal row and not on an exit row.
In answer to your hypothetical question, I´d say that you would be a safer option than a drunk person.
But it´s a hypothetical choice and not one that we can make.
Since flight safety rules are made to be adhered to and enforced by people of different cultures, ages, levels of education & experience, they have, like most rules, aspects that might be better in a perfect world.
We as group, FAs, are not able to judge accurately the amount of impairment of a handicapped passenger, not the impact that impairment would have on the carrying out of certain safety tasks. So to be on the "safe" side, it is a blanket rule.
In the same way, without a breathalizer or blood test at hand, we are unable to judge the exact level of inebriation of a suspected drunk. But we do have a few 'tools' that allow us to judge if a person is de facto drunk or stoned & not allowed to fly.
The process is far from perfect, and we as a group do not always enforce our rules the way we should. As I said, there´s various reasons for that, IMO mainly to do with the philosophy, hiring and training practices of the airlines concerned.
Another relevant factor are the various aviation authorities around the world. Some are sufficiently funded, many are not. Some are able to operate independently, some are closely tied to their local airlines.
Some parliaments feel that the income, prestige and employment generated by their local airline(s) are more important than enforcing aviation law.
All of it causing some aviation authorities to be strict and actually trying to make a positive difference, and others to behave like paper tigers who in addition look the other way. And I am not just talking about emerging countries here.
It is not a perfect world, and like I said before, the rules are not always immediately logical. But they are what we have to stick to unless we are in an emergency and make a carefully considered decision to deviate from the rules.
The drunk is not allowed on board, and you are not allowed to sit next to the exit.
That is the best and most honest answer I can give you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps,
Thanks for your well considered reply.
I agree that CCs cannot be expected to assess accurately the degree of handicap or degree of inebriation of their PAX; that would go well beyond their duties (and I suppose competence).
I suppose that my theme is partially motivated by some kind of denial of my handicap, but actually I think not.
What I feel increasingly is that there are rigid rules in force, for very good reasons, which cannot be varied upon a whim, and CCs who deny me the exit row are applying correctly the rules they have been handed down. I have no grudge against them, nor the rules.
During the course of a tedious flight, one gets to thinking about this kind of issue however, and I put myself in the place of an able bodied PAX stuck in the aisle behind a cripple who is a bit slow to get out, whereas said cripple could have been first out and well away by then.
Thanks for your well considered reply.
I agree that CCs cannot be expected to assess accurately the degree of handicap or degree of inebriation of their PAX; that would go well beyond their duties (and I suppose competence).
I suppose that my theme is partially motivated by some kind of denial of my handicap, but actually I think not.
What I feel increasingly is that there are rigid rules in force, for very good reasons, which cannot be varied upon a whim, and CCs who deny me the exit row are applying correctly the rules they have been handed down. I have no grudge against them, nor the rules.
During the course of a tedious flight, one gets to thinking about this kind of issue however, and I put myself in the place of an able bodied PAX stuck in the aisle behind a cripple who is a bit slow to get out, whereas said cripple could have been first out and well away by then.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the passenger who is slightly drunk
And does not show falling overitis, will at altitude become worse.
Added to that the alcohol that he might be served on board, all contribute to the falling over.
The point made about CC not being trained and or empowered to enforce the regulations is most evident in the ME, where passengers are still standing in the isles at push back, and as the runway is vacated, are up and attacking the overheads.
I saw one overweight gentleman, with infant in arms opening the overhead, whilst still at taxi speeds. Not a word from the CC.
glf
Added to that the alcohol that he might be served on board, all contribute to the falling over.
The point made about CC not being trained and or empowered to enforce the regulations is most evident in the ME, where passengers are still standing in the isles at push back, and as the runway is vacated, are up and attacking the overheads.
I saw one overweight gentleman, with infant in arms opening the overhead, whilst still at taxi speeds. Not a word from the CC.
glf
Not sure how to put it but it might be a good idea to organize a system of certified pax able to handle the safety equipment (after a one day course) and in exchange have the right to occupy the emergency exits seat.
It might help wings folded but not sure how practical it is.
Rwy in Sight
It might help wings folded but not sure how practical it is.
Rwy in Sight
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UAE
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight drift but obese pax in exit rows depends on the country. In Australia (CASA rules) you cannot deny someone the exit just because they 'look' obese. If they can use a regular seatbelt then you can't refuse them, only if they need/request an extension.
Obviously if I was uncomfortable with them sitting there I'd find another reason to move them.. but legally, you can't deny someone coz they're chubby round the middle...
