Safety briefs regs and checks. Who benefits and why?

[fonejacker]

I stumbled upon this thread and the boarding card one last week, and it has been providing me with top entertainment ever since!! So keep it coming peeps, especially the SLF getting all precious about being called SLF.

[Rusland 17]

Originally Posted by lowcostdolly

Rusland thank you for the feedback but with all due respect it was not me who named this forum...

My use of the word "offensive" was, with hindisght, over the top, and not a true reflection of my feelings about the term I think "disrespectful" would have been closer to the mark.

There is a world of difference between using a term as a humorous title at the top of an internet forum and using it repeatedly as a synonym for "customer" or "passenger", particularly when addressing an audience comprised mainly of those very people. I doubt very much you would use it when announcing the boarding of a flight, or when welcoming passengers aboard a flight, so there seems little justification in using it as often as you do on an anonymous internet forum. The ease and frequency with which you use it does seem to indicate a certain lack of awareness. "Trolley dolly" is, similarly, a humorous and widely-used term to refer to cabin crew but I'm sure it would soon become tiresome if it were used every time a contributor to these forums wished to talk about the airline employees who take care of us inflight. I do not think that would show the level of respect that cabin crew expect and deserve.

I am certainly not someone who would ever use the phrase "I pay your wages" - in fact, the expression makes me cringe - but showing a little more respect to the people you are trained and paid to take care of might be a good idea. It may make some people - those who talk through the safety demos, use their Blackberries throughout the long taxi to the runway and question every instruction given pre-flight - consider your otherwise sensible words more carefully.

But this is drifting from the topic of the thread, and really not worth dragging out.

[lowcostdolly]

Rusland I did apologise for the offence I caused you (and maybe others ?) and the Moderator has explained the origins of this phrase which I was/am just using as a term of reference. Not enough? Clearly not so as of now I will refrain from using this term

Point taken on the flip side......."cart tart" is something I have just been labelled as by F3G. I've not risen to this because he/she probably means it humourously....hopefully! If not then I rest my case on the origins of this thread which was well intentioned.

Fonejacker I know what you mean!!! I started what I thought was the most boring thread in the world when I had a bad day before and got tetchy due to being constantly questioned by the pax. Even "cart tarts" are human with feelings as i'm sure you know. The reaction here I didn't anticipate. Top entertainment? Wasn't my intention at all but a GSOH from all goes a long way sometimes.

shack 37.....I too flame my xmas pud with the same brandy you use that despite the post you quoted yes I can buy it on board in the name of ancillary revenue from my employer on certain routes . Works a treat doesn't it and my kids love it! Not so sure the pax would at 37,000 feet but what do I know??? I'm just the CC with fire training.

LCD signing off from this thread now....Going on my hols

[Final 3 Greens]

Lowcost dolly

Point taken on the flip side......."cart tart" is something I have just been labelled as by F3G.

Yes, in jest.

I refer to cabin crew as cabin crew (abbreviation CC), not flight attendants, trolley dolleys, hosties, plate layers, cart tarts etc....

I know that cabin crew are trained and many have type ratings and respect this. I have seen type rating exams for CC and am aware that some airlines test the CC during the briefing.

if you post on the SLF forum (we appreciate the title is tongue in cheek) and make multiple mentions of SLF in what was, frankly, a bit of a rant, then please don't be surprised to receive some incoming.

You'll also get some praise from others.

Enjoy your holiday.

[rgbrock1]

@final 3 greens:

I'm not sure ALL iPods, when turned on, would interfere with an aircraft's systems.
An iPod touch, perhaps. (WiFi enabled). An iPod Nano, doubtful. Hard drive-based iPods? In all likelihood, not at all.

[Final 3 Greens]

rgbrock1

I'm not sure either and the studies are inconclusive.

if you wish to be pedantic, the reason an iPod must be off for t/off and landing is that the regulatory authority says so, because it may interfere....

Now there may be a regulatory authorty out there that does not take this view, but it does not regulate the airlines I use.

The pragmatic approach is that it may interfere, so keep it switched off when directed and I support that.

