bear11

As much as you may hate it - these are your customers - regardless of whether they are paying £2 or £2000 for their seat in your aircraft.

Yes some may have had a few pints (or more), some may be louder than you would like but why not try some CRM (Cabin Resource Management?) and educate the b*("*&"£ a bit. Then their reactions may be a bit more relaxed due to the new found confidence in flying that you have instilled in them;)

I suspect there are a number of trolls and spotters here from the number of posts calling the pax "Idiots" and "Panicked retards" because I cannot believe anyone in aviation who aspires to being a professional would use those terms.

You must understand from your training that there are such things as white knuckle fliers who have no experience whatsoever of aviation apart from the sheer terror of forcing themselves, against their instincts, to sit in an aircraft in an attempt to get to a holiday destination.

To sneer at their obvious fears is unprofessional.

Furthermore, there are people here who assume a level of knowledge in the travelling public that is simply non existent.

Getoutofmy galley illustrates this perfectly:

Obviously they didn't, or if they did, they weighed the danger to themselves against what appeared to be the necessity of getting immediate assistance to aid a young lady who was apparently, according to their knowledge, about to die.

As for the "levels of training" in CC, again, how the **** are passengers supposed to know that you are trained to do anything other than serve drinks and food? Why should they? Why would they?

As I said in my first post, good CC have a natural AUTHORITY that is obvious to anyone who has seen it in action. It's obvious that the CC in this incident didn't have it, and probably don't even know what I'm talking about.

And the best examples of this natural authority I've seen (although I hate to say it) are the older CC from Qantas.

So is the concensus that we ( professional aircrew) should anticipate this issue and similar issues by mentioning it in our pre-Flight Annnouncement from the Flight Deck? If that is the case should we also include the possibilty of say, an Engine Surge / birdstrike on a wing leading edge / adjacent aircraft over the Atlantic and all the other frequent and infrequent, trivial and non-trivial events and occurrences which can cause alarm amongst passengers?

In truth the list is pretty much endless and the mandatory items in pre-flight announcements are long enough as it is ( in our Company). You do want to get airborne, don't you?

If we do get a significant event on takeoff which is likely to cause concern ( and believe you me an engine surge at night gets a lot of people concerned) we will make an announcement from the Flight Deck once circumstances allow, but that will not happen before the problem, major or minor, has been dealt with, and might even be as late as "in the cruise".

In the meantime running up the aisles when the seat belt sign is on is a "no no" - and that's already covered in the pre-Flight Announcements .

I would have thought that it would be far more sensible for the CC to mention it it when necessary, as they can see it occuring and their workload already includes repeatedly issuing a "welcome, stow your hand luggagge etc" greeting to the pax.

All they would need to say is something to the effect "the captain has turned on the air conditioning system for your comfort and you may notice some white condensation coming out of the air vents, this is perfectly normal and will stop when we reach our cruising altitutde."

Sounds to me like a cabin crew training matter, not a flight deck matter.

Sunfish

My asking the pax concerned "Do you realise the danger you put yourselves in by standing up?" was not about assuming they have a level of knowledge, it was about educating them of the danger that they had put themselves and their surrounding pax in. I never assume that pax know anything about flying, which is why my PA's always go into more detail than the standard issued PA's by my airline.

I have had pax comment in the past that my PA's are very good as they explain everything that is going to happen / is happening / will be happening. Why do I do this?, well I think back to the days of when I first flew as a pax before I became crew. I used to sit there in that long tin can and not have a clue what was going on.

There was a saying that was taught to me many years ago, which is "In aviation never ASSUME anything, because if you do, you will make an ASS out of U and ME" and I live by that saying, hence myself always trying to be educational on my flights.

The key element of my previous posting was the paragraph which stated:

Read that paragraph again, what it is saying is that in a perceived emergency some pax will not do as they are told, because they can not hear what is being told to them, they are for all intent and purposes deaf and can only see the perceived danger and want to get away from it, or have someone assist with it.

My PA to the pax saying to sit down, crew will come in a few seconds when we are on the ground is all that I could do - I do honestly hope you don't think I had time to say or do anything else?

Final 3 greens
 

Fair point and not unreasonable if the steaming is happening on boarding. OTOH it's possible that the A/C has been set up to avoid this ( e.g. only 2 packs on on a 3 pack aircraft) so the first time the steaming happens happens is perhaps packs on after a packs off take off...just a thought...

