Panic Attack Man Tries To Storm Cockpit
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FarFarAway
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etrang, i'm struggling to get your point but i'll see it and raise you this point:
Do you think that [insert country here] Aviation Authority would allow airlines to sell/serve alcohol on board if they thought it would endanger the safety of pax, crew and a/c? You do know that the Aviation Authority is the "GOD" of Aviation, and what they say goes?
Take the CAA for example.
(my emphasis)
I am yet to hear of any Aviation Authority anywhere in the world who does not put safety first, therefore does not impose safety as a primary concern to any airline they regulate.
Indeed they are not. Call them a "perk" if you must. It sort of comes with the "contract" (ticket). It's not written, but it's an expectation. I too, when i travel as pax, have an alcoholic beverage when i'm off on my holidays. I expect it to be there should i fancy one.
But then again we could go on and on and on re this subject.
Maybe at this point we should agree to disagree.
Do you think that [insert country here] Aviation Authority would allow airlines to sell/serve alcohol on board if they thought it would endanger the safety of pax, crew and a/c? You do know that the Aviation Authority is the "GOD" of Aviation, and what they say goes?
Take the CAA for example.
The CAA is the UK's specialist aviation regulator. Through its skills and expertise it is recognised as a world leader in its field. Its specific responsibilities include:
- Air Safety
- Economic Regulation
- Airspace Regulation
- Consumer Protection
- Environmental Research & Consultancy
I am yet to hear of any Aviation Authority anywhere in the world who does not put safety first, therefore does not impose safety as a primary concern to any airline they regulate.
But alcohol or mobile phones are not requirements for flight.
But then again we could go on and on and on re this subject.
Maybe at this point we should agree to disagree.
As Tight Slot said the only 100% safe flight is the one that never leaves the ground. So every flight involves compromises between safety and practicalities such as getting where you want to go. The point about regulators is a good one though. It is mainly the existance and enforcement of regulations which make flying safe - not airline managements or crew. Flying is very safe in the UK for example but much less so in, for example, Africa. No one ever wants to have a crash but people will often cut corners if they can.
However, you seem to missunderstand my point. I am NOT saying that flights are unsafe. I am saying that airlines' constantly repeated claims that they only care about safety and that they will do everything to ensure passenger safety are economical with the truth to say the least.
Let me give you some more examples;
Rear facing seats: In the event of a crash sitting in a rear facing seat is safer - military transport aircraft have rear facing seats for this reason. But commercial airlines do not - taking off backwards can feel uncomfortable and airlines worry about the loss of passengers and thus revenue if they turn their seats around.
Four point seat belts: A four point or three point seat belt provides better protection than the two point lap belt. Pilots and crew get 4 point belts. Passengers get the less safe two point belts because it would cost the airlines money to upgrade their seats.
Yes regulators accept the current situation. I am not saying flying is unsafe - its clearly a very safe form of travel. I'm saying that airlines could make it more safe, and that they would do so even without regulators telling them to IF safety was really they only thing they cared about.
However, you seem to missunderstand my point. I am NOT saying that flights are unsafe. I am saying that airlines' constantly repeated claims that they only care about safety and that they will do everything to ensure passenger safety are economical with the truth to say the least.
Let me give you some more examples;
Rear facing seats: In the event of a crash sitting in a rear facing seat is safer - military transport aircraft have rear facing seats for this reason. But commercial airlines do not - taking off backwards can feel uncomfortable and airlines worry about the loss of passengers and thus revenue if they turn their seats around.
Four point seat belts: A four point or three point seat belt provides better protection than the two point lap belt. Pilots and crew get 4 point belts. Passengers get the less safe two point belts because it would cost the airlines money to upgrade their seats.
Yes regulators accept the current situation. I am not saying flying is unsafe - its clearly a very safe form of travel. I'm saying that airlines could make it more safe, and that they would do so even without regulators telling them to IF safety was really they only thing they cared about.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etrang I'm going to have to add my two cents here as senior crew for a certain loco airline.
I don't know of any airline who's mantra is "safety if the only thing we care about" although I could stand corrected on this. However in the UK at least it is the number one priority for all carriers and therein lies the difference in your perceptions and reality.
