TC 'Terrifies' Passengers - The Press at their worst

[Bealzebub]

Not really. It is not a case of not getting answers to questions. It is the idea that information that is not relevant, or liable to misunderstanding should be freely imparted or demanded. The pilot doesn't discuss his fuel planning with his passengers. He doesn't discuss deferred defects. Why should he discuss an inoperative cargo door, since it has no direct relevence to a passenger. Moreover I cannot imagine many passengers even being remotely aware that such a defect might exist.

The point wasn't about answering a question, it was about imparting information that not only would be of little relevence, but would also have the likely consequences involved with being easily misunderstood. The desire to know such things before a flight is irrelevant, since the passengers are not going to be a party to the dispatch status of the aircraft unless there are defects (such as exit doors) that directly require a passenger briefing.

[davidjohnson6]

The TCX incident looks like airline (and possibly ground handling) staff were not as customer friendly as they could have been - as others have said, explaining the issue in another way may have avoided the Daily Mail getting involved.

However, TCX are far from alone in being poor at this.

Ryanair as many know, will frequently block off rows of seats at the front and rear when a flight is lightly loaded. Cabin crew *used* to regularly explain this as "We need to balance the plane" with no further details given - this would not a reassuring explanation to those who (as in the TCX case) may fly abroad less than once per year. A better explanation like "It's to save time before departure by reducing the paperwork allowing us to get airborne earlier and also cut down on fuel usage so making your flight greener and better for the environment" is rather more reassuring.

[Chronistin]

The point wasn't about answering a question, it was about imparting information that not only would be of little relevence, but would also have the likely consequences involved with being easily misunderstood. The desire to know such things before a flight is irrelevant, since the passengers are not going to be a party to the dispatch status of the aircraft unless there are defects (such as exit doors) that directly require a passenger briefing.

I think the "desire to know" is part of being human - although I have to admit that, sadly, the "ability to understand" doesn't always come with it.

I've been on board during a few "non-incidents", one of them involving hysterical passengers getting off the plane. I stayed (with about 2/3rds of the pax) and did not raise a question because I DO trust in the pilots (and their wish to live on). However, I felt much better at such situations when a brief explanation of the problem was given as opposed to "We have a small problem" followed by, whenever, "Problem solved".

[Flying Lawyer]

Bealzebub

I agree.

Too much information in this instance rather than too little.


FL

[kenhughes]

What sort of flight had this poor guy had then?

[Final 3 Greens]

I am not sure what you mean by "flipping burgers," as in a 30 year career, and I am sure 411A would agree, my job, his (and most of my compatriots) has to been to apply the highest professional standards at all material times such that the trust placed in us by our employers and our regulators towards everyone and everything in our charge, satisfies the highest expectations.

What I mean and please do not think I am questioning your integrity or probity, is that the world has changed a lot in the past 30 years.

Institutions that were once trusted are no longer trusted and people are generally more inquisitive and feel entitled (one may disagree, but it does not change their feeling) to know more and be involved more.

My flippant comment was really saying that this is the new reality and as a professional, one has to consider the reaction of the great unwashed and manage it, or one may become an ex professional.

This non event is a typical example and my questions to you easily lead you into the trap of looking defensive and secretive; I know full well what a plug type door is, but my question about the failure mode was not unreasonable and the DC10 incident will be remembered by many.

I respectfully diasagree with Flying Lawyer's comment, because the act of cramming everybody into a small area is unusual and people typically fly enough to understand this.

So information is required, although the words 'jammed' or 'broken' would not feature in my vocabulary as they would quite reaonably alarm someone with no understanding of a deferred defect or MEL.

The airline industry is generally awful at managing its customers in my opinion and it needs to get better quickly.

Blaming gate agents is really pathetic, since someone at management level with the necessay gumption should be drafting the message.

[Flying_Frisbee]

Razoray
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3 Why didnt they just un-jam the door and be on with it?

A little delay, no bad press, no hysteria!

Here in the States it would be a delay, some grumbling.....

than Business as Usual.....

Since we're making sweeping generalisations, I suspect that in the States, the lawyers would already be queueing up to file multi-million dollar law-suits on behalf of the mentally-anguished passengers.

[gatbusdriver]

More like disturbed rather than anguished!

[wouldhave]

I am quite disturbed to read some of the comments on this thread.

We all know that the press sensationalise things. Im nowhere near as much of an expert as the majority of people on this forum, however I have flown a lot of times.

Whether you are a captain, flight attendant, or SLF does not give you the right to determine whether

1. Someone is worthy of flying on a plane
2. To determine that they should go to Blackpool for their holidays instead
3. To expect general public to understand what happens regarding the loading and balance of aircraft
4. To presume you know what happened at the airport when this flight was due to depart

Having been on the other side of this in the past with both BA and BMI when something has gone wrong, I know from experience that explaining to customers is not always an airlines strongest point. This was a Thomas Cook flight operated by Mint - Mint being an airline most passengers would not have even heard of. If a captain said the plane was safe to fly, then Im sure it was - no matter how uncomfortable the outbound flight was.