On my more general point - we live in an "instant information/ I have a right to know age": if our Customers reading this demand to be told instantly of the why's; wherefores and reasons every non-normal event that happens on a flight then we have got a heck of a lot of educating to do.

This thread runs the risk of turning really nasty.

The attitudes that some of the so-called "professionals" are voicing here are deeply disturbing.

Has it occurred to you that:

a) many of your "pax" are a lot more educated than you, so cut out your patronising crap about "knowing better than these retards"

b) many are in what is for them an unfamiliar environment

c) your behaviour on board - which I have witnessed on a couple of occasions - does not always instill confidence that you know best.

If you really cannot see this, then you are deluded.

Wiggy

That's a very good point.

Perhaps the announcement in that case would be by the CC when the condensation started.

This might not work so well on wide bodies, with the bulkheads separating the cabin, but on most narrow bodies the crew has sight of the length of the cabin (until the business class curtains are pulled.)

Obviuosly, you cannot inform the pax of everything that happens.

Recently I was in an airbus that made an unusually steep descent (in my experience as a frequent flyer) early on final, the deck angle and ground rush was uncomfortable, but I wouldn't expect the crew to make an announcement explaining why, their focus needs to be on a safe approach and landing.

However, in this alleged Palma incident, it would appear that there was a very seroius incident and as part of the learning process so vital to safe aviation, I would have thought that this was a "quick win" in terms of CC training.

John R
 

Well I for one would like to apologise for some of my "colleagues" comments on here.

I'll not comment about crew behaviour on board- I'm usually locked in my office:bored:

I agree that an aircraft is an unfamiliar enviroment - so is my Doctor's and Dentist's surgery - that give's me the right to be nervous but it doesn't give me the right to try and kick his/her door down because I don't get an immediate response to a question.

You mentioned education - many of our Cabin Crew and Flight Crew are also well educated, there is even the odd graduate, post-graduate and even Doctor kicking around in crew members uniforms. They have all passed thorough training courses and regularly pass recurrent checks, so could they please be offered due respect by their Customers.

Rant Off. John, I suspect you are a "frequent flyer" so you must hold a view on this: do you expect to be told instantly details of any "non-normal events, or are you happy to wait until the professionals are able to give a sensible reasoned announcement?

Please can we all stop taking a pop at each other?

Safety on board is everyone's resonsibility and we are all on the same team in this respect.

wiggy, no I do not expect an immediate answer from the crew, which is why I disagree with the approach taken by getoutofmygalley.

Where I do think there is a problem is when no explanation is given (a missed approach / go-around, for example, which is not explained by flight crew once the aircraft is stable will lead some passengers to think the pilots made a mistake). As a regular flier, I have seen this and willed an explanation which never came!

Let us be clear: I do not for one moment condone the actions of these passengers, which if true were utterly dangerous and irresponsible.

All I am saying is that these are probably perfectly sensible people who when put in a very unusual, perhaps frightening situation will behave in the most primordial way to protect themselves.

Let's remember that not everyone knows about V1 and the sterile cockpit rules!

The majority of cabin crew do a fantastic job, but in my first post I mentioned incidents which I have witnessed first hand and which do not inspire me with confidence.

One final point: if you're an officer on the flight deck, and especially if you're the captain, you are still ultimately responsible for the actions of your cabin crew, non?

"Ultimately responsible for the behaviour of your Cabin Crew"..absolutely, but as you are aware it is difficult for the Captain to be aware of all that goes on in the Galleys. I honestly believe the vast majority of my colleagues are professional when on board the aircraft, but there are always a few who "let the side down", I just hope it wasn't on one of "my" Flights.

Yes, we are supossed to make a Announcement following a Go Around - when/if circumstances permit. But even if it appears stable "down the back" and people are wondering why the Captain hasn't said anything, all may be completely different on the other side of the Flight Deck door; the Flight Crew may be working like the proverbial one armed looking at Fuel Remaining, Alternates available, "do we stay or do we go" (i.e; Divert) so there genuinely may not be time for a few soothing words. Having said that most of us have a suitably non-commital speech for such circumstances.

If the weather is close to minima and I expect a possible Go Around then I tell the passengers! "The weather is well within our limits to make an approach but if we dont see the runway by the prescribed point we will be climbing away again and may well be diverting to XXXX".

Then if you land they think what a great job you have done (true of course!) - if you Go Around it's no big surprise.

Obviously this doesnt cater for Go Arounds for other reasons (Tech/ATC etc) in which case an announcement will be made if and when circumstances allow.