My lot also care passionatly about on time performance as it costs money if we are late. However I can confidently say there is no and I repeat no pilot who would accept an aircraft for a flight if he had concerns re a technical issue. We would stay on the ground until it is sorted so safety takes priority over our on time performance.
Profit per seat is right up there for any airline nowadays not just the loco's. As crew we are constantly bombarded by various sales incentives from management and many of them involve alcohol. Crew also earn a lot of commision from the sale of alcohol.
If the Friday night Ibiza appears on our roster we know the spend per head and therefore the company's profit per seat is likely to be high as this flight has a particular pax profile.
However if any problems kick off safety takes priority over this. If we have problems on boarding the offenders get off so the company profit per seat is then tranferred elsewhere in the interests of flight safety. If we have problems during flight we stop selling alcohol (which is one of a number of measures at our disposal) so again safety takes priority. I'm sure ATS and Tightslot would concur that is the approach of all UK airlines. I'm referring to the UK as I don't have experience outside of this.
I hope that reassures you. Safety is and always will be the number one priority when flying end of
I don't know of any airline who's mantra is "safety if the only thing we care about" although I could stand corrected on this. However in the UK at least it is the number one priority for all carriers and therein lies the difference in your perceptions and reality.
My lot also care passionatly about on time performance as it costs money if we are late. However I can confidently say there is no and I repeat no pilot who would accept an aircraft for a flight if he had concerns re a technical issue. We would stay on the ground until it is sorted so safety takes priority over our on time performance.
Profit per seat is right up there for any airline nowadays not just the loco's. As crew we are constantly bombarded by various sales incentives from management and many of them involve alcohol. Crew also earn a lot of commision from the sale of alcohol.
If the Friday night Ibiza appears on our roster we know the spend per head and therefore the company's profit per seat is likely to be high as this flight has a particular pax profile.
However if any problems kick off safety takes priority over this. If we have problems on boarding the offenders get off so the company profit per seat is then tranferred elsewhere in the interests of flight safety. If we have problems during flight we stop selling alcohol (which is one of a number of measures at our disposal) so again safety takes priority. I'm sure ATS and Tightslot would concur that is the approach of all UK airlines. I'm referring to the UK as I don't have experience outside of this.
I hope that reassures you. Safety is and always will be the number one priority when flying end of
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm...
Rear facing seats: In the event of a crash sitting in a rear facing seat is safer - military transport aircraft have rear facing seats for this reason. But commercial airlines do not - taking off backwards can feel uncomfortable and airlines worry about the loss of passengers and thus revenue if they turn their seats around.
The 707's and HS748's had forward facing seats. The Caribous and Hercs all had sideways facing seats. All the above had lap belts.
DIVOSH!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G you have raised a good point re the smoke hoods. Indeed we already have individual oxygen masks and individual life jackets so why not have individual smoke hoods as well? I can't answer that but can take a guess.
etrang also raises very relevant points re 4 point harnesses and rear facing seats. Indeed I sit on and am strapped into exactly that for take off/landing. I feel a lot safer than the SLF should an incident occur at this stage of flight because of this.
However if I travel on a train/coach in which I get the choice I will always travel in a forward facing seat because it is more comfortable for me personally. I know basic crash dynamics so should know better.
Apparently there have been studies done on plane pax which demonstrate they feel the same. I have never seen any of them so cannot offer informed comment. All I know is most pax prefer to travel forward facing regardless of anything else.
What I do know through experience is that most (not all) pax put their comfort above safety. Some pax do not see the importance of fastening their lap belt even in severe turbulence......some will disregard everything and get up and walk around the cabin (usually to go to the loo). What advantage does the 4 point harness have to them here? They will walk pass the CC who are strapped into their 4 point harness and still disregard the CC instructions......
A lot of pax (not all) pay scant regard to the safety brief which instructs them on how to use the masks and life jackets amoung other things. Why would they pay more regard to the instructions on how to use the smoke hoods??
Smoke hoods are provided to all crew to fight a fire and we are trained how to do this and use them. Pax are not and niether would most of them listen to a routine brief on this anyway because after all a fire on their flight would never happen would it??