[rgbrock1]

@F3G:

The regulatory agencies mandate that iPods, cell phones and laptops be turned off
during take-off and landing, be done so not because they interfere with an aircraft's systems but because in the case of the first two, the user may not hear CC instructions in case of an emergency. In the latter case ie, laptop use, also because of distraction but also because it MAY interfere with aircraft systems especially communications.
However, the jury is still out in the interference case.

[Final 3 Greens]

From the UK CAA Portable Electronic Devices | Information for Passengers | CAA

My emboldening. PLease will you provide a reference to corrobaborate your statement?

General Policy: Use of non-Transmitting PEDs

Whilst the use of all PEDs is prohibited during the taxi, take-off and landing phases of flight, (when the passenger seat belt sign is on), use of PEDs that only produce spurious emissions are often permitted during the cruise phase of flight. However, the aircraft crew may require PED use to be suspended at any time, and such a request must be obeyed. Such a case might be if the crew suspects that the PED use is the cause of interference with aircraft systems.

Examples of PEDs that might be permitted to be used during the cruise phase of flight includes:

* laptop computers, PDAs and MP3 players (as long as they do not include wireless transmitting functions), and
* electronic games, DVD players, CD players, cassette players, video or "still" cameras and calculators.

The use of some mobile phones or PDAs is also permitted by some airlines as long as they are used in the "flight safe" mode only, and this mode is enabled before the PED is turned off before the start of the flight, so that it is already within the “flight safe” mode when it is turned back on in the permitted phase of flight.

The restriction on the use of PEDs applies to devices carried onboard by the passenger or provided to the passenger by the crew. It does not apply to time measuring equipment (watches etc) or implanted medical devices (pacemakers etc). Any medical devices that include a monitoring feature that includes a transmitting function to a medical centre should have this transmitting feature switched off during the flight – see general policy on use of transmitting PEDs.

[Hunter58]

I cannot understand why 'SLF' as a term would have any derogatory sense at all. Sound more like a compliment to me!



F3G, regarding no have your child on the lap (unsecured) for T/O or landing and comparing that to Eurostar.

There is s slight difference. Eurostar will use a vast number of miles to slow down, your average airplane will make iot within ONE. Your child is not going to be in your lap anymore, trust me.

I have been in one take-off reject at 80 kts, and that was already brutal.

[Final 3 Greens]

Hunter 58

There is s slight difference. Eurostar will use a vast number of miles to slow down,

Not necessarily. In the case of a train derailment, unsecured bodies will fly like bullets. Even if one disregards Eurostar a local regional train derailing at 80mph is still potentially catastrophic.

Sadly, the UK has plenty of evidence of this from the past 20 years.

To be clear, I was only illustrating why lowcostdolly's comparison with ground travel (car) could be countered by someone 'if its so dangerous why don't trains have seat belts?'

My conclusion was that trains should have seat belts, not that infants should be unsecured.

FYI, I have rejected a take off from 55 knots in a light aircraft on a short runway. Not in the same leagure of brutality as a jet at 80knots, but still a sobering experience.

[Ancient Mariner]

Duty free alcohol cannot even sustain a fire, let alone "start" one. It isn't strong enough. Alcohol is NOT flammable unless it is 100deg proof or over, that being more or less the definition of "proof". Duty free/airport sales is never over 75-80%.

Wrong on both accounts. Standard Whisky, Cognac, Vodka et all are in the region of 80 proof, or 40% and burns fine without being heated. You will find 50% Vodka at many duty free outlets and 60% is not uncommon. Stroh rum is one.
From their home page:

STROH Original is produced in 3 strengths - 40, 60 and 80% ABV.

As for FA's being "Highly Trained Professionals" as safety is concerned.
Per

[Hunter58]

F3G

the derailment would probably more be like a crash for the aircraft. Hard braking is an 'almost' everyday action, epecially after a 'soft' landing. I think the braking events are significanly more frequent.

I understood you did not want to promote the non-use of restraint systems.

[Ancient Observer]

SLF

SLF as a term may, or may not be "insulting". I believe that it is. Someone else may disagree. That's fine.

However, the use of the phrase/term is indicative of a sector that has little idea of the modern realities of customer service.

The (ex) civil servants that still inhabit big airline and other national carriers need to remove the various cultural bricks in the wall that relate back to their "old" days.

