Overwing Exits and Frequent Fliers?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who can sign off passport photos
Terminal thread drift here (sorry!), but I think the connection between those on F3G's list is that they are listed in directories that someone working at the passport office can readily check (in principle, I'm sure it happens very rarely). Of course, that doesn't explain why (e.g.) CORGI registered gas fitters don't appear there.
PS I'm with GBS: "Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity."
PS I'm with GBS: "Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity."
Paxing All Over The World
PS I'm with GBS: "Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity."
Very neat (as one would expect from such a source) and it also gives the explanation ... since the professions gang up on the laity, everyone wants to be in a profession.
Personally, I have always been outside every organisation I have ever belonged to.
Very neat (as one would expect from such a source) and it also gives the explanation ... since the professions gang up on the laity, everyone wants to be in a profession.
Personally, I have always been outside every organisation I have ever belonged to.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GBS spoke a lot of sense. Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
Odd that pilots are not an acceptable signatory for passports, since they are on an easily traceable register at the CAA. Although ex RAF officers who are airline pilots are trusted to do the job.
And CORGI registered gas fitters are underrated - very skilled and do a good job in keeping people safe
Odd that pilots are not an acceptable signatory for passports, since they are on an easily traceable register at the CAA. Although ex RAF officers who are airline pilots are trusted to do the job.
And CORGI registered gas fitters are underrated - very skilled and do a good job in keeping people safe
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by White Bear
I am a normal heterosexual male, but in this instance I would happily forgo the nubile female in favour of a 200 lb fit male who would be quite capable of dragging my 185 lb stunned arse out of a crashed airliner, and then go back for more.
Paxing All Over The World
fyrefli Do you realise that you have just brought this thread right back on track?? How dare you!! Really, the impudence of some people who think they can just stroll into a thread on the fifth page and talk about the actual subject??? Hhuurummph 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, you can't test people's reaction to extreme stress every time they get on a plane...
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hats off to KLM
From KLM online checkin:
"You have entered your preference for an exit seat.
To sit in an exit seat, you must be willing and able to assist in the event
of an evacuation.
Does any of the following apply to you?
* You are traveling with a child younger than 13 years of age.
* You are unable to hear or understand instructions given by the crew members
in English or Dutch.
* You have a condition that might prevent you from performing your evacuation
functions or that might injure you while performing such functions."
And my sincere apologies, Paxboy
Would this be the right point to state I don't completely agree with Techman? In reality training is the most most airlines have to go on but no amount of training stops certain people panicking; it just helps. I was once H&S officer in a large hotel for a few years and I've seen trained staff go to jelly and untrained customers solid as a rock in false alarm and real emergencies (e.g. 3am evacuations due to an actual fire).
But of course airlines should assume that their trained staff have an advantage. They also need to use all the information they can get about everyone else on board and a lot of it is right in front of their eyes. All airlines should do the above both at check-in and in the aircraft, where someone about whom there is any substantial doubt as to their physical aptitude in an emergency should be politely assisted to reseat themselves away from an emergency row. Yes, even if they've paid for the privilege. From a risk assessment perspective that's a no-brainer.
"You have entered your preference for an exit seat.
To sit in an exit seat, you must be willing and able to assist in the event
of an evacuation.
Does any of the following apply to you?
* You are traveling with a child younger than 13 years of age.
* You are unable to hear or understand instructions given by the crew members
in English or Dutch.
* You have a condition that might prevent you from performing your evacuation
functions or that might injure you while performing such functions."
And my sincere apologies, Paxboy
Would this be the right point to state I don't completely agree with Techman? In reality training is the most most airlines have to go on but no amount of training stops certain people panicking; it just helps. I was once H&S officer in a large hotel for a few years and I've seen trained staff go to jelly and untrained customers solid as a rock in false alarm and real emergencies (e.g. 3am evacuations due to an actual fire).
But of course airlines should assume that their trained staff have an advantage. They also need to use all the information they can get about everyone else on board and a lot of it is right in front of their eyes. All airlines should do the above both at check-in and in the aircraft, where someone about whom there is any substantial doubt as to their physical aptitude in an emergency should be politely assisted to reseat themselves away from an emergency row. Yes, even if they've paid for the privilege. From a risk assessment perspective that's a no-brainer.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Would this be the right point to state I don't completely agree with Techman?
Absolutely. What he says is not true, for the reasons you state.
There is a great difference between simulation and reality and the subsequent human reactions to each.
Absolutely. What he says is not true, for the reasons you state.
There is a great difference between simulation and reality and the subsequent human reactions to each.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots are trained almost to death in the sim for events such as engine failures in a twin at rotation, how often do you hear of them panicking? Rarely...Why? Because the sim is so realistic...Make your training as realistic as possible and if it happens for real, then its unlikely to freak anyone out too much. Cause high levels of stress, yes, but likely to be little panic as its a familiar situation.