I discussed this with my partner last night who is frightened of flying, I explained how it worked and he said he would not have got on the plane even though I would have.

I am sure many of you have phobias which you may struggle to control or know little about so I suggest before you get on your milkboxes put yourself in the shoes of the general public who do not understand or have the knowledge we do and try to think how they would.

[Solar]

Regarding the pic of the pope I'm sure you all have heard the story of what happened when he did this in Dublin, as he stood up a voice from the back of the crowd said "isn't it great to see the Holy Father kissing the holy ground of Ireland" to which he was heard to mutter " have you ever flown with an Irish pilot".
Old one always the best.

[Bealzebub]

This non event is a typical example and my questions to you easily lead you into the trap of looking defensive and secretive; I know full well what a plug type door is, but my question about the failure mode was not unreasonable and the DC10 incident will be remembered by many.

Except, that I answered your question before you repeated it. I also referenced you to the official accident document reports of the time. The answers were therefore qualified and reasonable. If you think I fell into "the trap," then well done. I think the repeated use of the term "confirm" rather gave away the fact you wanted a particular answer, more than an accurate or informed one. However, whilst I am happy, and it is reasonably easy to take the time to provide such qualified responses on a forum like this one, it is virtually impossible to do so in the practical confines of the pre-flight period in dispatching a commercial airliner. For this reason as much as any other, the information that is given over the public address system, needs to be considered, measured and delivered in a professional and tailored manner at all times.

An airline pilot has a library of information at his disposal concerning the dispatch legality, advisability, operating restrictions, and recommendations for any given deviation, fault or unservicebility. In addition he has the luxury of specific training and experience to fall back on as an additional benefit to the application. On top of this he has the resources of his company engineering and operations departments to communicate with for advice, opinion or comment, if and when required. In other words there is a great deal of resource for a highly trained and experienced professional to utilize as part of the decision process. Attempting to communicate what is often a complex process to passengers who for the most part will obviously require a relevant and simple explanation of matters that need concern them, is clearly another matter. The failure modes of cargo doors is not a part of that repertoire, any more than the fact that yesterdays engine change didn't involve the use of a fork lift truck, the runway has just been checked for fallen debris, there are thunderstorms on our planned route, or we are using a more marginal method of calculating dispatch fuel requirements, because of performance limitations.

It isn't a case of being secretive. It is a case of confining complicated and easily misunderstood processes to those with a professional need to know, and ensuring that the information given to the customers is in a format that is properly reassuring, honest, and relevant to their safety and comfort. That takes a little more thought than it might superficially appear to.

[Final 3 Greens]

Beazelbub

I understand what you are saying.

But the 'you don't need to know' model is failing these days.

I don't know why anyone mentioned that there was a problem with the cargo door, as a problem is an open invitation for people to fear the worst.

If I had explained the problem, I would not have lied, but I would have said 'ladies and gentlemen, as you know aircraft must be loaded correctly so that the weight and balance is within certain limits. Today, to ensure that we stay within those limits, we will be asking you to sit in seats towards the rear of the aircraft. This is because we have more luggage and cargo in the forward hold. We apologise if this means that you have been moved from your original seats, but ask for your understanding and patience in helping us to operate a safe flight.'

[Ainippe]

Passenger Ignorance

As an engineer of 30+ years not only have I worked on aircraft but spent a good proportion of my time flying in them, in fact around the globe several times.

I feel that the staff did not possibly communicate the reason for repositioning passengers within the cabin very well, but then as stated above the captain does not need to justify his descisions to the passengers. he makes hundreds of descisions every flight all as important to flight safety as that one.

There is however there is also a large factor of media hysterics which feeds across to the passengers who believe the media tripe.

You pay to have airlines transport you around the world, they have been doing it for a long time now and it is very closely regulated so place some trust in them.

[Razoray]

Since we're making sweeping generalisations, I suspect that in the States, the lawyers would already be queueing up to file multi-million dollar law-suits on behalf of the mentally-anguished passengers.

Flying Frisbee.....

Exactly, thats why in the States that plane wouldnt take off....

[Stick-N-Rudder]

As a load planner with experience on 757 types, I see this definitely as a non-event. As for the passenger shock at being used as "human ballast", they'd be amazed at how common this is depending on payloads, regardless of airlines. Only difference is that this is usually done with cabin limitation on the check-in system, with passengers blissfully unaware I'm pretty sure an A321 in this same situation (unusable aft hold) would have had to leave all luggage behind, even with all passengers seated at the rear..

The main problem here seems to be the way in which this was communicated to the passengers, apparently verbally and AFTER boarding the plane. That must have been unnerving, especially if the crew were not English native speakers. Add to this the fact that is was a sub charter operated by a little known foreign airline, and you can be sure that a surge of "Brit-on-holiday-mass-hysteria" was a predictable outcome.