Each and every use of the term "Self loading freight" by someone in Aviation just shows how far Aviation has yet to move to truly serve its customers. Customers are the only reason nowadays for anyone in Aviation to have a job...........the Govt might save BoS, but it won't save either big airline or any other carrier.

[sea oxen]

Oh dear, thread drift everywhere here. Let's start:

EtOH is flammable, but when it's hydrous, it's in a nice sort of way, you know, when magicians set a handkerchief on fire and pass it through their hands. I imagine that in any event serious enough to spill the bins, drop the heavy bottles causing them to spray their contents only to be ignited by fires emanating from the wing box, it'd be the fuel tanks which would perturb me more.

Having survived two bottles of 80% Stroh rum in my lifetime, I'd be more scared of the passenger carrying it than any conflagration resulting from their spillage.

The expression 'SLF' is, in my opinion, not derogatory. If I am daft enough to again buy shares in an airline, these passengers - sweet little children with their doe-eyed parents - are units. My objective is to obtain as much profit from each unit as possible. The strategy is left to the management. I entrust them to decide how these units are treated. If the units are happy, they might return. If it costs more to make these units happy than to acquire new units - well, you see where I'm leading.

When you hop on a flight, have a look around you. How many of those other passengers could you like? And of those you couldn't - those incapable of any form of manners beyond grunting and asking for another Stella - how many would you like to greet, serve and generally be nice to in one day?

It is only reasonable that people who do need to tend to the people who can afford to fly - that is, everybody - might seek some solace in using a catchall expression to describe their payload. I am proud to be self-loading freight, and I hope that the sandwich chuckers and guys with big watches are in accord with that.

MP3/4 players before/after cruise: You don't allow me to smoke, so I'm sure you'll survive without my listening to your appalling taste in music for a bit. The crew will provide you with a colouring-in book if required, and can help you with it, too.

SO

[Final 3 Greens]

the derailment would probably more be like a crash for the aircraft. Hard braking is an 'almost' everyday action, epecially after a 'soft' landing. I think the braking events are significanly more frequent.

Agreed. Just for info, when I used to commute to London on the train, it was by no means unknown for firm braking to cause standing pax to slip or even fall, but I do agree that firm braking is not unusual on aircraft and do understand the concept of minimising runway occupancy.

But in the mind of an infrequent passenger who regards an aircraft as a totally safe mode of transport, I think one might still get some pushback from an argumentative person.

For example, I sat next to one individual who undid his belt when the aircraft was taxiing for take off (how stupid can you get?) and was only persuaded to refasten it when I pressed the call bell. No way was I going to have a heavy unsecured object next to me.

His reasoning was that he had taken 10 flights and take off was always smooth

Where I disagree with lowcostdolly is in trying to make a generalization about someting that does not require it.

I think one is much safer in saying 'this is the law for aircraft, please obey it.)

Once again, just my opinion.

[Hunter58]

Ancient Observer

therefore you do regard the therm 'freight' as inferior to 'passenger'? You seem biased.

Payload is payload, and whether or not you call the load device a seat or a pallet, it is still there to ensure the safe transportaion of the payload. Added bonus of what is referred to as passenger is that contrary to freight they usually are able to load and offload themselves.

The airlines are offering a transportation service between two points on the planet. That is all. The rest is 'product enhancement'.

The most agressive and quite sucessful air carrier of the time is called Ryanair, you may have heard of them. They definitely do not have a reputation for excellent passenger handling skills.

[HighFlyingSpanner]

I pay for someone to re-fill my coffee cup, not lecture me on my so-called "safety".

Why should I sit down if I need a pee? Half the time aircrew simply forget to turn off the seatbelt signs.

Seems cabin crew have grown too big for their boots.

[jetset lady]

With an attitude like that HFS, you may just find that your coffee re-fill misses your cup...

With passengers like you, who needs external hazards?

[Virginia]

HighFlyingSpanner, you are the one too big for your boots. It is CAA law that cabin crew are onboard and you must follow their lawful commands. Why is it that so many pax are so self entitled that they cannot follow instructions from the 'flying waiter' they percieve as being below them in social standing.

[profot]

Can you imagine sitting next to HFS

Nightmare