Fighting fires aside, yes the O2 generated by these hoods would give pax at least 15 minutes of breathable air but then we have to stow them.
On every flight I do I have pax who will throw their handluggage on top of crew/pax emergency equiptment despite large signs saying no stowage. They will open bins to do this. Even when I explain when doing this why I am moving their baggage a few rows down I get grief for doing this.
Smoke hoods would have to be stowed somewhere and that would probably be in the overhead bins so your hand luggage would then become hold baggage because space would be reduced and CAA regs state emergency equiptment must be unobstructed.
The CAA balance what is essential for flight safety against what the pax expect and want. What is desirable is another matter and a matter for infinete debate.
You are correct re "hull losses being bad for business". There are also a lot of potential safety incidents in between that catastrophic event that are risk managed.
Yes profit is something that every airline cares about including my own. I had hoped that my previous post demonstrated how safety takes priority over this. As it hasn't then to pax who doubt this I would say this:
All flight and cabin crew are human with families like yourselves. Do you really think we would fly or operate on a plane where profit would take priority over safety??
etrang also raises very relevant points re 4 point harnesses and rear facing seats. Indeed I sit on and am strapped into exactly that for take off/landing. I feel a lot safer than the SLF should an incident occur at this stage of flight because of this.
However if I travel on a train/coach in which I get the choice I will always travel in a forward facing seat because it is more comfortable for me personally. I know basic crash dynamics so should know better.
Apparently there have been studies done on plane pax which demonstrate they feel the same. I have never seen any of them so cannot offer informed comment. All I know is most pax prefer to travel forward facing regardless of anything else.
What I do know through experience is that most (not all) pax put their comfort above safety. Some pax do not see the importance of fastening their lap belt even in severe turbulence......some will disregard everything and get up and walk around the cabin (usually to go to the loo). What advantage does the 4 point harness have to them here? They will walk pass the CC who are strapped into their 4 point harness and still disregard the CC instructions......
A lot of pax (not all) pay scant regard to the safety brief which instructs them on how to use the masks and life jackets amoung other things. Why would they pay more regard to the instructions on how to use the smoke hoods??
Smoke hoods are provided to all crew to fight a fire and we are trained how to do this and use them. Pax are not and niether would most of them listen to a routine brief on this anyway because after all a fire on their flight would never happen would it??
Fighting fires aside, yes the O2 generated by these hoods would give pax at least 15 minutes of breathable air but then we have to stow them.
On every flight I do I have pax who will throw their handluggage on top of crew/pax emergency equiptment despite large signs saying no stowage. They will open bins to do this. Even when I explain when doing this why I am moving their baggage a few rows down I get grief for doing this.
Smoke hoods would have to be stowed somewhere and that would probably be in the overhead bins so your hand luggage would then become hold baggage because space would be reduced and CAA regs state emergency equiptment must be unobstructed.
The CAA balance what is essential for flight safety against what the pax expect and want. What is desirable is another matter and a matter for infinete debate.
You are correct re "hull losses being bad for business". There are also a lot of potential safety incidents in between that catastrophic event that are risk managed.
Yes profit is something that every airline cares about including my own. I had hoped that my previous post demonstrated how safety takes priority over this. As it hasn't then to pax who doubt this I would say this:
All flight and cabin crew are human with families like yourselves. Do you really think we would fly or operate on a plane where profit would take priority over safety??
Last edited by lowcostdolly; 30th Jan 2010 at 15:37. Reason: spelling/grammar errors and additional info
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Durham/UK
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoke hoods would have to be stowed somewhere and that would probably be in the overhead bins so your hand luggage would then become hold baggage because space would be reduced and CAA regs state emergency equiptment must be unobstructed.
Unfortunately, due to many airlines charging for checking in luggage, this problem is exacerbated.
I appreciate that this is a difficult one and there are valid points from all sides, but I believe the balance between the needs of an airline to generate revenue without compromising safety is about right.
Would making the flight 'dry' or not selling duty free items in glass bottles improve safety? (Although I fail to comprehend why plastic bottles are not used for all duty free liquid sales - even if only from a weight perspective).
