Boeing 737 series 700 and 800 emergency exit rows.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief Chook I'm afraid I disagree with you.
I am no legal-eagle by any means but a pre-flight briefing from a cabin crew member cannot possibly be interpreted as a training. There was no required competencies to meet and no assessment so the passenger cannot possibly be deemed as "competent" or "proficient", unlike the crew.
The crew have been deemed as proficient based on meeting the standards required in their emergency training.
The passenger seated there has only been asessed as "willing and able". The pax has a card to read, however they are not assessed on the information contained within. The only time they are ever likely to be assessed is if it all hits the fan!
So, how the heck can an individual Joe Blow who's normally an accountant be expected to know in depth how to operate an exit? Joe has only accepted that he is willing and able!
Therefore, it is my opinion that the airline and governing regulatory body take responsibility for a pax opening the exit when unsafe to do so.
If they want competent and proficient people to operate overwing exits, then they should have a designated and competent crew member seated next to the exit at all times.
Of course, we know they would never do that
SG
I am no legal-eagle by any means but a pre-flight briefing from a cabin crew member cannot possibly be interpreted as a training. There was no required competencies to meet and no assessment so the passenger cannot possibly be deemed as "competent" or "proficient", unlike the crew.
The crew have been deemed as proficient based on meeting the standards required in their emergency training.
The passenger seated there has only been asessed as "willing and able". The pax has a card to read, however they are not assessed on the information contained within. The only time they are ever likely to be assessed is if it all hits the fan!
So, how the heck can an individual Joe Blow who's normally an accountant be expected to know in depth how to operate an exit? Joe has only accepted that he is willing and able!
Therefore, it is my opinion that the airline and governing regulatory body take responsibility for a pax opening the exit when unsafe to do so.
If they want competent and proficient people to operate overwing exits, then they should have a designated and competent crew member seated next to the exit at all times.
Of course, we know they would never do that
SG
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stuffingsville
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they want competent and proficient people to operate overwing exits, then they should have a designated and competent crew member seated next to the exit at all times.
There is no doubt in my mind that airlines are using the allocation of "able-bodied (persons) with the ability to manoeuvre an 18kg emergency exit in the unlikely event of an emergency" (Virgin Blue's Blue Zone Conditions of Sale) as a replacement for competent crew members, to reduce the number of F/A's to the legal minimum, based solely on passenger numbers.
We shall see how emotive and "claptrap" this debate is, and how relevant it is to TODAY'S "sue 'em for anything and everything" society the next time there is an aircraft accident.
I still wonder how pax who accept these emergency exit rows are legally covered (for their actions), when that time comes?
I suppose chook you have a theory about the grassy knoll?
There is NO airline conspiracy to reduce costs by removing flight attendants from overwing exits and replacing them with unsuspecting but legally liable passengers.
There is not a B737 (or A318,19,20,21 or 707, 717,727,DC9, MD80, F28/F100, etc) built that has a flight attendant station at the overwing exits - the aeroplane is designed and certified to be operated without F/A's at the overwing.
With regards the other exits there are enough trained F/A's to man a door each AS A MINIMUM - the minimum crew compliment for a 737 IN AUSTRALIA is 4 which using my dubious mathematical skills translates to one per door.
Remember that we use 1:36 ratio for cabin crew to pax where the rest of the world uses 1:50.
The passengers seated at the overwing and at the front exit door passenger seats are NOT legally responsible for ANYTHING regardless of whether they are asked to do anything.
Now if you were to target the trans tasman mutual recongition bill as a means of reducing flight attendant numbers I would agree with you 100%, but trying to use the "Blue Zone" conditions of sale as a weapon is unlikely to arouse much sympathy or support.
There is NO airline conspiracy to reduce costs by removing flight attendants from overwing exits and replacing them with unsuspecting but legally liable passengers.
There is not a B737 (or A318,19,20,21 or 707, 717,727,DC9, MD80, F28/F100, etc) built that has a flight attendant station at the overwing exits - the aeroplane is designed and certified to be operated without F/A's at the overwing.
With regards the other exits there are enough trained F/A's to man a door each AS A MINIMUM - the minimum crew compliment for a 737 IN AUSTRALIA is 4 which using my dubious mathematical skills translates to one per door.
Remember that we use 1:36 ratio for cabin crew to pax where the rest of the world uses 1:50.
The passengers seated at the overwing and at the front exit door passenger seats are NOT legally responsible for ANYTHING regardless of whether they are asked to do anything.