If it was up to me, you would be allowed to deny them when they have to lift their guts to unfasten a seatbelt but Oz is very PC these days...
Plus to the original poster, if the CC deviate in any way and an accident happens, people die, yada yada yada.... if they didn't follow SOP then their ass is fair game in a civil court for pax's families to sue for negligence/criminal negligence/manslaughter (take your pic)
Obviously if I was uncomfortable with them sitting there I'd find another reason to move them.. but legally, you can't deny someone coz they're chubby round the middle...
If it was up to me, you would be allowed to deny them when they have to lift their guts to unfasten a seatbelt but Oz is very PC these days...
Plus to the original poster, if the CC deviate in any way and an accident happens, people die, yada yada yada.... if they didn't follow SOP then their ass is fair game in a civil court for pax's families to sue for negligence/criminal negligence/manslaughter (take your pic)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plus to the original poster, if the CC deviate in any way and an accident happens, people die, yada yada yada.... if they didn't follow SOP then their ass is fair game in a civil court for pax's families to sue for negligence/criminal negligence/manslaughter (take your pic)
My musings were more to do with whether it might not be better to get infirm / disabled / slow /elderly Pax out of the way first, so they do not hold up everybody else in the aisle.
And let us not forget that disabilities take more than one form. If I were deaf, it is unlikely that CC could spot that when I board, but I perhaps would not hear their orders in the event of an emergency. So I might sit blandly in an exit row and be oblivious to what was required of me, even though I had the mobility and strength to flip a door open in no time.
I stress that I have no problems whatsoever with CC applying their training to my case.
I am just wondering if the logic needs to be re-examined, and would welcome your views.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well wings folded there are a couple of other things to consider. We may not spot a hearing-impaired passenger straight away (although often they do tell us in advance) but if we had a planned emergency we would move them out of the exit row as soon as we realised they were not able-bodied (ABP). On our Airbus, we have to brief each passenger sitting over-wing in person so would be able to remove potential problems/obstructions. The seat-belts there are deliberately shorter than elsewhere on the a/c and we don't allow extensions. We have used a mnemonic CODPIE for years and it includes child, obese, drunk, prisoners, infirm, elderly.
I know of a CC who has an artificial leg and is certainly able to open an exit so I don't think that would always bar an individual passenger from sitting in an exit row. If you are desperate to open a door then you may have to join up!
I know of a CC who has an artificial leg and is certainly able to open an exit so I don't think that would always bar an individual passenger from sitting in an exit row. If you are desperate to open a door then you may have to join up!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Ottergirl, but the "D" in CODPIE is for deportee, IIRC. I believe the codpie isn't being used in training anymore, although I tend to still use it as well. It's diffcult getting out of old habits, isn't it?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ici
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God i still get confused between CODPIE and CHIPPED!
On a short turnaround, early morning first flight of the day you might find the crew are going to make a snap judgement at who they either let sit there or direct to the seat (depending on the airline's seating policy).
If a pax comes up to me with a limp but is otherwise "Able Bodied" I might very well allow that person to sit there, but if the pax wasn't able to open the door, egress from the exit and help with the evacuation from that door then of course they would be moved from that seat.
Cabin Crew will have, after all, opened that overwing/exit door and know how heavy and sometimes bloody difficult they are to move about, esp when your in the seated position....unless you're lucky to be on a Boeing 737NG
I have and continue to move "Able Bodied" pax from that row if they do not fit that criteria, esp when the dad whispers in the tiny kids ear "say your 16 son!"
On a short turnaround, early morning first flight of the day you might find the crew are going to make a snap judgement at who they either let sit there or direct to the seat (depending on the airline's seating policy).
If a pax comes up to me with a limp but is otherwise "Able Bodied" I might very well allow that person to sit there, but if the pax wasn't able to open the door, egress from the exit and help with the evacuation from that door then of course they would be moved from that seat.
Cabin Crew will have, after all, opened that overwing/exit door and know how heavy and sometimes bloody difficult they are to move about, esp when your in the seated position....unless you're lucky to be on a Boeing 737NG
I have and continue to move "Able Bodied" pax from that row if they do not fit that criteria, esp when the dad whispers in the tiny kids ear "say your 16 son!"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your comments are all interesting and welcome, but nobody has addressed my point about deliberatley sitting cripples next to the exit, so that they are out of the way first, and do not hold up others.
I have no idea whether my idea is just plain daft, a little bit flawed, or groundbreakingly brilliant.
Hence why I put my thesis to you who probably know.