I believe one of the biggest safety features of an aircraft are the cabin crew themselves. We as pax usually only see CC carrrying out their 'normal' duties, however, I am confident that should an emergency situation arise, they will have had the appropriate training to deal with the situation whether it be an intoxicated or irate pax, a medical emergency or an evacuation.
Sure, there are additional features that could potentially improve on board safety, however, that would apply to most things we do or use in our lives today.
Mandatory use of seat belts on trains and coaches are just one example.
Whether additional safety features are 'reasonably practicable' to implement i.e. the risk that has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk, is another matter.
Last edited by passy777; 31st Jan 2010 at 09:29. Reason: Missed word
[QUOTE]Safety is and always will be the number one priority when flying end of /QUOTE]
Then perhaps you could address the specific issues of why airlines don't provide pax with; four point seat belts, rear-facing seats, smoke hoods, etc. I would be very interested in you answer.
Then perhaps you could address the specific issues of why airlines don't provide pax with; four point seat belts, rear-facing seats, smoke hoods, etc. I would be very interested in you answer.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Inside
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then perhaps you could address the specific issues of why airlines don't provide pax with; four point seat belts, rear-facing seats, smoke hoods, etc.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Durham/UK
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it fails the cost/benefit analysis that any safety measure considered goes through.
Thankfully, catastrophic mid air events are extremely rare, but the reality is that when such events occur, rear facing seats, smoke hoods and four point seat belts would be rendered ineffective with the outcome sadly predictable.
Many survivable incidents result in the seating becoming dislodged from their anchoring points which results in a 'concertina' effect resulting in serious body trauma - again, it could be argued that four point seat belts would not increase the survivability of pax in such circumstances.
As One Outsider correctly stated, it is all down to cost/benefit analysis based on risk assessments (likelihood X severity of an incident) and other relevant factors likely based on previous incidents.
In an ideal world, it would be better to have footbridges over every road rather than have to cross at street level with all the risks that entails. All roads should be dual carriageways in the interest of improved vehicle segregation, but the reality is that costs are a deciding factor and road improvements are usually only implemented where there is an unacceptable level of risk and danger based on previous accidents.
To implement the above, it would require citizens to pay a hefty price on their taxes - likewise the airline industry would need to increase the fares substantially to introduce measures that may or may not increase the safety of a particular aircraft.
Please don't assume I am trivialising the loss of even one life, but I believe that the airlines have reduced their risks of injury/death to an acceptable level. Statistics based on the number of people flying annually and the numbers of injuries/deaths per mile travelled will likely confirm that assertion.
100% risk free is an unrealistic goal, but as alluded to earlier in this thread, to achieve anything near that, the aircraft would need to remain on the ground.
I am confident that the current combination of very well trained cabin crew, on board safety measures and legislation - not forgetting the skills and expertise on the flight deck and all of their strict requirements that are policed by respective Aviation Authorities have reduced the risks of flying to an acceptable level.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etrang OMG now I understand why Tightslot threw in the towel 
My post I feel answers your questions and so does Passey777 but to spell it out again for you:
The majority of pax don't want to fly with 4 point harnesses and rear facing seats and that's cost/benefit analysis aside. In fact a lot of them won't fasten a lap belt when instructed to do so and many pay little attention to the safety brief.
For every bit of equitment a pax might have to use for themselves on board that is the seatbelts, oxgen masks and lifejackets (all of which you are given by the way despite the cost) by law you have to be briefed on before take off. Likewise the exits. If we issued smoke hoods the same would apply.
Everyday I see pax talk, read and sleep their way through the demo on what we do now. Why would they give any more attention to the use of a smokehood?
Smoke hoods are issued to crew because it is our role to fight fires on board not the pax. The majority can be put out within a few minutes so there is no need for the pax to have these for breathing purposes. If there is uncontrolled smoke in the cabin due to an underfloor fire you can rest assured the flight crew will be descending PDQ and have procedures for venting the cabin.
My advice to you as clearly you have a really low opinion of the aviation industry and the professional's who work within it is don't fly if you have so little confidence in us.
I'm going to follow Tightslot and ATS on this one and give you the last word. In the meantime I'm going to watch the following to see how I should be doing my safety demo according to your viewpoint. I bet I would get more attention from the SLF
www.youtube.com New United Airlines safety demonstration. The Pam Ann safety demonstration is also good for a laugh but doesn't quite get over that profit apparently takes priority over safety so clearly
Enjoy!!
