Canadian airline removes life jackets to save on fuel
 

Canadian airline removes life vests to save weight and fuel | Markets | Market News | Canadian Business Online

When was the last time they came in handy anyway :rolleyes:.

I can only assume this is legal and does not contravene any requirement - however it can be argued shows a total dis regard to a potential survival chance if the un thinkable happens....despite re assurance they will always reach land. Think I for one would say thank you - now let me see if I can find another operator to fly with.

Nivsy

Removing life jackets to save weight is ridiculous, there are much more obvious ways to save weight before considering stuff like safety equipment - the Dash 8 surely doesn't really need both those heavy engines...

Seriously though, they might not save many lives but they do give passengers some comfort.

Flew with Allegiant Air in the US a couple of years ago, their only overwater route(s) were from Florida to New England, cutting across open water between roughly New York & New England. They don't carry life vests but the seat cushions are classed as flotation devices (the hardest seat cushion I've ever sat on)
I checked on here after the flight and yes in the US it is legal on short crossings

Do you really think that many (or any?) passengers check under their seat to see whether or not there are jackets? The bigger hazard today is starving to death on sectors over three hours!

Let's leave it to the regulator to determine the minimum required equipment.

I would be perfectly comfortable to fly in an commercial jetliner without any life vest, also across the oceans.

In history, there was only one occasion where there were survivors when a commercial passenger flight ditched into the open sea (near St Maarten), and that was more than 30 years ago. There are some more cases of successful ditching, however they were either very near the coastline, so the survivors could swim or happened in broad, but shallow rivers. There are by far many more not successful cases, as there is a very high likelihood for the aircraft to disintegrate when touching the water surface.

Actually, in the above mentioned case even more could have survived, had not one life raft been inflated in the cabin and blocked one exit - so the surviving aids can even endanger life. People will get stuck in the smaller emergency exits and block them, if they inflate in panic their vest before disembarking.

Let's face the simple, yet not-so-easy truth: If a commercial jet has to ditch into water - then this is it. No life vest required, they are only there for passenger's ease of mind, but actually have never been of any other use. It's a placebo...

New Contest - Open to Every Airline - "What is the DOW of your Aircraft ?" :8
The lowest wins 100$ fuel coupons.

Ethiopian 767
 

The hijacked Ethiopian 767 that went down near the Comoros years ago shows that the use of lifejackets can cause more damage than good. A large number of passengers inflated their jackets whilst still inside the aircraft as it was filling with water. They couldn't get out for this reason. I'm sure some survived due to their use of the jackets, but I'm also sure that more drowned inside the aircraft because they couldn't get out.

25 kilos? Don't tell my employer or I'll be forced to go on the diet the missus keeps mentioning

I would imagine more to do with ongoing maintenance costs with having to recertify said life jackets periodically and then the ongoing replacement of same as some of the SLF view them as dandy souvenirs.

Perfectly legal if they operate within the confines in the relevant regulations.

Then of course there is the harsh reality that given the routes that they are operating and the water temperatures involved the chances of a) surviving a ditching b) getting out of the aircraft for a myriad of reasons and finally c) surviving long enough for a boat or an out of control palm tree to pick you up is slim to none.

Life jackets have saved a lot of lives on jetliners, but its not the ditchings that they are usefull for, but the runway overruns. DC10 in boston 20 or 30 years ago, life jackets were a huge factor.

Also the Usair crash at LGA. Even the Airflorida crash in DC. One of the few that survived put on a vest as I recall from the footage.

They should be mandatory in all jets period. MOST people can't swim 25 yards in their clothes. its not about the ocean, its about putting runways near water. Of course that is not they way the regs see it, (which of course is typical and completely ignores history, which is also typical)...


Cheers
Wino

Well, perhaps they should sodding well get some exercise ;) 'Cos the likelihood of a successful ditching in serious water is close to zero, particularly with underslung engines.

Lifejacket removal isn't the most obvious change that should perhaps be made though - how about leaving the lifejacket instructions in the safety card and using the pointless time used explaining them in the briefing to impart more something useful, like a fuller description of what to expect in the event of sudden depressurisation?