Now if you were to target the trans tasman mutual recongition bill as a means of reducing flight attendant numbers I would agree with you 100%, but trying to use the "Blue Zone" conditions of sale as a weapon is unlikely to arouse much sympathy or support.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember that we use 1:36 ratio for cabin crew to pax where the rest of the world uses 1:50.
As Dehavillanddriver indicates, Type III and Type IV exits are designed and certified to be operated by passengers. Part of that certification process is to verify that a naive person (untrained and not briefed) is capable of opening the exit within a specified period of time (I believe it is 10 seconds) using only the safety features card and placards to determine the method of operation.
Regarding the tasks that passengers at exits are expected to perform, the US NTSB made the following observations:
Exit Row Passenger Tasks
Passengers seated in an exit row may be called upon to assist in an evacuation. Upon crew command or a personal assessment of danger, these passengers must decide if their exit is safe to use and then open their exit hatch for use during an evacuation. These passengers must be ready to act quickly in an emergency. However, unlike the crew, these passengers receive no formal training on performing these tasks.
As required by the FAA, air carriers provide pictorial instructions on the safety briefing card and adjacent to the emergency exit. In addition, Federal regulations (14 CFR 121.585(b)) provide guidelines to the air carriers as to which passengers to restrict from exit row seating. These guidelines are reiterated on exit row briefing cards or on the general safety cards.
Federal regulations (14 CFR 121.585(d)) also require air carriers to list the tasks that an exit row passenger may be called upon to perform: the passenger must be able to locate and operate the emergency exit, assess conditions outside an exit, follow instructions of crewmembers, open and stow the exit hatch, assess the condition of and stabilize a slide, and pass quickly through an exit. Passengers who report that they are unable or unwilling to perform any of these tasks must be reseated in a nonexit row prior to airplane movement.
The Safety Board examined passenger performance in exit rows for the six cases for which the Board received information on the overwing exit operation. In these six cases, 42 passengers were seated in exit rows. Responses on the questionnaires indicate that the first task with which exit row passengers had difficulties was the decision to open the exit. In two cases, passengersopened overwing exits that should have remained closed. In one of those cases (case 16), an auxiliary power unit (APU) torched and passengers began to scream, “Fire.” The aft flight attendant reported that she instructed passengers to remain seated, yet passengers still opened the exit. In the other case (case 19), the flight crew ordered an evacuation using only the forward exits; however, the exit row passengers opened the overwing exits. In neither case had the flight crew lowered the flaps for safe egress off the wing, and in one of these cases, a child sustained a broken arm jumping off the wing.
The second task for which problems occurred for exit row passengers was assessing conditions outside of the exit. In one case, a passenger opened an overwing exit and smoke began billowing into the cabin (case 45). The passenger then had to jump through fire to get away from the airplane. Although his traveling companion was also able to safely egress using this route, the other two passengers who used this exit received severe burns. In a second case, one passenger stopped another passenger from opening an overwing exit on the fire side of an airplane (case 16).
As previously discussed, one reason for these difficulties was passenger inattention to the safety materials provided. The air carriers are required to ensure that all passengers seated in an exit row meet the requirements contained in regulations previously cited. Although no exit row passenger was younger than age 15, two passengers were older than age 70, one of whom was unable to open an exit (case 45). In addition, three passengers seated in exit rows did not speak the language in which briefings and oral commands were given by the crew.
Some of the air carriers make a point to individually brief passengers on the exit row tasks. In the six study cases for which the Safety Board received overwing exit operation information, 9 of the 42 exit row passengers reported receiving such a briefing. Four of these passengers reported examining their safety card. Twenty-four passengers reported receiving no briefing, and only two of these passengers had examined their briefing card. The two briefed passengers who opened overwing exits reported no difficulties. Four passengers who did not receive a briefing opened overwing exits. Two of these passengers reported no difficulty with the exit whereas the other two reported difficulties with their exit.
The benefit of exit row passengers’ receiving oral briefings from flight attendants is demonstrated in the runway collision in Los Angeles, California, on February 1, 1991. The Safety Board’s report of that accident contained the following information:
Passengers seated around row 10 stated that prior to departure, the flight attendant assigned to the R1 position interviewed a young passenger who was seated in 10D about whether he could fulfill the duties of an able-bodied person in the event of an emergency. The passenger advised the flight attendant that he was 17 years old. However, to be sure the youth understood his responsibilities, the flight attendant conducted a special oral briefing for the persons seated in and around row 10. Passengers stated that the instructions provided by the R1 flight attendant aided in their evacuation.