It's interesting how a normal situation can rapidly degenerate into chaos through mistaken perceptions and confusion.

The fact it was a charter is signficant to me. I think it's fair to say that the passengers on a charter flight are likely to have a much lower level of flying experience than those on a scheduled flight. The scheduled flight will have a mix of newbies and very experienced passengers. In such a situation, a word from another passenger to say "it's condensation, happens all the time" would probably have resolved the situation before it started.

Perhaps charter operators need to take this into account and have crew explain the obvious a bit more often.

As already pointed out, there is only so much we can explain in the briefing and lets face it, how many passengers actually listen anyway? It's got to come down to trust in the crew. And that brings me to what, I feel, may be a contributing factor in the lack of trust passengers seem to have in the crew.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and no doubt offend a lot of people but, I feel you should have to be a certain age before being able to go for promotion to Senior Crew. I am a Purser for a major airline, and most of the time, it's a fairly straightforward job. However, when it's all gone wrong, I have had to draw on all of my flying and life experience. I have dealt with medical emergencies, technical emergencies, irate passengers etc. There's no way I would have been able to do this successfully at 21. No matter how mature you are, at 21, you do not have the "natural authority" needed to keep control of a sometimes, volatile situation. That's something that can only ever come with age.

This is not against the younger crew, as I work with some exceptionally good crew that I would trust with my life, but I know them. Passengers don't. Passengers can only go on their first impressions. Unfair but true.

For the record, I'm in no way, trying to defend the supposed actions of the passengers on the BMI flight. I'm just guessing at one of the possible reasons that these types of incidences appear to be happening.

Jsl

Hat...coat...

I find that a strange statement.

If condensation is billowing out of the vents, which I have seen, then I don't think it is asking too much to make a short announcement.

Sadly, the only times are have heard this were from pilots (one a Jetset cpt)

Just seems like a no brainer to me.

There are things in my business that I understand very well, that my clients do not. I make a point of delaing with these things when thay arise.

You do make a good point about the effect of age on authority, its an example of something called "referent" power and it means power instilled by people choosing to invest it in someone.

A is for Anticipation
 

First: I am no aircrew, just a moderately frequent flyer. If for example condensation in the cabin is fairly normal under observable and even predictable conditions, then perhaps anticipation of the passengers' nervousness might he helpful?

Condensation and smoke LOOK the same at first glance - OK , so condensation doesn't smell. You have passengers from all walks of life, levels of education and experience in your craft. To you, these machines are a familiar workplace and you have been trained to handle them and understand their peccadilloes.

We haven't! A simple anticipatory introduction when conditions look as if condensation might occur would not take too much time and effort - perhaps at the beginning/end of the safety chat?

You chaps keep these thing in the air and put them down safely nearly ALL the time. Hell, we look out of the window and to us it;s as close to magic as we are ever going to get.

Help us out here - some verbal balm sparingly applied would go a long way!

Sorry. I was agreeing with others in that there is only so much we can say in a briefing, hence the need for passengers to be able to feel they can put their trust in us. I wasn't talking specifically about condensation. I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to expect the crew to make a quick PA in those circumstances.

Jsl

No, my apologies are due for misinterpreting your statement JSL.

Like others on here (although I refer to previous threads in the main), I've often wondered why a reasonable amount of the briefing is taken up with "In the event of a landing on water...", since survivable landings on water with underslung engines aren't exactly common.

I also kind of wondered reading this thread why there isn't some more information about, for example, condensation, emergency descent and so on in the safety information. I guess one answer is it might frighten people - but perhaps only the kind of people sitting like startled rabbits while those of us who've listened to the briefing jump over them to find the exit behind us as fire breaks out. If you're going to tell people about the masks, why run the risk that half of them are too panicked to do as they're told because they don't understand why the aircraft is in a dive? A controlled emergency descent probably doesn't seem so controlled to most pax!

I also wonder whether, for those of us who are frequent fliers - indeed particularly now so many people are frequent fliers, having one, scarcely ever altered version of the safety briefing could not prove counter-productive in an incident. Are some people only going to realise at the crucial moment that, whilst they know the briefing off by heart (in multiple languages!), it has become so routine as to be just another set of noises.

But now I'm wandering off-topic!

Faced with two risky options ...
 

Reading this thread ... several people have tried to relate the passenger behaviour to lack of IQ, intelligence, common sense etc. I'm not sure that's relevant as I'm convinced that many rational people are capable of such behaviour under certain circumstances.