My post I feel answers your questions and so does Passey777 but to spell it out again for you:
The majority of pax don't want to fly with 4 point harnesses and rear facing seats and that's cost/benefit analysis aside. In fact a lot of them won't fasten a lap belt when instructed to do so and many pay little attention to the safety brief.
For every bit of equitment a pax might have to use for themselves on board that is the seatbelts, oxgen masks and lifejackets (all of which you are given by the way despite the cost) by law you have to be briefed on before take off. Likewise the exits. If we issued smoke hoods the same would apply.
Everyday I see pax talk, read and sleep their way through the demo on what we do now. Why would they give any more attention to the use of a smokehood?
Smoke hoods are issued to crew because it is our role to fight fires on board not the pax. The majority can be put out within a few minutes so there is no need for the pax to have these for breathing purposes. If there is uncontrolled smoke in the cabin due to an underfloor fire you can rest assured the flight crew will be descending PDQ and have procedures for venting the cabin.
My advice to you as clearly you have a really low opinion of the aviation industry and the professional's who work within it is don't fly if you have so little confidence in us.
I'm going to follow Tightslot and ATS on this one and give you the last word. In the meantime I'm going to watch the following to see how I should be doing my safety demo according to your viewpoint. I bet I would get more attention from the SLF
www.youtube.com New United Airlines safety demonstration. The Pam Ann safety demonstration is also good for a laugh but doesn't quite get over that profit apparently takes priority over safety so clearly
Enjoy!!
Last edited by lowcostdolly; 31st Jan 2010 at 13:14. Reason: typing error
lowcostdolly, unfortunately you still fail to understand my point. Let me try again.
Passey777 did answer the question and clearly did understand the issues.
That is the point - Airlines do cost/benefit analysis for every action or inaction. They could make flying safer but choose not to because they consider it too expensive.
You claim that pax don't want 4 point harness, etc. Whether or not that's true, what pax want or don't want should not be the deciding factor when it comes to safety.
Your reply seems rather emotional, perhaps because think that i have a "low opinion of the aviation industry and the professional's who work within it". That is not true at all. The aviation industry has managed to make flying a very safe form of travel indeed and should be congratulated for it.
Passey777 did answer the question and clearly did understand the issues.
Because it fails the cost/benefit analysis that any safety measure considered goes through.
Absolutely!
Absolutely!
You claim that pax don't want 4 point harness, etc. Whether or not that's true, what pax want or don't want should not be the deciding factor when it comes to safety.
Your reply seems rather emotional, perhaps because think that i have a "low opinion of the aviation industry and the professional's who work within it". That is not true at all. The aviation industry has managed to make flying a very safe form of travel indeed and should be congratulated for it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps, for the avoidance of doubt, we should differentiate between cabin crew and airline management.
I have no doubt that a well trained and motivated CC member has a primary focus on safety, I saw Austrian crew deal with a suspected fire on board last year and they were very professional. So let's make it clear that cabin crew are not the target of any tough words in this thread (I think I can say that from what I have read.)
Equally, I have no doubt that airline management uses (sophisticated) cost benefit techniques to decide what is safe enough in a civilian environment, within the oversight of the regulatory authorities.
There will always be a trade off in calculating acceptable safety, as I private pilot of single engined aircraft, I am more aware than most people of that.
The point the ealier poster was making is that regular pax understand this and don't like the 'safety is our priority' spin.
Likewise, the industry is it's own worst enemy for mollycoddling pax and letting them walk around with the belt sign on, letting them get on to aircraft when drunk (I do know more get drunk in the air, but drunks do board, I have seen them.)
The following extract is from from the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, 14th report, 14 July 1999......
[QUOTE]85. Most of the fatalities during the Manchester disaster were the result of inhaling lethal quantities of carbon monoxide or hydrogen cyanide. Moreover, the evacuation of the aircraft was severely impeded by passengers collapsing unconscious from the effects of smoke.