But I find it hard to understand why some people just can't seem to realize when they are talking to a qualified airline pilot who, just like them, does not wish to end up a burning hole in the ground due to an explosive decompression or an out-of-trim aircraft. Or is the Daily Mail front page just too tempting...?

Cheers

[ReadyToGo]

Sometimes, airlines insist on the Crew doing their own loadsheets. This happens a lot on ad-hoc or wet-lease aircraft. If the flight Deck were doing this on the Mint Air/TCX flight, I would expect the crew were probably unaware of the balance issue till pretty close to pushback time, so sorting out the issue prior to boarding was probably impossible.

I have seen occasions (though usually on smaller aircraft) where passengers are moved just to make the paperwork correct. The aircraft is still safe, but flying pretty close to its trim limits, so to be on the safe side, a small amount of weight needs to be shifted. I travel on the Jetstream 41 regular, and this is common. I have even seen sandbags placed in the hold when loads have been light!

At last minute, its easier to get passengers to move to the rear than to get the equivalent weight removed from one hold and moved to another. Getting beltloaders etc takes time and adds to the delay. Remember that sometimes it can be as little as 250kgs that needs shifting. On some flights that could be 3 men (using standard EZY weights) or 20ish bags. Its not difficult to see which is easier to move.

The mistake was mentioning the faulty door. The captain should have had a quiet word with the crew, and the crew should have had a quiet word with the passengers. "Excuse me sir, would you mind if we moved you and your family to row 21, theres been a problem with the checkin system", is a lot better than "We've had to put all your bags up front, because the hold door is faulty, so to balance the plane, you need to move back". The latter case would un-nerve me, and I am a very experienced traveller.

RTG!

[AlpineSkier]

incoming passengers- why kissing ground ?

As per the heading why were some of the incoming passengers supposedly kissing the ground ? Seems very odd if this was only in reference to a pre-flight announcement about a jammed door.

[hellsbrink]

How did they "kiss the ground" when they walked onto an airbridge and how did those waiting see them do so on the airbridge?

That's what you should be asking, AlpineSkier


Ain't as if the UK press tend to "sensationalise" things though, is it........

[Final 3 Greens]

But I find it hard to understand why some people just can't seem to realize when they are talking to a qualified airline pilot who, just like them, does not wish to end up a burning hole in the ground due to an explosive
decompression or an out-of-trim aircraft.

Helios
Spanair
et al

I suppose these aircraft were crewed by unqualified airline pilots who did wish to end up as a burning hole in the ground?

[Flying Lawyer]

Little Blue said

I suggest the "terrified" holiday makers stick to Blackpool in future...far safer on the M6.

I wonder if those complaining that the reference to Blackpool was ‘snobbish’ etc have considered that it was merely a way of suggesting that people who are so easily “terrified” might, instead of flying abroad for their holidays, go to a seaside resort which can be reached by road … even though driving on motorways is not without risk.
What is unreasonable about giving as an example one of Britain’s most famous seaside resorts?
Perhaps it’s those choosing to be offended who are being snobbish? Snobbish about Blackpool.
There are some very beautiful parts of Majorca but the larger busy resorts with enormous hotels and ‘pubs’ packed with (often British) holiday-makers make Blackpool seem sophisticated in comparison.

keeprighton1974

2. I don't care who you are - if you're queuing for a flight and the arrivals are kissing the ground / sobbing / telling you not to get on the plane, you're seriously going to consider not boarding the thing!!

I don’t know why you feel able to speak for everyone else but, speaking for myself, it wouldn’t have that effect upon me.
Turbulence during the Inbound flight would not lead me to regard the aircraft as "the thing!!", nor would it cause me to consider not boarding.
I would seriously consider changing flights if it meant I'd have to spend a few hours confined in a cabin with the people who, if it's true, were kissing the ground/sobbing/telling people not to get on the plane. Thankfully, for obvious reasons, they would not be on the Outbound flight.

Final 3 Greens
I’m content to agree to differ about the amount of information which should have been given although, having now read that you don't think the problem with the door should have been mentioned, we're not as far apart re that aspect as I thought.
What took me aback most about what you’ve said in your various posts was that, before boarding, you would wish to know:
“What is the failure mode of a jammed cargo door on a 757?”
”What are the consequences?”
And, that unless you received what in your opinion (as a PPL) was a “sensible answer”, you wouldn’t board.
It is, of course, your absolute right not to board. I (as a PPL) would be entirely content to accept the judgment of the professional airline pilots flying the aircraft without wishing to be told how they reached that decision. If I didn't trust the judgment of professional airline pilots I wouldn't fly in airliners.

"Helios, Spanair et al"
Airliners do crash, albeit extremely rarely, and some crashes are attributed wholly or in part to pilot error but I share S-N-R's view. My professional involvement in the legal aftermath of many aircraft accidents (all categories) over a few decades, including close analysis of hundreds of accident investigation reports, has increased rather than reduced my confidence in professional pilots.


.