Kids disembarked from easyJet flight
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Continental Europe
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Jackdaw, while you may be good intentioned, it's a serious responsibility that children's parents have entrusted to the school. For clarity, here are the rules from my manual that all pilots and cabin crew know and follow:
On another note, I would like to add that I have seen teachers getting up after take off while the seat belt sign is still on, during turbulence, and also after landing while still taxiing. I've heard the 'oh but Sally was upset by the turbulence' excuse, to which I replied that if your head had hit the bulkhead and you had been knocked unconscious, you'd be no use to Sally at all'. I wanted to remind them that they should also be setting an example but bit my tongue...
*** does not operate an indemnity policy and therefore under no circumstances must another passenger be asked to accept responsibility during flight of an unaccompanied minor...
*** will accept children aged 14 years or under in large groups (i.e. 10 or more) on the condition that there is a minimum ratio of one accompanying adult per 10 children...
Whenever groups of children are traveling they should be allocated seats where they can be readily supervised by the responsible accompanying adults in both normal and abnormal conditions...
*** will accept children aged 14 years or under in large groups (i.e. 10 or more) on the condition that there is a minimum ratio of one accompanying adult per 10 children...
Whenever groups of children are traveling they should be allocated seats where they can be readily supervised by the responsible accompanying adults in both normal and abnormal conditions...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have not read the thread "a sign of the times" running on R & N, I can highly recommend it. IMHO it encapsulates very much the discussion on this subject.
The EJ captain did what he had to do given the R&R, T&C etc which pertain today. I do not believe that that decision had anything to do with safety
and (reluctantly) I have to agree with the comment
However, I firmly believe that we in the industry have allowed this to happen and whilst I can offer no solution, I hope that the younger, active members of the flying community can learn from history and prevent even worse downslides in the industry, and perhaps, hope against hope, reverse the trend.
The EJ captain did what he had to do given the R&R, T&C etc which pertain today. I do not believe that that decision had anything to do with safety
Ultimately it is their safety that is primarily of the captains concern
Do you think paying such lip service to the rules is enough these days?
Last edited by Romeo Oscar Golf; 12th Apr 2009 at 13:45. Reason: spelling
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am not Mandy, don't fly me!
When I originally posted this thread I was apt to get a Captain's (i.e. the pilot in command) perspective on this issue. As is the way of these things the thread has taken on a life of its' own and has become a SLF issue (so be it). What I learned (surprise, surprise) is that there is a cadre of good corporate captains out there ("we must obey the letter of the law"). The other pole of opinion is that good sense should prevail and some lateral thinking could have solved this situation within the spirit of the law. Without wishing to be provocative I don't subscribe to the school of thinking that maintains the safest way to fly people is not to fly them them at all. Ultimately the real fault probably lies with the company that organised this trip but how supine of some of the thinkers here to say not my fault, not my problem.
There are multiple ways to fulfill the mission and these often require a little bit of gumption, a command decision (God forbid that a Captain might have to make one of those without rushing back to company procedure or some other piece of paper to hide behind) and a dollop of good old fashion courage. I guess the same applies to flying in extremis, does one fly the aircraft or does one sit hiding behind peripheral knowledge of automated systems and modes and allow oneself to be flown.
There are multiple ways to fulfill the mission and these often require a little bit of gumption, a command decision (God forbid that a Captain might have to make one of those without rushing back to company procedure or some other piece of paper to hide behind) and a dollop of good old fashion courage. I guess the same applies to flying in extremis, does one fly the aircraft or does one sit hiding behind peripheral knowledge of automated systems and modes and allow oneself to be flown.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, but I really think that some of you are a tad confused in your understanding of how things work at airlines.
Commanders exercise command decisions (variously described as Gumption, Lateral Thinking, Initiative etc.) when appropriate: In this case, appropriate may be taken to mean, when required. Flight Crew are not paid to interpret regulations, and amend on the fly when it suits their whim (QED Pablo Mason). Some of you may not like this (QED Pablo Mason, again) and while that may make for an interesting chat in the Pub, the reality is that adherence to SOP's, Regulation & Legislation is the backbone of safe aviation. Deviation from this reality, when there is no overwhelming safety reason to do so, leaves those on board in peril, either physical, legal or both.
The suggestion that other people be drafted in as surrogate teachers of some sort is absurd: Society (whether you like it or not) has determined that those caring for children must jump through certain hoops (CRB checks anybody?) before they are allowed to take such a role. It is not appropriate for those existing procedures to be abandoned when inconvenient - your definition of inconvenient will be discreet i.e. what you judge to be correct for your child in this situation will not be the same for other parents. Once again, discussions about the value of these procedures is something interesting for your second pint - it has no place in aviation.