Executive Airlines (American Eagle) hasn't had life jackets of its ATR service from San Juan. There are some long over-water segments, such as to Trinidad / Tobago.

Ditching a high-wing aircraft would seem to add further exit problems. But I'd think that jackets would be useful for injured pax when ditching even in fairly shallow water.

Southwest Airlines (USA) has had jackets on all their planes I've recently used. Perhaps that came about when they started to use the shorter over-water routes to Florida. Previously they hugged the coast on routes to the Northeast and to Texas (etc).

Japan Air Lines, Douglas DC-8-62, JA8032, made an unintentional water landing in San Francisco Bay while operating as Flight 2, departed Tokyo International Airport at 0836Z (1736 Tokyo Time) on November 22, 1968, with 96 passengers, including six infants and a crew of a11 for a nonstop Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight to the San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California.

The flight arrived in the San Francisco area at 1654Z (0854 Pacific standard time) after a routine flight. Normal communications were established, and the crew was radar vectored to the Woodside VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and thence to intercept the Instrument Landing System (ILS) for Runway 28L at the San Francisco International Airport.

The flight crossed the Woodside VOR at 1716Z at approximately 4,000 feet and, at 1718:30Z, was cleared to descend to 2,000 feet. The flight descended in a constant, uninterrupted rate of descent from this time until about 6 seconds before water imapct at 1724:25Z. The aircraft was on the localizer and contacted the water about 2.5 miles from the end of Runway 28L.

There were no injuries to any of the passengers or crew during the accident and ensuing evacuation. The aircraft was recovered from the waters of San Francisco Bay about 55 hours after the accident.

The Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the improper application of the prescribed procedures to execute an automatic-coupled ILS approach. This deviation from the prescribed procedures was, in part, due to a lack of familiarization and infrequent operation of the installed flight director and autopilot system.

A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hearing was called to investigate the reasons behind the bizarre accident. Captain Asoh took the stand as first witness and supposedly said, in answer to why he had landed in the bay, "As you Americans say, Asoh **** up."

He took full responsibility for the accident and refused to blame anyone else or any other circumstances. Such a frank acceptance of blame has come to be known as the "Asoh Defence". It has been discussed in various books such "The Abilene Paradox" by Professor Jerry Harvey, publications and in company training films.

When the aircraft was lifted from the water you could be lead to believe that it had suffered no damage. It went on to fly again. Full report here http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR70-02.pdf

Low-cost airlines version : airline will propose life-jacket for hire in the terminal and will charge you for the extra-weight in cabin. :ok:

Use of seat cushions as flotation devices was the practice of at least some United States domestic airlines a long time ago. I have a vague recollection from at least 30 years ago of an instruction card showing how to detach the cushion from the seat and how to put one's arms through some straps so as to remain in contact with the cushion. At this distance in time I cannot remember which airline it was.

As a slight deviation from the main course of the thread, I remember a friend reporting that he got some very strange looks when he took his own parachute as hand baggage on a translantic flight. It was quite legitimate, he was planning to tag some sky diving onto the end of a business trip, but it did get some people worried!

Spice jet's brand new B737-900s have no lifejackets. As stated in previous posts (and in the original report) seat cushions are removable as flotation aids..........

If it's OK for Boeing and the regulators then what's is the problem??

Many lifejackets get nicked by the previous pax anyway.

Surely the ATR72 ditching off Sicily proves the need for lifejackets on aircraft. Wouldn't the death toll have been greater if there hadn't been any?
What about the Airbus (Air Transat if my memory serves me right) which glided some considerable distance before landing in the Azores? The passengers were told to put their lifejackets on as there was a strong possibility the aircraft might have to ditch. Fortunately, they made it to terra firma but can anyone honestly say no lives would have been saved by the availability of lifejackets on the aircraft if a 'water landing' had occurred?

You use the seats instead.....:ugh:

DOH

frequentflyer2
It was dark, both engines were out, they had no fuel left, they were in mid-Atlantic.
Can you honestly say that there would be any pax left to save following a ditching in those circumstances?