Exit procedures for emergency evacuations are critical and if not followed could lead to tragedy. The Safety Board concludes that most passengers seated in exit rows do not read the safety information provided to assist them in understanding the tasks they may need to perform in the event of an emergency evacuation, and they do not receive personal briefings from flight attendants even though personal briefings can aid passengers in their understanding of the tasks that they may be called upon to perform. Therefore, the Safety Board believes the FAA should require air carriers to provide all passengers seated in exit rows in which a qualified crewmember is not seated a preflight personal briefing on what to do in the event the exit may be needed.
Passengers seated in an exit row may be called upon to assist in an evacuation. Upon crew command or a personal assessment of danger, these passengers must decide if their exit is safe to use and then open their exit hatch for use during an evacuation. These passengers must be ready to act quickly in an emergency. However, unlike the crew, these passengers receive no formal training on performing these tasks.
As required by the FAA, air carriers provide pictorial instructions on the safety briefing card and adjacent to the emergency exit. In addition, Federal regulations (14 CFR 121.585(b)) provide guidelines to the air carriers as to which passengers to restrict from exit row seating. These guidelines are reiterated on exit row briefing cards or on the general safety cards.
Federal regulations (14 CFR 121.585(d)) also require air carriers to list the tasks that an exit row passenger may be called upon to perform: the passenger must be able to locate and operate the emergency exit, assess conditions outside an exit, follow instructions of crewmembers, open and stow the exit hatch, assess the condition of and stabilize a slide, and pass quickly through an exit. Passengers who report that they are unable or unwilling to perform any of these tasks must be reseated in a nonexit row prior to airplane movement.
The Safety Board examined passenger performance in exit rows for the six cases for which the Board received information on the overwing exit operation. In these six cases, 42 passengers were seated in exit rows. Responses on the questionnaires indicate that the first task with which exit row passengers had difficulties was the decision to open the exit. In two cases, passengersopened overwing exits that should have remained closed. In one of those cases (case 16), an auxiliary power unit (APU) torched and passengers began to scream, “Fire.” The aft flight attendant reported that she instructed passengers to remain seated, yet passengers still opened the exit. In the other case (case 19), the flight crew ordered an evacuation using only the forward exits; however, the exit row passengers opened the overwing exits. In neither case had the flight crew lowered the flaps for safe egress off the wing, and in one of these cases, a child sustained a broken arm jumping off the wing.
The second task for which problems occurred for exit row passengers was assessing conditions outside of the exit. In one case, a passenger opened an overwing exit and smoke began billowing into the cabin (case 45). The passenger then had to jump through fire to get away from the airplane. Although his traveling companion was also able to safely egress using this route, the other two passengers who used this exit received severe burns. In a second case, one passenger stopped another passenger from opening an overwing exit on the fire side of an airplane (case 16).
As previously discussed, one reason for these difficulties was passenger inattention to the safety materials provided. The air carriers are required to ensure that all passengers seated in an exit row meet the requirements contained in regulations previously cited. Although no exit row passenger was younger than age 15, two passengers were older than age 70, one of whom was unable to open an exit (case 45). In addition, three passengers seated in exit rows did not speak the language in which briefings and oral commands were given by the crew.
Some of the air carriers make a point to individually brief passengers on the exit row tasks. In the six study cases for which the Safety Board received overwing exit operation information, 9 of the 42 exit row passengers reported receiving such a briefing. Four of these passengers reported examining their safety card. Twenty-four passengers reported receiving no briefing, and only two of these passengers had examined their briefing card. The two briefed passengers who opened overwing exits reported no difficulties. Four passengers who did not receive a briefing opened overwing exits. Two of these passengers reported no difficulty with the exit whereas the other two reported difficulties with their exit.
The benefit of exit row passengers’ receiving oral briefings from flight attendants is demonstrated in the runway collision in Los Angeles, California, on February 1, 1991. The Safety Board’s report of that accident contained the following information:
Passengers seated around row 10 stated that prior to departure, the flight attendant assigned to the R1 position interviewed a young passenger who was seated in 10D about whether he could fulfill the duties of an able-bodied person in the event of an emergency. The passenger advised the flight attendant that he was 17 years old. However, to be sure the youth understood his responsibilities, the flight attendant conducted a special oral briefing for the persons seated in and around row 10. Passengers stated that the instructions provided by the R1 flight attendant aided in their evacuation.