[224] As a result the Air Accident Investigation Branch recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should develop a specification for a smokehood that could be worn by passengers to protect them from smoke and fumes, and thus give them longer to evacuate an aircraft, and to conduct research into the use of smokehoods. The Authority's specification was rigorous, requiring that the smokehood should provide protection against a variety of toxic and suffocating environments, be suitable for use during both a ground fire and an in-flight fire, when it would have to be used for longer periods, be easy to put on, not hamper vision, and allow the wearer to hear instructions.
[225] As a result, it has been very difficult to manufacture a product to meet these requirements.
86. The Civil Aviation Authority is particularly concerned about the difficulty of donning a smokehood, the time it would take, and the time taken to evacuate the aircraft afterwards.
[226] Quite apart from the delay in finding and then putting on the smokehood, it is possible that the hood would give a false sense of security, leading to passengers evacuating more slowly. Conversely, as the Transport Committee said in 1991, "it is no use passengers being able to evacuate an aircraft in 60 seconds if, in toxic smoke and without a smokehood, they collapse unconscious in half that time".
[227] We recognise that there are sensible arguments that can be advanced against the provision of smokehoods, and we note the observation made by British Airways, that "the industry belief is that they would be more hazardous than helpful".
[228] Virgin Atlantic said that "the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration have written reports on the use of smokehoods and they said basically that they would cause more problems in evacuation if people were installing smokehoods".
[229] Nevertheless, we thought it very telling that several of our witnesses, including the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, told us that they carried smokehoods whenever they travelled. (my italics)
[230] We recommend that the Safety Regulation Group should again conduct research into smokehoods, and the benefit which they might bring to evacuations of aircraft during fires. They should publish the results of their research within a limited timescale, and, unless there are compelling safety reasons why they should not be carried, the Safety Regulation Group should seek to make the provision of smokehoods on commercial aircraft a mandatory requirement.[/QUOTE
I have no doubt that a well trained and motivated CC member has a primary focus on safety, I saw Austrian crew deal with a suspected fire on board last year and they were very professional. So let's make it clear that cabin crew are not the target of any tough words in this thread (I think I can say that from what I have read.)
Equally, I have no doubt that airline management uses (sophisticated) cost benefit techniques to decide what is safe enough in a civilian environment, within the oversight of the regulatory authorities.
There will always be a trade off in calculating acceptable safety, as I private pilot of single engined aircraft, I am more aware than most people of that.
The point the ealier poster was making is that regular pax understand this and don't like the 'safety is our priority' spin.
Likewise, the industry is it's own worst enemy for mollycoddling pax and letting them walk around with the belt sign on, letting them get on to aircraft when drunk (I do know more get drunk in the air, but drunks do board, I have seen them.)
The following extract is from from the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, 14th report, 14 July 1999......
[QUOTE]85. Most of the fatalities during the Manchester disaster were the result of inhaling lethal quantities of carbon monoxide or hydrogen cyanide. Moreover, the evacuation of the aircraft was severely impeded by passengers collapsing unconscious from the effects of smoke.
[224] As a result the Air Accident Investigation Branch recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should develop a specification for a smokehood that could be worn by passengers to protect them from smoke and fumes, and thus give them longer to evacuate an aircraft, and to conduct research into the use of smokehoods. The Authority's specification was rigorous, requiring that the smokehood should provide protection against a variety of toxic and suffocating environments, be suitable for use during both a ground fire and an in-flight fire, when it would have to be used for longer periods, be easy to put on, not hamper vision, and allow the wearer to hear instructions.
[225] As a result, it has been very difficult to manufacture a product to meet these requirements.
86. The Civil Aviation Authority is particularly concerned about the difficulty of donning a smokehood, the time it would take, and the time taken to evacuate the aircraft afterwards.
[226] Quite apart from the delay in finding and then putting on the smokehood, it is possible that the hood would give a false sense of security, leading to passengers evacuating more slowly. Conversely, as the Transport Committee said in 1991, "it is no use passengers being able to evacuate an aircraft in 60 seconds if, in toxic smoke and without a smokehood, they collapse unconscious in half that time".
[227] We recognise that there are sensible arguments that can be advanced against the provision of smokehoods, and we note the observation made by British Airways, that "the industry belief is that they would be more hazardous than helpful".