I have no idea whether my idea is just plain daft, a little bit flawed, or groundbreakingly brilliant.
Hence why I put my thesis to you who probably know.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wings folded, you've kind of answered your own question. You're saying that "cripples" (your word, not one I like to use) would hold up passengers evacuating if sat in various parts of the cabin. This means that people with mobility problems (the pc way of saying it) would hold up everyone else whilst trying to open the overwing exits and getting out. Most people with mobility problems would be the last to disembark, as the fully mobile passengers would (most likely) be out like a shot.
Your idea is therefore flawed. We cannot take a chance that a passenger with reduced mobility may or may not be able to evacuate quickly. That is the reason why there are rules about who sits where. If you're concerned about holding anyone up whilst sitting in a regular seat, you can ask for row 1 or the last row. You can then be out PDQ if needed.
As some have explained on here already, cabin crew and ground staff are not doctors (well, they tend not to be). We cannot make a decision as to whether someone with mobility problems would be suitable, therefore we have a blanket "ban". Same for electronic devices, really. We can't be expected to know how all the gadgets in the world works, so we tell passengers to turn them off at the appropriate time. Some have the potential to interfere with various bits on the aircraft, whereas others probably won't. But let's not go there, as there have been plenty of discussions about that already.
Your idea is therefore flawed. We cannot take a chance that a passenger with reduced mobility may or may not be able to evacuate quickly. That is the reason why there are rules about who sits where. If you're concerned about holding anyone up whilst sitting in a regular seat, you can ask for row 1 or the last row. You can then be out PDQ if needed.
As some have explained on here already, cabin crew and ground staff are not doctors (well, they tend not to be). We cannot make a decision as to whether someone with mobility problems would be suitable, therefore we have a blanket "ban". Same for electronic devices, really. We can't be expected to know how all the gadgets in the world works, so we tell passengers to turn them off at the appropriate time. Some have the potential to interfere with various bits on the aircraft, whereas others probably won't. But let's not go there, as there have been plenty of discussions about that already.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're saying that "cripples" (your word, not one I like to use) would hold up passengers evacuating if sat in various parts of the cabin. This means that people with mobility problems (the pc way of saying it) would hold up everyone else whilst trying to open the overwing exits and getting out.
But you are missing my point.
Most people with mobility problems would be the last to disembark, as the fully mobile passengers would (most likely) be out like a shot.
They will probably get in the way of non-crippled or mobility totally able PAX (if you prefer) whose progress down the aisle could be swifter if they did not have a cripple in front of them.
Your idea is therefore flawed. We cannot take a chance that a passenger with reduced mobility may or may not be able to evacuate quickly. That is the reason why there are rules about who sits where.
If you're concerned about holding anyone up whilst sitting in a regular seat, you can ask for row 1 or the last row. You can then be out PDQ if needed.
As some have explained on here already, cabin crew and ground staff are not doctors (well, they tend not to be). We cannot make a decision as to whether someone with mobility problems would be suitable, therefore we have a blanket "ban".
You people apply, generally speaking, the rules. I respect and obey them.
I was putting the rule up for scrutiny.
I have no disagreement with any CC who does what he/she has been trained to do.
I hoped to have a discussion about the basic philosophy of aircraft evacuation in an emergency.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, WF, but it seems to me that people trying to explain the reasoning to you is rebuffed. I tried. You wanted replies as to whether your theory was flawed or a good idea, and I answered (as have others on the thread), but it seems you don't want to "listen". That's your perogative. Would it make you feel better that a blind person or deaf person can't sit in the emergency exit? Or is your issue just with mobility?
I only brought up the term about mobility to show that I personally don't like using the word "cripple". I think it's one of those words that it's ok to use for the people this directly involves, such as yourself, but offensive if used by a person with full mobility.
The rules won't change. I'm sure the rules have been reconsidered many a time, but the reviewers of the rules have come to the conclusion they have for a reason. There may have been studies, tests and mock-ups done, but I haven't the time or inclination to research it.
By you stating:
goes to show why I said your theory was flawed, as they would hold up pax whether at the overwing exits or in the rest of the cabin.
What you will also have to realise, is that in the event of an evacuation, people are not going to stand in an orderly queue. People will scramble all over the place, including climbing over seats, other people and so on. It's every man (or woman) for themselves. Panic causes uncharacteristic behaviour in even the calmest of humans.
