Canadian airline removes life jackets to save on fuel

[Maoraigh1]

A 4 jet Nimrod MR aircraft (engines in wings - Comet4 derivative) was successfully ditched in the Moray Firth , Scotland, with no loss of life, several years ago.
No lifejackets puts the airline in the position of Cunard with the Titanic - why bother with enough lifeboats, as it'll never sink.

[frequentflyer2]

A Swissair Convair ditched in the English Channel off Folkestone in June 1954. The airliner which could carry 40 passengers had only five on board along with three crew for a flight from Geneva to London. The captain was forced to put down in the sea by fuel starvation and all on board escaped from the plane. However, three of the five passengers drowned because there were no lifejackets on board.......The law changed after this incident.
As soon as the Air Transat pilot ascertained there was a runway within gliding distance his main aim was to reach that strip of tarmac. If this had proved impossible and ditching had been the only option open to him every minute he managed to continue gliding would have been a minute closer to land. His aim would have been to put down as close to shore as possible with rescue services fully aware of his intention and position. Can anyone say lifejackets would not have kept at least some passengers alive long enough for boats, helicopters etc to reach them? Would there not also have been liferafts on board for such a long flight over water?
Surely in such an incident there would also be a psychological benefit to having lifesaving equipment on board? It must be slightly easier for cabin crew to stay in control of passengers told a plane may have to land on the sea if they know there are lifejackets under their seats and on long overwater flights liferafts available at the exits. What do you say to passengers if this isn't the case? The seat cushions must seem like a poor alternative to people in this situation.
Finally, as a piece of useless information, an episode of 'Quincy' was dedicated to this subject and revolved around the unintentional ditching of an airliner with only seat cushion flotation devices on board. It was, as far as I remember, based on an actual incident in the USA when it was felt the lack of lifejackets and liferafts led to increased loss of life.

[pattern_is_full]

"No lifejackets puts the airline in the position of Cunard with the Titanic..."

WHITE STAR LINES, Please!! Merged with Cunard in the 30's, 20 years after Titanic...

[Left Coaster]

it's simple... Transport Canada (such as they are) has to approve the move. The regs are clear, if you stay within a certain distance from land or don't fly over water, you don't have to carry the life jackets. Whether it's a psychological help to passengers is not an issue for the company or the regulator. If it saves money these days it's a move that probably needed to be made. Would you rather keep your job or lose it due to indifference from management?

[CD]

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices have the following requirements:

...that landplanes be equipped with either one life jacket or equivalent individual flotation device for each person on board:

a) when flying over water and at a distance of more than 93 km (50 NM) away from the shore;
b) when flying en route over water beyond gliding distance from the shore, in the case of all other landplanes; and
c) when taking off or landing at an aerodrome where, in the opinion of the State of the Operator, the take-off or approach path is so disposed over water that in the event of a mishap there would be a likelihood of a ditching.

So, it would appear that the option of providing either a life jacket or an individual flotation device is an international standard.

[ecureilx]

life-wests and ditching

Maybe off the thread, but from what I been reading, a successful water ditching is near impossible, with today's aircraft designs.

Those that did do a successful water ditching had better belly profile, such as the DC8, or Nimrod or DC9, or even the 737 - 200 Adv

Today's aircraft have engines slung below in such a way (that is the theory) that the moment one of the enginers or both touch the water, they will be ripped off and self-destruct the aircraft.

On a comparison, how many modern aircraft have had successful belly landing ?

I still believe that the reality is ... life vests are only for psychological purposes .. except in the rare cases, such as that of the african 767 (forgot the of carrier .. ) where the pilot hit one enginer in the water, and ended up anyway cart-wheeling the rest of the aircraft, the chances of survival are close NIL.

[SU-GCM]

Reminds me of a joke
a helicopter pilot felt cold so he switched off the fans

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by ecureilx

... except in the rare cases, such as that of the african 767 (forgot the of carrier .. ) where the pilot hit one enginer in the water, and ended up anyway cart-wheeling the rest of the aircraft

IIRC, the hijackers were interfering with the controls all the way down to the surface. We don't know what would have happened if the pilots had been allowed to fly the aircraft to a properly controlled ditching, unmolested.

[North Shore]

As some have suggested - a bit of a non-issue, as you can always use the seat cushions if needed. Given that ~90% of Jazz's flights are over land, I'd like to think that the 'if needed' portion is pretty minimal. Also, given that it's well below zero on the ground for about 6 months of the year for many of those routes, perhaps winter parkas should be carried instead!

[Elastoboy]

Life jackets for those up front!

In 2002 flew business class on Varig from Sao Paulo to Salvador in Bahia. The usual safety demo took place, then the cabin crew closed the curtain and gave us passengers up front the safety demo for the life jackets. This really made me think about the value of flying up front!!

I see no issue with Jazz trying to save weight as long as all regs are observed. Numerous U.S. transcons have "floating seat cushions" it doesn't worry me at all.

[baselb]

The benefit of a life jacket though is that it can be put on by passengers (uninflated) during the descent (possibly with assistance from cabin crew or other passengers). They are then in a position to evacuate immediately.

When using the seat as a floatation device then the passengers have to wait until they have ditched then unbuckle themselves, turn around and remove the seat (disorientated and probably in a broken aircraft) before they can start to evacuate.

If the authorities are happy, then fair enough - the airlines are doing as much as they need. But I don't think that a seat floatation device is as safe as a life jacket.

[TheWestCoast]

Anyone aware if it's merely urban myth that, in an emergency even over land, pax are instructed to put on lifejackets so that bodies are more easily discovered in the event of a catastrophic crash, and that the brace position is designed mostly to preserve dental records?

[deltayankee]

Anyone aware if it's merely urban myth that, in an emergency even over land, pax are instructed to put on lifejackets so that bodies are more easily discovered in the event of a catastrophic crash, and that the brace position is designed mostly to preserve dental records?

Yes, it's a myth, just like the story that the drug sniffer dogs are addicted to drugs and are looking for a fix, or that one that when you flush the airplane toilet the contents are dumped through a hole in the bottom of the airplane, falling as giant icicles on homes below. All this belongs in jet blast. But the one about writing "fast, neat, average" on a napkin is partly true, or was.

[makintw]

SO can someone tell me how you swim whilst holding that seat cushion to your chest with two arms as in the safety blurb?

And how does said seat cushion keep your head out of the water as a life jacket would?