[228] Virgin Atlantic said that "the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration have written reports on the use of smokehoods and they said basically that they would cause more problems in evacuation if people were installing smokehoods".
[229] Nevertheless, we thought it very telling that several of our witnesses, including the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, told us that they carried smokehoods whenever they travelled. (my italics)
[230] We recommend that the Safety Regulation Group should again conduct research into smokehoods, and the benefit which they might bring to evacuations of aircraft during fires. They should publish the results of their research within a limited timescale, and, unless there are compelling safety reasons why they should not be carried, the Safety Regulation Group should seek to make the provision of smokehoods on commercial aircraft a mandatory requirement.[/QUOTE
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, 3 Greens. I knew the smoke hood idea had been binned by SRG and other long since. Good to have the facts.
In a similar vein, I have a family member who is a Firefighter, who has cautioned me about having excessive reliance on a fire extinguisher. The message was very clear ... don't pi55 around, STAY LOW, GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!
All these things are potentially good for TRAINED people. Lemmings and SLF may be less useful.
In a similar vein, I have a family member who is a Firefighter, who has cautioned me about having excessive reliance on a fire extinguisher. The message was very clear ... don't pi55 around, STAY LOW, GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!
All these things are potentially good for TRAINED people. Lemmings and SLF may be less useful.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I had the pleasure of watching a very grey cloud of smoke coming down the aisle of an A320 and it certainly gets your attention.
Really don't fancy a lungful of HCN, the same nasty stuff they used to dispose of crims convicted of capital charges in some of the states.
Really don't fancy a lungful of HCN, the same nasty stuff they used to dispose of crims convicted of capital charges in some of the states.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smokehoods for pax are not a viable idea because (in addition to the reasons already mentioned) given the sudden nature of such an emergency, they would be busy sitting there putting them on (and then dying anyway) instead of getting out of the aircraft quickly.
Think back to the Hudson river ditching last year. Should the crew have wasted valuable minutes getting pax to fit their lifejackets whilst still inside a sinking aeroplane rather than getting everyone out quickly?
Think back to the Hudson river ditching last year. Should the crew have wasted valuable minutes getting pax to fit their lifejackets whilst still inside a sinking aeroplane rather than getting everyone out quickly?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etrang
You seem to believe that any measure that improves (no matter how slightly) safety ought to be implemented (no matter how expensive) - forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you're criticising airlines for (in your mind) putting profit above safety.
But all safety decisions are ultimately subject to cost-benefit analysis (except for those taken by individuals, who are free to make their own irrational choices). Since resources are always finite, money spent on one safety measure is not available to be spent on another, and therefore corporate and governmental safety decisions are always based on such an analysis, as passy777 pointed out, in order to deliver best value for money - the only decision is where to draw the line (since the line must be drawn somewhere) - the British government somewhat arbitrarily sets the line at £2 million per expected life saved.
For aviation, minimum safety standards are set by numerous national and international bodies. They too bear in mind the cost implications of their safety decisions, which is why they don't mandate smoke hoods, rear-facing seats, four-point belts etc.
This has resulted in a transport system that is by most measures the safest on the planet, despite being involved in the inherently risky business of moving large numbers of people at high-speed and high altitude in thin-walled metal tubes.
As an illustration, let's suppose there's a new airline PerfectAir that will incorporate all possible safety features. As a result PerfectAir can guarantee to deliver you to your destination safely. I need to get to New York. I can take a standard flight from Heathrow (which statistically has a roughly 1 in 11 million chance of ending fatally) or fly PerfectAir from Stansted. Surprisingly, it's actually safer for me to travel from Heathrow, since Stansted would involve me in an extra 100 miles of road travel which has a 1 in 700,000 chance of killing me - actually somewhat less than that, since (like all British males) I consider myself to be an above average driver.
But all safety decisions are ultimately subject to cost-benefit analysis (except for those taken by individuals, who are free to make their own irrational choices). Since resources are always finite, money spent on one safety measure is not available to be spent on another, and therefore corporate and governmental safety decisions are always based on such an analysis, as passy777 pointed out, in order to deliver best value for money - the only decision is where to draw the line (since the line must be drawn somewhere) - the British government somewhat arbitrarily sets the line at £2 million per expected life saved.