You seem to have missed the second sentence in my previous post (quoted above). How do you suggest we determine who is able and who isn't, apart from the blanket "ban"? Would there be a test at check-in? Who will oversee the test? Will it be the judge's decision is final - no appeal allowed? How long would such a test take and where would it be done? In private, the middle of the terminal or by the check-in desk? Who would pay for the test? Do you see where I'm going with this? We can't just take someone's word for their ability to move around, as people "fib" all the time about all sorts of things.
Oh, and row 1 isn't counted as an emergency exit on all aircraft types/airlines. It depends on the airline really, and their policy. If you're concerned about row 1, then go for the last row of seats, simple as that.
Anyway, my conclusion is that the current rules are the most appropriate.
I only brought up the term about mobility to show that I personally don't like using the word "cripple". I think it's one of those words that it's ok to use for the people this directly involves, such as yourself, but offensive if used by a person with full mobility.
The rules won't change. I'm sure the rules have been reconsidered many a time, but the reviewers of the rules have come to the conclusion they have for a reason. There may have been studies, tests and mock-ups done, but I haven't the time or inclination to research it.
By you stating:
They will probably get in the way of non-crippled or mobility totally able PAX (if you prefer) whose progress down the aisle could be swifter if they did not have a cripple in front of them.
What you will also have to realise, is that in the event of an evacuation, people are not going to stand in an orderly queue. People will scramble all over the place, including climbing over seats, other people and so on. It's every man (or woman) for themselves. Panic causes uncharacteristic behaviour in even the calmest of humans.
Quote:
Your idea is therefore flawed. We cannot take a chance that a passenger with reduced mobility may or may not be able to evacuate quickly. That is the reason why there are rules about who sits where.
I know about the rules. I have been disabled long enough, and flown long enough to be fully aware.
Your idea is therefore flawed. We cannot take a chance that a passenger with reduced mobility may or may not be able to evacuate quickly. That is the reason why there are rules about who sits where.
I know about the rules. I have been disabled long enough, and flown long enough to be fully aware.
Oh, and row 1 isn't counted as an emergency exit on all aircraft types/airlines. It depends on the airline really, and their policy. If you're concerned about row 1, then go for the last row of seats, simple as that.
Anyway, my conclusion is that the current rules are the most appropriate.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A letter?
Wings folded, perhaps if you were to obtain a letter from your Dr. stating that you are perfectly capable of undertaking the tasks associated with an ABP, you could, on encountering the first FA you meet, proffer the said letter with the brief explanation that you are perfcetly willing and able to act as an ABP, should the cabin crew require one.
Bear in mind that some people actually pay to be sat at emergenct exit rows so your suggestion will not alwys be acted upon. Where it is a simple overwing exit type of row then it may well be that they have already been taken by other, apparently suitable ABPs.
If I were you, I would find a seat that is quiet, next to the window and hopefully within a row or two of the exit. Then snooze away the flight with your i-player.
Bear in mind that some people actually pay to be sat at emergenct exit rows so your suggestion will not alwys be acted upon. Where it is a simple overwing exit type of row then it may well be that they have already been taken by other, apparently suitable ABPs.
If I were you, I would find a seat that is quiet, next to the window and hopefully within a row or two of the exit. Then snooze away the flight with your i-player.
Simply, there are just some circumstances where it is necessary to make generalisations.
Whilst you may feel that your abilities meet the requirements to be seated in that row, this is mostly not the case for others with a disability. Short of employing a doctor, trained in emergency procedures specific to the aircraft you are boarding, to stand at the front door of each aircraft to perform a consultation with each passenger who boards (it would be discrimination to only assess the passengers of concern), this just will not happen.
In addition to risking the lives of others, should the exit not be opened correctly - there is also the risk that you will be unnecessarily injured or even trampled during the operation of the exit, or the evacuation.
Different aircraft have different exits, so whilst you may be perfectly capable on a 'self-help' 737NG style exit, you will almost certainly have great difficulty with a 767s 32kg exit.
Being able to lift 32kg is not the only issue - you also need to be able to manouvre it onto its side in a confined space and throw it quite forcefully outside.
As an exit row passenger, you may also be required to help carry, and launch a life raft that weighs about 45kg. So, you'd need to be able to get out of your seat, walk 10 rows down the aisle, reach into the roof above the aisle, remove the raft, drag it back to the exit, slide it sideways out the exit hole (as they're that big!), push it into the water, and inflate it.
With out going on about it - the airline not only has to contend with people of differing abilities, who although disabled, may or may not be able to carry out a variety of tasks, but you also have different aircraft, different exits, different life rafts and so on.
