The most irresponsible comment by a journalist dealing with BA038

[rodthesod]

Which doors are available for a water evacuation?

If the fuselage is intact you wait to see which end everyone rushes to and then calmly walk to the other end of the aircraft in the almost certain knowledge that it will soon, if not already, be above the waterline.

r

[Algy]

Bit rough on Richard Quest

He's well able to look after himself, but for the record Richard is a huge commercial aviation enthusiast with enormous respect for the pilot community. For a general news journalist he also has a pretty reasonable handle on the operational and technical basics of the whole game. And works damn hard.

I don't know exactly what his critics here are complaining about (as they don't say) but I saw his initial live piece from LHR on the night of the crash and it struck me as a remarkably sharp and sensible summary in the circumstances. (Indeed, nearly as sharp and sensible as my own contributions to the world that evening.)

Finally, I'm fairly frequently interviewed by CNN in my capacity as an expert/pundit/hack/commentator/mouthy Irish gob****e (take your pick - I'm easy). A few points about them: they don't pay; they give you a hard time about your expertise or otherwise when they first approach you; and, for a rolling news operation, they research the hell out of stories.

I'm just saying this for information - I've got no relationship with CNN, commercial or otherwise, apart from the aforementioned interviews. And I do those primarily to help publicise the organisation that I actually work for. (See my profile.)

[VS-LHRCSA]

I can understand where frequent flyers are coming from when they talk about the repetitiveness of the briefings, however people should realise that some features, such as slides, do differ between the airlines as well as the aircraft.

For example, I have operated A320 aircraft where, in a ditching, passengers are directed to the forward and rear doors (not overwing exits). The slide is used as a floatation aid and NOT a raft.

Other A320 aircraft I have operated required the use of the overwing exits only. What do you do when airlines have a mix in the fleet. This does happen.

You can't assume that every aircraft is the same, even within the airline.

[onboard]

Originally Posted by Passagiata

Rehearsed information is of more use. This I knew from professional knowlege in other areas, but interestingly it was reinforced in a doco on air safety aired recently in Australia.

As a flight attendant I can tell you the following:
I am not looking forward to it, but if the need ever arises, I will evacuate as many passengers as I can, regardless of whether they have looked at my safety brief or not, or whether they said please and thank you. I will not however risk loosing my life. So you decide for yourselves, do you want to watch the safety brief, or not?
There's a little thing we flight attendants do before every takeoff and every landing. It's called a "thirty second review'. In my mind, I review all the things that are needed for an emergency, like where am I sitting, are there special handling procedures for the door I am expected to operate today, what are possible commands that can be expected from the cockpit, what reactions do they initiate, what actions in which sequence and so on.
As I said, we do this before every takeoff and every landing, in my case after eighteen years of flying.
Simply because, as outlined in the quote above, the information that you conciously pound into your head last will be there first.
But as I said, itīs up to you, every flight, every day.

[Basil]

I can't speak for those CLAIMING to be professional pilots however I am ex mil and capt with two majors.
I listen to the briefing, have a look at the card and mentally rehearse my actions in the event of a catastrophic situation just as the flight crew WILL be doing on the flight deck and the cabin crew as they strap in.
Only a poseur would wilfully behave otherwise - certainly on the first flight of the day.

I note that one of the B777 pax complained that he was not permitted to take his cabin baggage - aahh bless.

Never ascribe to malice that which may be more readily explained by stupidity.

[Torquelink]

There has never been a landing of a commercial jet with under wing engines on open water in a way where the safety briefing had any relevance whatsoever. The closest in the sense that anyone survived was the Ethiopian jet of which there are videos around. But that cartwheeled, broke up and sank pretty much instantly.

But, as I recall, the pilot had a gun held to his head by a hijacker which can't have helped his concentration!

[moggiee]

Originally Posted by Intruder

As for the "third trip" part, that's not the case at all. It would be the case ONLY if you had traveled ONLY on one airplane type/configuration. Put an A320 or ERJ into the mix, and the whole theory goes up in flames!

That's why (if you read my post properly) you'll see that I said

third sector in as many days as a passenger in a B737-400

I'm not aware of any successful ditchings but there have been a number of instances when a runway "excursion" has placed an aeroplane in the sea (Kai Tak, JFK etc.). In these cases the aeroplane rarely comes to rest in a level attitude and I suspect that most passengers would instinctively head uphill, which would probably take them to an exit which is above water.

Please note that I am not advocating ignoring the briefing, just saying that as an experienced professional aviator and passenger, reading the card is enough for me. Even though I've been lucky enough not to have been an airline passenger for a few years now, previously familiarity/experience means that I believe that I would know what to do.

After all, if Ryanair hosties can't open the overwing exits on a B737 (as has happened at least once) then it's down to us to look after ourselves!

[Romeo India Xray]

I regularly fly as SLF from my current base to visit relatives in good ol' Blighty. There is only one carrier on the route and they fly only one type. Regardless of this I ALWAYS pay attention to the cabin briefing out of respect for the cabin crew delivering it.

Yes, I know how the seatbelt works. Yes I know how to put an oxygen mask on (and even why you have to pull it and put your own on first). Yes I know how to put the life vest on.

However, I DO have my own exit route in mind and also a potential second and third route. Accident reports tell of the danger of fixation on a single exit.

[TightSlot]

We've had several threads in the past month debating the issue of the Safety Briefing: Surprisingly, to many of us, there is a hard-core of people for whom watching the Safety Briefing is regarded as unnecessary. For such people, there is nothing that can be said or explained that will alter their position.

I mention this because if you find yourself engaged in a spiral debate with them, you are almost inevitably headed for frustration. Depressing, but true. Take consolation in the knowledge that professional crew will always, as posted by Basil, watch the Safety Briefing - Really, there's nothing more to be said than that.