For aviation, minimum safety standards are set by numerous national and international bodies. They too bear in mind the cost implications of their safety decisions, which is why they don't mandate smoke hoods, rear-facing seats, four-point belts etc.
This has resulted in a transport system that is by most measures the safest on the planet, despite being involved in the inherently risky business of moving large numbers of people at high-speed and high altitude in thin-walled metal tubes.
As an illustration, let's suppose there's a new airline PerfectAir that will incorporate all possible safety features. As a result PerfectAir can guarantee to deliver you to your destination safely. I need to get to New York. I can take a standard flight from Heathrow (which statistically has a roughly 1 in 11 million chance of ending fatally) or fly PerfectAir from Stansted. Surprisingly, it's actually safer for me to travel from Heathrow, since Stansted would involve me in an extra 100 miles of road travel which has a 1 in 700,000 chance of killing me - actually somewhat less than that, since (like all British males) I consider myself to be an above average driver.
Guest
Posts: n/a
eightyknots
You do not seem to be fixated on a single accident mode and unable to understand that fires also happen in the air (as did the incident I was involved in) and I can assure you that there was plenty of time to don masks as the aircraft abandoned the climb and started back to base.
Note the comment from the report "The Authority's specification was rigorous, requiring that the smokehood should provide protection against a variety of toxic and suffocating environments, be suitable for use during both a ground fire and an in-flight fire, when it would have to be used for longer periods, be easy to put on, not hamper vision, and allow the wearer to hear instructions."
They got that, even if you didn't.
To close the loop on this one, I made the comment that I would believe that safety was an airline's #1 priority if they supplied pax smokehoods and hold that to be true.
I don't believe it will happen soon (unless there is knee jerk legislative reaction to a fire related disaster) because the business case does not make sense.
So let's understand that flying is a trade off.
With regard to pax dying through putting the hoods on, the report considered that and quoted the transport committee "it is no use passengers being able to evacuate an aircraft in 60 seconds if, in toxic smoke and without a smokehood, they collapse unconscious in half that time".
You will also note that unconscious pax blocking the aisles as a major factor in the MAN incident.
Pax Vobiscum
You have not understood what etrang is saying.
Why don't you read it again.
You do not seem to be fixated on a single accident mode and unable to understand that fires also happen in the air (as did the incident I was involved in) and I can assure you that there was plenty of time to don masks as the aircraft abandoned the climb and started back to base.
Note the comment from the report "The Authority's specification was rigorous, requiring that the smokehood should provide protection against a variety of toxic and suffocating environments, be suitable for use during both a ground fire and an in-flight fire, when it would have to be used for longer periods, be easy to put on, not hamper vision, and allow the wearer to hear instructions."
They got that, even if you didn't.
To close the loop on this one, I made the comment that I would believe that safety was an airline's #1 priority if they supplied pax smokehoods and hold that to be true.
I don't believe it will happen soon (unless there is knee jerk legislative reaction to a fire related disaster) because the business case does not make sense.
So let's understand that flying is a trade off.
With regard to pax dying through putting the hoods on, the report considered that and quoted the transport committee "it is no use passengers being able to evacuate an aircraft in 60 seconds if, in toxic smoke and without a smokehood, they collapse unconscious in half that time".
You will also note that unconscious pax blocking the aisles as a major factor in the MAN incident.
Pax Vobiscum
You have not understood what etrang is saying.
Why don't you read it again.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, after all, is safety, apart from being a mantra used to excuse a multitude of abuses inflicted upon concepts of human rights which are in themselves abuses of common sense and intelligence?
The reasonable prophylactic precautions that can be taken to avoid an incident or accident where, coincidentally, loss or damage civil actions might arise.
Is it unsafe if I carry on board an aircraft my own personal smoke hood, a 100ml bottle of after shave and my two lucky flint stones?
The reasonable prophylactic precautions that can be taken to avoid an incident or accident where, coincidentally, loss or damage civil actions might arise.
Is it unsafe if I carry on board an aircraft my own personal smoke hood, a 100ml bottle of after shave and my two lucky flint stones?