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's as may be, Perkin, but we're in danger here of obsessing again on a technicality - no-one is going to remove crew from an emergency exit row - instead of real world differences between airlines, which could affect the number of people able to survive a survivable accident. Day in, day out, clearly physically unsuitable people are being allowed to sit in emergency exit rows.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perkin
I have undergone about 15 hours training in a full motion sim, including engine failure at rotation.
I have also experienced a real engine failure on take off in a Navajo, as handling pilot.
Trust me when I tell you that my emotional reaction to these events was quite different. However good the sim, you know that you will survive the detail. In the real world there is no such guarantee. Fortunately my experience ended with a low speed rejected take off, but my heart rate was thumping afterwards, as I nearly ran off the side of the runway due to the asymmetric thrust.
I would also hypothesis that there is a considerable difference in scenario between pilots sitting in the flight deck following their training to try and save the aircraft and sitting in passenger seats, for which they do not train regularly as far as I am aware..
As SXB says this point is largely irrelevant, since the emergency exit row seats are revenue seats.
It has been interesting to read how crews have put forward arguments to have these seats allocated to crew members and I note that Con Pilot said that everyone wants these seats for the same reasons.
If airlines choose to allocate these seats to frequent flyers, then they make a commercial decision that balances risk against benefit.
Airlines make these types of decisions regularly, for example when setting fuel policies and if they are happy to make the decisions and the regulators are happy with the degree of safety offered, then thats good enough for me.
I have undergone about 15 hours training in a full motion sim, including engine failure at rotation.
I have also experienced a real engine failure on take off in a Navajo, as handling pilot.
Trust me when I tell you that my emotional reaction to these events was quite different. However good the sim, you know that you will survive the detail. In the real world there is no such guarantee. Fortunately my experience ended with a low speed rejected take off, but my heart rate was thumping afterwards, as I nearly ran off the side of the runway due to the asymmetric thrust.
I would also hypothesis that there is a considerable difference in scenario between pilots sitting in the flight deck following their training to try and save the aircraft and sitting in passenger seats, for which they do not train regularly as far as I am aware..
As SXB says this point is largely irrelevant, since the emergency exit row seats are revenue seats.
It has been interesting to read how crews have put forward arguments to have these seats allocated to crew members and I note that Con Pilot said that everyone wants these seats for the same reasons.
If airlines choose to allocate these seats to frequent flyers, then they make a commercial decision that balances risk against benefit.
Airlines make these types of decisions regularly, for example when setting fuel policies and if they are happy to make the decisions and the regulators are happy with the degree of safety offered, then thats good enough for me.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finals 3 Greens - the very limited experience that you admit to leads me to think that you probably don't really know what you you are talking about, emotionally motivated but very little grasp on reality.
As Alexander Pope once said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing"
In future, please leave it to the professionals.
As Alexander Pope once said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing"
In future, please leave it to the professionals.
Paxing All Over The World
Naturally F3G can defend himself but I think that what he is saying, is that he has more experience in this than many pax who have simply paid extra to get into the exit row, or a pax placed there at random by the agent.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parabellum
Yes "a little learning is a dangerous thing"
Overconfident arrogance is not less so. Your 1000s of hour in the air or in the sim has not prepared you to be any more expert in a real evacuation situation than a frequent flyer with, for example, firefighting or rescue training, or simply common sense and a cool head.
If only we could all be like you professionals.
s37
Yes "a little learning is a dangerous thing"
Overconfident arrogance is not less so. Your 1000s of hour in the air or in the sim has not prepared you to be any more expert in a real evacuation situation than a frequent flyer with, for example, firefighting or rescue training, or simply common sense and a cool head.
If only we could all be like you professionals.
s37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Parabellum
I think that I know rather more than you do about emotional responses, classic and operant conditioning, shaping, behavioural training, autonomic responses and the unpredictability of human response to threats.
In this context I am the professional.
I mention a small amount of time in a simulator and my only live engine failure in the context of differentiating the personal emotional impact by a synthetic rather than a priori approach, in response to Perkin's post.
I make no comment about flying aeroplanes and am happy to leave that to those who hold APTLs.
Whether I would be any better than anyone else in the event of an emergency in an aircraft is a matter of conjecture and would be proven/refuted by experiencing the event. having survived one very serious fire in a building already, I am rather hoping to leave my reaction as a matter of conjecture.
Since you like quotes, try this one from John Major....
"Only in Britain could it be thought a defect to be 'too clever by half.' The probability is that too many people are too stupid by three-quarters."