[WHBM]

I thought this thread was about "the most irresponsible comment ....."

A London "talk" radio, probably the same one that started this thread off, had a report that the 777 had "plummeted towards the ground".

Now you may have noticed my comments here in the past about "plunged" and "plummeted", and I was on watch for them to appear. And indeed one of them did. Now seeing as the key thing the crew did was to extend the glide as far as possible this was obviously the exact opposite of what was being reported.

Maybe the media would like to introduce a new word, "anti-plummeted", to describe this situation. It is more accurate and still allows them to continue to use their treasured vocabulary.

[727 exec]

A positive note...

I have to say to his credit, that the Programme Director for the radio station contacted me earlier today to have a discussion (he's an aviation enthusiast) - so thank you to him.

[captplaystation]

To answer the original question, I think the Daily Mail gets the vote when quoting the Capt's neighbour (on two succesive days be-gods) that he is " handsome, like all Airline Pilots". . . .
My woman disagrees vehemently, she says they are not all finished off like me.

[nickmo]

The '..most irresponsible comment..'...?

Can I offer the delighhtful litle article from News of The World who think parading the night life of the crew is really to do with the actions taken at Heathrow that, how ever arrived at, did save lives....

"After licking the chocolate off and soaping him down they also played an airline game with him, putting liquorice up his........." and so on and so on...

Decorum prevents finishing the quote..but there were pictures of the event published on Sunday. Anyone else play this airline game then? I guess its not for the Economy passengers though.

Decisive, insghtful and pertinent reporting yet again from the NOTW...

[TightSlot]

Anyone else play this airline game then?

Yes, but us charter/loco folk prefer peanut butter

[epsum]

About succesful ditchings:
Pan American World Airways Boeing 377 Stratocruiser back in 1956.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1956/561016-0.htm

US NAVY P3 in 2005 ( all 11 crew survived, although P3 is not commercial airliner)
http://www.vpnavy.org/vp47ditch.html

airALM incident in 1970. A JFK-SXM flight aborted landing three times, before having to ditch off the US Virgin Islands. 40 of the 63 passengers survived.

A Garuda 737-300 put down pretty safely on an river in Indonesia after a double flame-out in a rainstorm when the engines were running near idle. Only one stewardess died in the "ditching" (the water was about 2 metres deep).

National Airliners 727 in 1978
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19780508-1

TAAT 707 in 2000
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=20000203-0

Although, offtopic, there are some evidence that are possible commence succesful ditching.

[nickmo]

Hi T - Ok, you know I'm going to ask so I'll get it over with.......



Crunchy or smooth then......?

and NO pics please to prove it....


And ref the safety briefing issues, I just think its a common courtesy to listen to advice someone is offering regarding emergency procedure - I'm sure the same people who ignore the inflight briefing are those that view office fire drills as an interruption to their day and are just an excuse for a smoke, and don't appreciate that it could save their lives...

[ChristiaanJ]

As to 'safety briefings' getting tedious, yes, sure.
So are cockpit checklists.
Neither of them are meant to be entertaining.
So yes, I use the 'trolley dolly ballet' up front to check the items they go through, rather than scoff at it and read my paper.

The only things I regret....
I wouldn't mind actiually getting my hands on a life vest and practise for a moment putting it on. Gestures practised are fundamentally different from gestures seen.
And in the same line... I wouldn't mind actually see a real oxygen mask deploy, and know how hard to pull to get it to work.

The latter even more than the former. Ditchings have gone out of fashion. Decompression 'events' have not. Staring stupidly at an oxygen mask I just have jerked off its connection is not the last thing I want to do in my life.

[WHBM]

Yet another successful ditching (Japan Air Lines DC8 near San Francisco). This was even more remarkable as the crew do not seem to have been aware that they were going to hit the water. But all escaped on the rafts.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19681122-0

[Bealzebub]

There has never been a landing of a commercial jet with under wing engines on open water in a way where the safety briefing had any relevance whatsoever. The closest in the sense that anyone survived was the Ethiopian jet of which there are videos around. But that cartwheeled, broke up and sank pretty much instantly so the safety briefing was irrelevant (except the part about don't inflate your lifejacket inside the aircraft, which did for a few people who might otherwise have escaped apparently, so it's quite possible that life jackets killed more people than they saved in that case).

Any sensible cost benefit analysis would remove life jackets from commercial jets - the huge environmental cost of the extra fuel needed to carry millions of them around the sky each day is way out of proportion to an infinitessimally small theoretical benefit. They are there as a hangover from the flying boat days when they did have a justifiable purpose

To add to the others there was a JAL DC8 that was crashed into Tokyo bay on the approach into Haneda in 1982 of the 174 on board, 150 survived.

The Ethiopean jet hit the water in a bank, presumably because the crew were being attacked by hijackers at the time. They might have had a more successful ditching if they had been allowed to ditch the aircraft in accordance with the recommended procedures.

Your statement is pure nonsense on so many levels.

[broadreach]

The JAL DC8 was an undershoot at Narita (don't recall anything like that at San Francisco). Data on other ditchings is, fortunately, sparse but no doubt at some time in the future the stats will be amplified. The Ethiopian 767 did so under the most trying circumstances for the flight crew, gun at head as mentioned above; had there been more of a chance to plan it might have been less violent.

Re Richard Quest, even if he were God's gift to the aviation industry that chalk-on-a-blackboard grating voice would turn me off.

As for briefings, I make a point of putting down the newspaper and showing that I'm listening. Because I'm tall I usually get a seat with legroom i.e. near an exit. Just by making eye contact with the guy/gal who's going through the safety speech I reckon there'll be a better chance that, come the time and if it's survivable, we'll know what to do.