It is just not possible to assess each person on their own merits. Even with a doctors letter (it would be a very silly doctor who writes one, unless they too have training as a commercial pilot or flight attendant aboard each specific aircraft upon which you fly as a passenger- as they too could be sued!).
With all honesty, I would tend to believe that any person who holds a blue car parking sticker, has been found by a doctor to be sufficiently immobile to warrant issuing one.
Whilst I have the greatest respect, and always do my best to treat everyone equally - I do believe that you just can not have it both ways.
You are, or you aren't - and these rules exist to protect you as much as your fellow passenger.
To categorically answer your question about your idea - I would not say it's daft, but it is certainly more than a 'little bit flawed'.
If you were on a quickly sinking ship - would it be appropriate to block all available exits until those less abled have launched the life rafts and loaded themselves aboard? Sure they can swim, but it's a bit pointless if they can't get out in the first place?
Whilst you may feel that your abilities meet the requirements to be seated in that row, this is mostly not the case for others with a disability. Short of employing a doctor, trained in emergency procedures specific to the aircraft you are boarding, to stand at the front door of each aircraft to perform a consultation with each passenger who boards (it would be discrimination to only assess the passengers of concern), this just will not happen.
In addition to risking the lives of others, should the exit not be opened correctly - there is also the risk that you will be unnecessarily injured or even trampled during the operation of the exit, or the evacuation.
Different aircraft have different exits, so whilst you may be perfectly capable on a 'self-help' 737NG style exit, you will almost certainly have great difficulty with a 767s 32kg exit.
Being able to lift 32kg is not the only issue - you also need to be able to manouvre it onto its side in a confined space and throw it quite forcefully outside.
As an exit row passenger, you may also be required to help carry, and launch a life raft that weighs about 45kg. So, you'd need to be able to get out of your seat, walk 10 rows down the aisle, reach into the roof above the aisle, remove the raft, drag it back to the exit, slide it sideways out the exit hole (as they're that big!), push it into the water, and inflate it.
With out going on about it - the airline not only has to contend with people of differing abilities, who although disabled, may or may not be able to carry out a variety of tasks, but you also have different aircraft, different exits, different life rafts and so on.
It is just not possible to assess each person on their own merits. Even with a doctors letter (it would be a very silly doctor who writes one, unless they too have training as a commercial pilot or flight attendant aboard each specific aircraft upon which you fly as a passenger- as they too could be sued!).
With all honesty, I would tend to believe that any person who holds a blue car parking sticker, has been found by a doctor to be sufficiently immobile to warrant issuing one.
Whilst I have the greatest respect, and always do my best to treat everyone equally - I do believe that you just can not have it both ways.
You are, or you aren't - and these rules exist to protect you as much as your fellow passenger.
To categorically answer your question about your idea - I would not say it's daft, but it is certainly more than a 'little bit flawed'.
If you were on a quickly sinking ship - would it be appropriate to block all available exits until those less abled have launched the life rafts and loaded themselves aboard? Sure they can swim, but it's a bit pointless if they can't get out in the first place?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all for your contributions.
I certainly was not complaining in the least about not being allowed in an exit row.
As I said, during a tedious flight I just got to thinking about the subject because I had little else to do.
Anyway, I have now received your views, and will classify my thoughts as somewhere between daft and seriously flawed
Oh, and I will avoid the exit rows!
I certainly was not complaining in the least about not being allowed in an exit row.
As I said, during a tedious flight I just got to thinking about the subject because I had little else to do.
Anyway, I have now received your views, and will classify my thoughts as somewhere between daft and seriously flawed
Oh, and I will avoid the exit rows!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wings folded,
Although many of us disagree with your reasoning I can honestly say, I understand where you are coming from.
I have always thought it strange that an obese passenger cannot sit at the over wing door but is allowed to sit in the row behind for example. He will just block up the exit a few moments later instead!! But of course we can't stipulate that obese people can only sit near a large main door because it would all get a bit silly. So all rules are a bit 'blanket' because as others have said 'we are not qualified to make all these different judgements' so the CAA do it for us.
Hope you haven't been upset by any of our responses.
Although many of us disagree with your reasoning I can honestly say, I understand where you are coming from.
I have always thought it strange that an obese passenger cannot sit at the over wing door but is allowed to sit in the row behind for example. He will just block up the exit a few moments later instead!! But of course we can't stipulate that obese people can only sit near a large main door because it would all get a bit silly. So all rules are a bit 'blanket' because as others have said 'we are not qualified to make all these different judgements' so the CAA do it for us.
Hope you haven't been upset by any of our responses.