Exit procedures for emergency evacuations are critical and if not followed could lead to tragedy. The Safety Board concludes that most passengers seated in exit rows do not read the safety information provided to assist them in understanding the tasks they may need to perform in the event of an emergency evacuation, and they do not receive personal briefings from flight attendants even though personal briefings can aid passengers in their understanding of the tasks that they may be called upon to perform. Therefore, the Safety Board believes the FAA should require air carriers to provide all passengers seated in exit rows in which a qualified crewmember is not seated a preflight personal briefing on what to do in the event the exit may be needed.
FSA Cabin Crew - The Big Brief
I still wonder how pax who accept these emergency exit rows are legally covered (for their actions), when that time comes?
Standard of Care: The "Reasonable Man"
Reasonable Person
Good Samaritan laws
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aftermath
So, there are a number of recorded cases where exit row passengers did misbehave:
Does it seem that none of the exit row passengers who caused problems was blamed or prosecuted afterwards?
one of those cases (case 16), an auxiliary power unit (APU) torched and passengers began to scream, “Fire.” The aft flight attendant reported that she instructed passengers to remain seated, yet passengers still opened the exit.
In the other case (case 19), the flight crew ordered an evacuation using only the forward exits; however, the exit row passengers opened the overwing exits. In neither case had the flight crew lowered the flaps for safe egress off the wing, and in one of these cases, a child sustained a broken arm jumping off the wing.
In one case, a passenger opened an overwing exit and smoke began billowing into the cabin (case 45). The passenger then had to jump through fire to get away from the airplane. Although his traveling companion was also able to safely egress using this route, the other two passengers who used this exit received severe burns.
In a second case, one passenger stopped another passenger from opening an overwing exit on the fire side of an airplane (case 16).
Although no exit row passenger was younger than age 15, two passengers were older than age 70, one of whom was unable to open an exit (case 45).
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stuffingsville
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that no-one had considered it until now?
Will the airlines wait for the horse to bolt, before deciding to close the stable door?
Will it take a case of one (or more) pax suing other pax seated at the emergency exit row, for causing injury due to not performing as they were (should have been) briefed, and before accepting the RESPONSIBILITY of accepting an emergency exit row seat?
It's only a matter of time - because times have changed.
Will the airlines wait for the horse to bolt, before deciding to close the stable door?
Will it take a case of one (or more) pax suing other pax seated at the emergency exit row, for causing injury due to not performing as they were (should have been) briefed, and before accepting the RESPONSIBILITY of accepting an emergency exit row seat?
It's only a matter of time - because times have changed.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well go figure DJ's rediculous policy of selling the emergency exit row seats. They will put a passenger (sorry guest) in the emergency row with a plane load of paxing, qualified crew sitting in the creche down the back of the plane. The policy is absolutely under no circumstances are crew to be given the emergency exit rows and I have sat there and seen crew sitting down the back with completely empty exit rows.
Would be interesting to see the legal ramifications of this if there was ever a crash. I know that it doesn't legally say crew must sit in those rows but what happens if there is a mishap on takeoff and there is 10 qualified crew sitting at the back and the "do do" in the emergency exit doesn't get get the exit open and people die or burn or are injured as a result of the paxing crew not getting to the exit in time. I would think that the company would have a duty of care to have the most qualified people in the most common sense of positions regardless of the regulations. I think that opens grounds for a class action should it be proven a duty of care existed and there were qualified crew available.
It's disheartning and frustrating to be in a position where you can help no one and the whole Jerry Springer show are the ones you are entrusting to open the door.....further goes to show the despise the current head clown has for his staff and how driven they are by the dollar to the detrement of safety.
Would be interesting to see the legal ramifications of this if there was ever a crash. I know that it doesn't legally say crew must sit in those rows but what happens if there is a mishap on takeoff and there is 10 qualified crew sitting at the back and the "do do" in the emergency exit doesn't get get the exit open and people die or burn or are injured as a result of the paxing crew not getting to the exit in time. I would think that the company would have a duty of care to have the most qualified people in the most common sense of positions regardless of the regulations. I think that opens grounds for a class action should it be proven a duty of care existed and there were qualified crew available.
It's disheartning and frustrating to be in a position where you can help no one and the whole Jerry Springer show are the ones you are entrusting to open the door.....further goes to show the despise the current head clown has for his staff and how driven they are by the dollar to the detrement of safety.