In this instance, all the mistakes were made by the Tour Operator. They blew it, and knew it. Neither the airline, nor specifically the operating Crew may be blamed, criticized or second guessed for complying with pre-existing rules. Speculation as to whether those rules are appropriate, or could have been adapted (i.e. bent) is interesting, but within an operational aviation context, irrelevant. Stuff just doesn't work like that in the flying business - if you don't get that, you shouldn't be working in the business.
Commanders exercise command decisions (variously described as Gumption, Lateral Thinking, Initiative etc.) when appropriate: In this case, appropriate may be taken to mean, when required. Flight Crew are not paid to interpret regulations, and amend on the fly when it suits their whim (QED Pablo Mason). Some of you may not like this (QED Pablo Mason, again) and while that may make for an interesting chat in the Pub, the reality is that adherence to SOP's, Regulation & Legislation is the backbone of safe aviation. Deviation from this reality, when there is no overwhelming safety reason to do so, leaves those on board in peril, either physical, legal or both.
The suggestion that other people be drafted in as surrogate teachers of some sort is absurd: Society (whether you like it or not) has determined that those caring for children must jump through certain hoops (CRB checks anybody?) before they are allowed to take such a role. It is not appropriate for those existing procedures to be abandoned when inconvenient - your definition of inconvenient will be discreet i.e. what you judge to be correct for your child in this situation will not be the same for other parents. Once again, discussions about the value of these procedures is something interesting for your second pint - it has no place in aviation.
In this instance, all the mistakes were made by the Tour Operator. They blew it, and knew it. Neither the airline, nor specifically the operating Crew may be blamed, criticized or second guessed for complying with pre-existing rules. Speculation as to whether those rules are appropriate, or could have been adapted (i.e. bent) is interesting, but within an operational aviation context, irrelevant. Stuff just doesn't work like that in the flying business - if you don't get that, you shouldn't be working in the business.
So far what has not come to light is exactly why the children were dispatched to the airport with an inadequate number of adults (not just for this flight, but for the whole round trip when the groups were together on the return).
It may be that nobody understood the carrier's regulation, although I have to say that given the background of the tour operator this seems a little unlikely. It could be they had the regulation explained to them but decided that for their group it somehow needn't apply (rather like some of the posters above). Or it could be that there were the correct three teachers allocated, and on the day one had a road accident on the way to the airport, or their own child went down with chickenpox that morning, or a range of other issues that stopped them going.
What such groups need to understand is that the number of accompanying staff is not a recommendation, but an absolute limit, and if just one of the adults doesn't make it then the entire group's trip is lost - as here. If I were taking 28 children with a 1:10 ratio I would consider four adults, not three, to give some headroom. Tour operators who offer one "free" place for adults per 10 children do not help, because this encourages people to work to the minima. And to give the schools the benefit of some experience from aviation, always working down to the minima is a bad thing, isn't it ?
It may be that nobody understood the carrier's regulation, although I have to say that given the background of the tour operator this seems a little unlikely. It could be they had the regulation explained to them but decided that for their group it somehow needn't apply (rather like some of the posters above). Or it could be that there were the correct three teachers allocated, and on the day one had a road accident on the way to the airport, or their own child went down with chickenpox that morning, or a range of other issues that stopped them going.
What such groups need to understand is that the number of accompanying staff is not a recommendation, but an absolute limit, and if just one of the adults doesn't make it then the entire group's trip is lost - as here. If I were taking 28 children with a 1:10 ratio I would consider four adults, not three, to give some headroom. Tour operators who offer one "free" place for adults per 10 children do not help, because this encourages people to work to the minima. And to give the schools the benefit of some experience from aviation, always working down to the minima is a bad thing, isn't it ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ouch :-)
I am not for one moment suggesting that rules should be bent, broken or ignored.
I am championing the ability of anyone (and all of us) to question the logic of the multitude of rules that impinge on as at every level and in all walks of life (not just aviation). If we continue to just "obey orders" without at least thinking through the logic of these things then we are on a slippery slope to being ineffectual and somewhat diminshed as human beings. By blind obedience we ultimately purposely put ourselves out of the loop, hence my use of the word supine. You are either in control or you are not! You are either a Captain of your own destiny or not.
As it happens, in this specific case the airline and the crew were obviously correct in the decisions made based upon the regs as they stand. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't debate the logic or efficacy of those regs.