I think that I know rather more than you do about emotional responses, classic and operant conditioning, shaping, behavioural training, autonomic responses and the unpredictability of human response to threats.
In this context I am the professional.
I mention a small amount of time in a simulator and my only live engine failure in the context of differentiating the personal emotional impact by a synthetic rather than a priori approach, in response to Perkin's post.
I make no comment about flying aeroplanes and am happy to leave that to those who hold APTLs.
Whether I would be any better than anyone else in the event of an emergency in an aircraft is a matter of conjecture and would be proven/refuted by experiencing the event. having survived one very serious fire in a building already, I am rather hoping to leave my reaction as a matter of conjecture.
Since you like quotes, try this one from John Major....
"Only in Britain could it be thought a defect to be 'too clever by half.' The probability is that too many people are too stupid by three-quarters."
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 2nd Aug 2007 at 01:05.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well, I think this hamster wheel has just about run it's course.
Yes I agree a professional fire fighter, (is that a profession?) or someone trained in rescue would be an ideal person to have next to the over wing exit, as would aircrew who have been trained in safety and emergency procedures, including a limited amount of firefighting. These groups are trained to stick around and help others rather than make a run for it.
I certainly hope that none of us ever finds out the hard way just how well or badly we would react under emergency evacuation circumstances and I do think that the over wing should not be sold to the highest bidder.
On that happy note I'll exit the wheel.
Yes I agree a professional fire fighter, (is that a profession?
) or someone trained in rescue would be an ideal person to have next to the over wing exit, as would aircrew who have been trained in safety and emergency procedures, including a limited amount of firefighting. These groups are trained to stick around and help others rather than make a run for it.I certainly hope that none of us ever finds out the hard way just how well or badly we would react under emergency evacuation circumstances and I do think that the over wing should not be sold to the highest bidder.
On that happy note I'll exit the wheel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Parabellum
Responding to the reasonable tone of your last post, I attach a reference in which you and others may or may not be interested. Its old, but considered classic.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Rivers/chap7.htm
The particular point of interest is the heading "Manipulative Activity" and you may find this interesting in the context of the author naming aeroplane pilots in this context.
You might wish to consider that manipulative activity requires someone to perform a series of actions, which aggregate to complex activity. These actions are learned (reinforced) by whatever method (e.g. training) and then the unconscious mind repeats these actions in the even of crisis.
So Rivers theory would tend to support your view of trained individuals reacting as trained.
Now for the tough bit. The training only works in context. Were I a pax in your aircraft and we suffered a dreadful mishap, I would expect you to react to your training and do your best until it was no longer possible. Volcanic ash and 747 springs to mind here, Capt Moody and his crew demonstrated manipulative activity to a very high standard.
So if a person is not in a position where they can apply the manipulative activity, there has to be some considerable uncertainty as to how they might react and the four other classic reactions, including flight and immobility.
The other tricky part is motivation, which impacts on behaviour.
Rivers published his work before Maslow's classic tome on human motivation, so did not synthesise this thinking.
Maslow's hierarchy of human need starts with the classic 'physiological', where the body reacts to an external stimulus without conscious intervention - if your hand feels pain, pull it away from the source of the pain.
In modern psychology autonomic reaction is recognised, where the body reacts to a threat and then the emotions follow the release of chemicals, e.g. adrenaline, that drive them; its hard to react in a calm and logical manner with a good deal of adrenaline pumping through your system.
I'll stop here before this gets too unintelligible and boring, but I hope this short insight may explain why I do not share your confidence that crew out of position will necessarily react any differently to anyone else - they might do, but then again they might not.
Edited to add: I'm not trying to start up the whole thread again, just thought some may be interested in the above.
Responding to the reasonable tone of your last post, I attach a reference in which you and others may or may not be interested. Its old, but considered classic.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Rivers/chap7.htm
The particular point of interest is the heading "Manipulative Activity" and you may find this interesting in the context of the author naming aeroplane pilots in this context.
You might wish to consider that manipulative activity requires someone to perform a series of actions, which aggregate to complex activity. These actions are learned (reinforced) by whatever method (e.g. training) and then the unconscious mind repeats these actions in the even of crisis.
So Rivers theory would tend to support your view of trained individuals reacting as trained.
Now for the tough bit. The training only works in context. Were I a pax in your aircraft and we suffered a dreadful mishap, I would expect you to react to your training and do your best until it was no longer possible. Volcanic ash and 747 springs to mind here, Capt Moody and his crew demonstrated manipulative activity to a very high standard.
So if a person is not in a position where they can apply the manipulative activity, there has to be some considerable uncertainty as to how they might react and the four other classic reactions, including flight and immobility.
