What makes you feel safe?

[NorthernGoose]

Hi all,

I'm quite curious on everyones opinion as to what makes you feel safe on an aircraft. To make it more specific assume you are the passenger of a turbo prob aircraft larger then 20 seats. For me it after many years of travelling on wide bodies across the pond, when stepping onto a smaller turbo prop the cosmetics on the inside are what I feel adds the most comfort!

Some feel attractive flight attendents and great beverage service is a definite deal breaker.

Thoughts?

[Dream Land]

A clean aircraft, nice paint job and spotless interior, if they don't have the money for that, beware.

[Tinstaafl]

Don't know about that. I've seen a fair few aircraft that look fabulous but that was paid for at the expense of airworthy related items. Usually just before being sold but I've seen some shonky operator's do it as a matter of course to attract the "Oooh....shiny & clean so it must be OK" crowd.

Er....but of course no one here would be fooled by that, would they?

[ZFT]

Some feel attractive flight attendents and great beverage service is a definite deal breaker.

So you don't feel that safe flying across the pond then?

[Mr Optimistic]

That last bit where you walk out through the door. Love it.

[Nicholas49]

So it's how attractive the cabin crew are rather than their level of training (e.g. in conducting an evacuation) that makes you feel safe? Interesting logic!

In all seriousness, it's the answers to passengers' questions, kindly given by aviation professionals on this site, that makes me feel safe.

When on board, a reassuringly calm and collected introductory PA from the captain always helps.

[Wannabe Flyer]

Track record of the airline is about the most important criteria for me booking a flight. Clean interiors is obviously a desire to make the choice of an airline as is the inflight service. Experience has shown however a diligent operator will have all 3 on the ball.

Recent A 330 occurrences have made me try and pick carriers that are not flying this aircraft, but that is but a personal choice and not based on any hard data and would not superseded track record of carrier.

And before anyone says AF, their track record amongst all Major European carriers is amongst the worst, their service pathetic and the last time I flew them the interiors were shabby, but again was many years ago (on the interiors front that is).

[ExXB]

A couple of years back Mrs. ExXB and I were on the 'Sunshine Coast' north west of Vancouver. There was a float plane operator there that did local charter flights. On the day, if they had seats, you could sign up to 'come-along' for a circuit. I recall $100 each. We had a wonderful 1h 1/2 triangle journey delivering people to their cabin (inaccessible by road) on a lake on an island, and delivering some fisheries people to a site where they were counting fish (or something like that).

I was most impressed to learn that the aircraft, a Beaver, had been built the year I was born. While some would say that an accident was waiting to happen, I prefer to think that an aircraft that had made it that long, was just as likely to do another 50+ years. (Provided they can find the avgas, that is)

[Hotel Tango]

To reduce the odds I might elect to avoid carriers where maintenance practices or crew culture could be suspect. At the same time I'm realistic enough to believe that no carrier is infalible no matter how low their accident rate is, or how presentable the crew and the aircraft might be.

[Ancient Observer]

By and large, planes are safe on the ground, and safe in the air. It's the bit in between that can be dodgy. (Other than, of course, Aviation's most stupid phrase - "Controlled Flight into Terrain").

I feel safe on take off and landing by focussing on my breathing. It's what I do when i go to the dentist.

[Mr Optimistic]

Aside from my earlier flippancy, I now consider trying to avoid flights in darkness if possible. Nothing beats a good visible horizon !

[OFSO]

Learning that the first officer is a contributor to "Jet Blast".

[Herod]

Terra Firma; and the more firma, the less terror.

[NorthernGoose]

If I was to pose a sub question here being for the everyday passenger with little knowledge of safety records, maintenance, company culture etc what would make them feel safe on a commercial airliner. There is also something to be said for the feeling you get when you switch from a 350 seater wide body across the pacific to a 50 seater fokker 50 flying out to a remote location. In the litteral sense of things the average pilot could careless about what actually makes an aircraft safe but the cosmetically appealing sides of things that present a level of safety. (I understand others have different opinions and I'm merely posing the question playing devils advocate)

Cheers

[geeohgeegeeoh]

Its horses for courses.

I have been flown by tiny props up N.Z. Glaciers to land on snow. Grass runway. Never felt safer.

I have flown inter-island hops on a Hawaii jet. Never felt more terrified in my life (think the compression cycles on that airframe)

I even allowed a mate to take me aloft in a 1950s string-frame glider at Oakey, and again, no power, no para, felt as free as a bird.

The assumption 'bigger is safer' doesn't apply to me mentally: if the weather can make a jumbo toss around the sky like a hot-dog on a skillet, I feel considerably less happy than if its a 10 pax box with the wing-spar to step over: you expect to get a bumpy ride.

The safest I've ever felt, was on a Hercules flying to Tasmania during a pilots strike. The aircrew checked the wiring and conduits in the aircraft body THE ENTIRE FLIGHT. It does of course beg many questions: why dont they do this on civilian carriers? :-)

[A2QFI]

I think because all this stuff is accessible and visible in a Hercules! Regarding feeling unsafe I think I would unhappy in any version of the ATR, particularly in Winter!

[henry crun]

For flights over water I feel safest in a four jet engined aircraft, but I would feel much safer if there were four engines hanging below each wing.

[AirResearcher]

Here's a slightly different angle for you...

Very few passengers seem remotely aware (or even interested) of what goes on behind the scenes - so their judgement is very much based on appearances, and total faith in airlines, goverment regulators etc etc etc.

With crew (and other employee) fatigue becoming such a hot topic due to more demanding shift patterns, and rest facilities often becoming comprimised, does anyone feel that any changes are necessary?

And would the public take any notice if they knew that some airlines continually stress their crews out a lot more than others through company policies?

[Ancient Observer]

Mr Air,
you are in the slf - better known as customer - bit here. I agree that some rosters are tough on some people, some of the time, but you are going to have a very tough time convincing SLF that 900 flying hours per year is arduous. In Europe both those at the pointy end and those on commission are not going to fly more than 900 hours in a year.
The roster that will not be tough for some people some of the time has yet to be invented.

[AirResearcher]

Hi Ancient Observer

Thanks, yes... wanted to see what perceptions SLF have of this safety angle, particularly with flight time restrictions under review in the EU ..and it seems the 900 hours regulation is currently interpreted differently in some EU countries...