Imagine being a passenger on board, during the takeoff roll you are suddenly faced in your own mind with the unexpected but direct and immediate prospect of being incinerated if the takeoff continues with images of a flaming concorde looming in the front of your mind. Taking the highly risky and extremely drastic step of standing up and banging on the cockpit door even at such a critical point might, by comparison, seem like a good idea.

I reckon those passenger knew full well the serious risks involved in standing up during the takeoff but felt they were facing a far more unpalatable option ....

Lol, shame it didn't happen before V1!

If it did and i was PIC i would simply slam on the brakes and apply thrust reverse!

Then the passengers can't go off and complain because it was all their fault andn were affecting the aircraft's safety in the first place!

Not a cheap flight
 

Some contributors to this forum appear to link this type of behaviour to the ability to travel provided by low air fares.
Believe me the only people travelling cheaply on this flight were the cabin and flight crews.
All the passengers were flying back to Northern Ireland after spending the province's traditional July holiday in Majorca - a very expensive time to fly anywhere from Belfast.
Most of those on the aircraft would have been IT passengers with a fortnight's apartment holiday for two people costing more than £1000. The bill for a family would, of course, be much greater and once you decide you want to stay in a hotel the prices just spiral.
We paid almost £2000 for 10 days bed and breakfast in Puerto Pollensa.
Anyond travelling flight only on the bmi aircraft would also have paid a great deal of money for the privilege. The Falcon website is quoting a return fare of £325 for the equivelant dates next year (July 4 returning July 19).

As a frequent business flyer ( 126 flights in the last twelve months alone )who is scared ****less of flying most of the time I've only ever seen this happen once on an aer lingus flight from Dublin to Manchester about 10 years ago.

The plane landed and we were heading for the gate, what at first appeared to be smoke started appearing at the side of the ceiling ( sorry i'm sure there is a technical term )

At first I thought it was smoke but remember that smoke accumulates and steam dissapates so I reassured myself today was not my day.

But someone else shouted "jesus we're on fire...." and panic ensued, after a short while the pilot came on the wire to explain it was steam due to high humidity

Now in all my time flying as a pax i have never ever heard a pilot pro-acively explain this item.

I've only seen it 3 times,

good communication
 

Every word, facial expression and action of uniformed cabin crew shape the feeling inside an aircraft. A PA announcement would have gone a long way to avoiding the situation.

Way back in the 1990's Ansett New Zealand were flying Bae 146 fleet and marketing them under name of 'whisper jets'. The quiet operation of these planes leads to hydraulic/mechanical noises sounding very loud to passengers. This fact was part of pre-departure PA announcements to put minds at ease.

Hi All,

i find this thread very interesting indeed!
as an licenced engineer of a few years i have experiences from both sides.

i am a flyer but not a nervous passenger. i can however understand the concerns of nervous passengers during flights.
i would say to any nervous flyer to ask cabin crew about any item they are not happy about during the flight(but not at take off). there should be no such thing as a stupid question to the crew if the passenger thinks it involves the aircraft airworthiness. any crew that ignores a passenger(maybe it is an aircraft engineer on holidays) does so at their peril.

in my opinion the majority of cabin crew(in my airline anyway) have no idea what is normal or abnormal. i have been asked questions by crew which turn out to be normal events but never do i laugh or ridicule them for asking!! the worst thing would be for them to stop asking and hence stop learing about their aircraft.

i once had a passenger who claimed to be an engineer(cant remember which type) but she wouldnt leave her seat until she had talked to maintenance.
when i arrived she said their was a problem with the aircraft pressurisation because some ice had formed on the outer pane of her pax window.
i told her this was normal but i suppose she(been an engineer n all) thought i had no clue what i was talking about.

Just for the record
 

As a journalist I really couldn't let this one pass. I contacted the bmi press office where I was initially told they had heard of the thread on pprune but their operations department had no record of the incident so they could be of no further help.
I then contacted the Civil Aviation Authority Press Office. A press officer confirmed the incident had occurred. He said approximately 15 passengers were involved and moved forward as far as row three during the take-off roll.
He also confirmed some passengers were still standing when the aircraft became airborne but denied any passengers had been banging on the cockpit door.
The CAA report states passengers were reassured by cabin crew and the captain. It also said the flight proceeded without incident.
I went back to bmi where the press office conceded defeat and issued a statement giving more or less identical details. Their press officer also denied any passengers had reached the cockpit door.