I am championing the ability of anyone (and all of us) to question the logic of the multitude of rules that impinge on as at every level and in all walks of life (not just aviation). If we continue to just "obey orders" without at least thinking through the logic of these things then we are on a slippery slope to being ineffectual and somewhat diminshed as human beings. By blind obedience we ultimately purposely put ourselves out of the loop, hence my use of the word supine. You are either in control or you are not! You are either a Captain of your own destiny or not.
As it happens, in this specific case the airline and the crew were obviously correct in the decisions made based upon the regs as they stand. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't debate the logic or efficacy of those regs.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Michael, seconded by me and many other "thinking" aviators.
[COLOR=#008080]
You are so wrong T/S. Those working in the industry should be aware of the "rules" but those still with their own brains should be challenging many of them.
I am not referring to this incident but the slow strangulation of the industry as a whole.
However I feel it's all too late and the rule book will get ever bigger and all decision making will be taken away from the front line. 1984 rules supreme.
I'm long since retired, but the idiocy of the industry still affects me as SLF.
[COLOR=#008080]
Stuff just doesn't work like that in the flying business - if you don't get that, you shouldn't be working in the business.
I am not referring to this incident but the slow strangulation of the industry as a whole.
However I feel it's all too late and the rule book will get ever bigger and all decision making will be taken away from the front line. 1984 rules supreme.
I'm long since retired, but the idiocy of the industry still affects me as SLF.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those still with their own brains should be challenging many of them
I am not referring to this incident but the slow strangulation of the industry as a whole
Look - If that's your perception, then great. I just don't believe that this incident is the best example for you to cite: We can courteously agree to disagree on that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The airline follows the rules, yet gets bad exposure.
Tough, that's one of the downsides of being in a high profile business, I have no sympathy and an airline should have a contingency plan in place to manage their exposure to this incident, which is predictable - hint - look at all t&Cs and ask the question 'what risks are generated by these?' It's called scenario planning.
Airlines need to get smarter in media management - one already is very smart in generating free publicity.
Generally, airline media management has a lot to learn from the FMCG and other sectors, easyJet could have have turned this into a lot of excellent free exposure, with a little thought, instead we have the travel agent offering a refund - not exactly stellar stuff, it it?
Tough, that's one of the downsides of being in a high profile business, I have no sympathy and an airline should have a contingency plan in place to manage their exposure to this incident, which is predictable - hint - look at all t&Cs and ask the question 'what risks are generated by these?' It's called scenario planning.
Airlines need to get smarter in media management - one already is very smart in generating free publicity.
Generally, airline media management has a lot to learn from the FMCG and other sectors, easyJet could have have turned this into a lot of excellent free exposure, with a little thought, instead we have the travel agent offering a refund - not exactly stellar stuff, it it?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I am not referring to this incident but the slow strangulation of the industry as a whole
I can't judge how correct that statement is, but it appears to be based on anecdotal evidence - not always the strongest basis.
I am not referring to this incident but the slow strangulation of the industry as a whole
I can't judge how correct that statement is, but it appears to be based on anecdotal evidence - not always the strongest basis.
No you're right this is not the best example to quote, but after listening to my teacher friends, and my policeman son, and my ATCO son, and my doctor friends and my wife a nursing sister, who all report the same downward slide in their industries the overall trend is quite upsetting. So I had a rant.
Well I suppose there is the downward trend of the accident statistics, which nowadays (tight procedures) are an absolute fraction of what they were 40 years ago (loose procedures).
But there are upward trends as well, like the numbers able to afford to travel by air, which is what, 100 times as many as it was 40 years ago, with all the benefit to crews employed and the scale of the industry. So good trends overall.
If you feel hesitant about current procedures, the next time you get any checklist out, look at all the items on there. And remember that for each item that appears on there for you to follow, someone (maybe many) have died in the past for the lack of care with this item. Each and every point.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What downward trend in aviation ?
Thank goodnes we're all different and I hope you continue to defend and enjoy the industry.
PS the safety record is down to better aircraft and better engines and equipment. Naff all to do with the nameless beancounters in suits.
PS2 if you believe that the experience enjoyed by those increased numbers who can now afford to fly can compare with the experience of 40 years ago then you are probably in need of a visit to my daughter in law (consultant trick cyclist)
Oh yes I nearly forgot... the industry is certainly much bigger and there are many more people employed (some of them pilots) and they are all treated like sh*te by the non aviation, beancounting, faceless suits. That's what I call a downward trend.
Last edited by Romeo Oscar Golf; 13th Apr 2009 at 22:15.