The other tricky part is motivation, which impacts on behaviour.
Rivers published his work before Maslow's classic tome on human motivation, so did not synthesise this thinking.
Maslow's hierarchy of human need starts with the classic 'physiological', where the body reacts to an external stimulus without conscious intervention - if your hand feels pain, pull it away from the source of the pain.
In modern psychology autonomic reaction is recognised, where the body reacts to a threat and then the emotions follow the release of chemicals, e.g. adrenaline, that drive them; its hard to react in a calm and logical manner with a good deal of adrenaline pumping through your system.
I'll stop here before this gets too unintelligible and boring, but I hope this short insight may explain why I do not share your confidence that crew out of position will necessarily react any differently to anyone else - they might do, but then again they might not.
Edited to add: I'm not trying to start up the whole thread again, just thought some may be interested in the above.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 2nd Aug 2007 at 08:17.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, almost out of the wheel!
Thanks F3G, very interesting reading.
"I do not share your confidence that crew out of position will necessarily react any differently to anyone else - they might do, but then again they might not".
Yes, it will be an individual thing and may depend on the strength and quality of the training, my hope would be that someone who has had some training would be a better option than someone who has had no training.
My background is forty four years of continuous training which goes some way to explain my faith in it. I really don't want to be put to the test, ever!
I accept that 90% of what River's says is likely to be true today but I would be interested to read what he would now say with the benefit of the last eighty odd years of civil aviation accidents and the information gleaned from them.
Two cases come to mind that highlight both personal qualities and the quality of training. In one case a very brave BOAC lady gave her life, as CC, trying to evacuate a disabled passenger from a burning B707 at LHR in 1968 and in another instance, somewhere in Europe I think, a smoke filled B707 made an emergency landing, all the crew got out and none of the passengers.
As far as this thread goes I believe that the bottom line is that anyone in an overwing exit seat should be capable of operating the exit and initiating an evacuation as quickly as possible, money or FF points should not be a factor. Now taking the second exit!
Thanks F3G, very interesting reading.
"I do not share your confidence that crew out of position will necessarily react any differently to anyone else - they might do, but then again they might not".
Yes, it will be an individual thing and may depend on the strength and quality of the training, my hope would be that someone who has had some training would be a better option than someone who has had no training.
My background is forty four years of continuous training which goes some way to explain my faith in it. I really don't want to be put to the test, ever!
I accept that 90% of what River's says is likely to be true today but I would be interested to read what he would now say with the benefit of the last eighty odd years of civil aviation accidents and the information gleaned from them.
Two cases come to mind that highlight both personal qualities and the quality of training. In one case a very brave BOAC lady gave her life, as CC, trying to evacuate a disabled passenger from a burning B707 at LHR in 1968 and in another instance, somewhere in Europe I think, a smoke filled B707 made an emergency landing, all the crew got out and none of the passengers.
As far as this thread goes I believe that the bottom line is that anyone in an overwing exit seat should be capable of operating the exit and initiating an evacuation as quickly as possible, money or FF points should not be a factor. Now taking the second exit!
Paxing All Over The World
I'm glad that this thread has moved from the turbulent air ... in the meantime, I had listed the occasions when I was placed in jeopardy/crisis and considering how I have reacted. It was an interesting exercise and I shall not bore you with the details but they include:
So, why do I not push to get in the emergency row? The seats are often restricted in other ways, there is no big window, you cannot have your hand case with you at all times. Being of average height, the legroom is not of great value. But I often try and sit one row away from the exit ...
- various motor car accidents, mine and other peoples.
- receiving bomb threat telephone calls at the organisations where I was working. That is, I was at a number of places where such calls were received in the late 1970s and early 1980s (civilian, not mil or Police).
- Being half a mile away from one of those bombs (1983) and intimate involvement in the subsequent emergency procedures. That is because I was in charge of the telecommunications.
So, why do I not push to get in the emergency row? The seats are often restricted in other ways, there is no big window, you cannot have your hand case with you at all times. Being of average height, the legroom is not of great value. But I often try and sit one row away from the exit ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I accept that 90% of what River's says is likely to be true today but I would be interested to read what he would now say with the benefit of the last eighty odd years of civil aviation accidents and the information gleaned from them.
I cannot speak for Rivers, but I would hypothesise that the safety record of the airlines suggests that their training programmes are highly effective when you look at the deaths per pax km stats.
I think our only difference in view is applying that training out of context and hopefully we'll never need to test our hypotheses
I cannot speak for Rivers, but I would hypothesise that the safety record of the airlines suggests that their training programmes are highly effective when you look at the deaths per pax km stats.
I think our only difference in view is applying that training out of context and hopefully we'll never need to test our hypotheses