"Cabin Crew of Burning Jet not trained to open doors"
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South, UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors hard to open?!
I am alittle surprised that the crew found the doors hard to open. I have worked on the boeing 737 aircraft and had to deploy a slide. I didnt find the door that much heavier as my adenalin was dumping and that door flown open!
On the boeing 737, i can see why the crew may have struggled with the R1 door as that is a bit of a sod to get open as it is alittle heavier and the angle that the door opens doesnt help much!
But a big well done to the crew invovled as its not a nice situation to be in and no matter how much training you do for it, you never know how you are going to react when it happens!
FMB xx
On the boeing 737, i can see why the crew may have struggled with the R1 door as that is a bit of a sod to get open as it is alittle heavier and the angle that the door opens doesnt help much!
But a big well done to the crew invovled as its not a nice situation to be in and no matter how much training you do for it, you never know how you are going to react when it happens!
FMB xx
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: uae
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not true august
Hi August lots of airlines do have training with "live" slides and there is a huge difference in the way some airlines interpret the rules laid down by the regulators so the training crew get from airline A will be "different" from airline B.Some airlines basic training is rubbish compared to others,so take Ryanairs overall record in everything and make your own decisions about their "basic "cabin crew training.Take Care,fly safe all.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: LGW
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the service doors on a 737 can be difficult to open at the best of times. Thats why we have ABP's located near to the doors as to assist the crew if need be. On this occasion, they needed the assistance. Especially as it was a new aircraft, the doors are that bit stiffer to use, as not been broken in much.
Just want to add, think that the title of this thread or very misleading and unfair, as they obviously did manage to open the doors and get everyone out safely and within the limits
Just want to add, think that the title of this thread or very misleading and unfair, as they obviously did manage to open the doors and get everyone out safely and within the limits
Last edited by jettesen; 3rd Aug 2004 at 07:23.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a particularly interesting argument.
Remember in the 'old' days we were trained to say, 'This is the Captain, Left side only-Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate'.
Then we all got told that from a legal point of view we had to change that to, 'This is the Captain, evacuate, evacuate, evacuate!!!!!' In this case the emergency exit row passenger takes responsibility to look outside prior to opening the exit.
The justification was that as the Captain if you unnecessarily restricted the evacuation process so that it took longer than 90 seconds that you would be fried by the court of inquiry.
In this case perhaps the crew did want they were trained to do under this 'legal' framework that we now live in only to be overridden by the fire guys.
I've always held they believe that it is irresponsible to send people onto the wing with an engine on fire and we have a duty to use our intelligence and act in the best interests of our passengers under our duty of care.
So far all training that I've done has gone against a logical, informed choice and instead changed the response into a legally correct choice. I wonder if the lawyer that came up with this would wish to be ill informed if they were in the exit row.
Sorry to hijack the thread from a particular case to a general point.
Remember in the 'old' days we were trained to say, 'This is the Captain, Left side only-Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate'.
Then we all got told that from a legal point of view we had to change that to, 'This is the Captain, evacuate, evacuate, evacuate!!!!!' In this case the emergency exit row passenger takes responsibility to look outside prior to opening the exit.
The justification was that as the Captain if you unnecessarily restricted the evacuation process so that it took longer than 90 seconds that you would be fried by the court of inquiry.
In this case perhaps the crew did want they were trained to do under this 'legal' framework that we now live in only to be overridden by the fire guys.
I've always held they believe that it is irresponsible to send people onto the wing with an engine on fire and we have a duty to use our intelligence and act in the best interests of our passengers under our duty of care.
So far all training that I've done has gone against a logical, informed choice and instead changed the response into a legally correct choice. I wonder if the lawyer that came up with this would wish to be ill informed if they were in the exit row.
Sorry to hijack the thread from a particular case to a general point.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opening doors in Auto
In my previous airline (where I must admit the training was the best I've ever had) Cabin Crew were invited to go and deploy slides when their (slides) checks were due. It is a very good idea, I hope all airlines would do that. I don't know how often you have to deploy to check the slides? Every time they have to do it, they should call cabin crew, I am sure they'll be more than happy to come along.
I have done it myself and opened R1 door on B737 - the most "stubborn" one. I actually (for some reason) found it easier to open than when it wasn't armed. And those who know me will tell you I am a very slim lady. I do believe that when you really have to open it, you will.
I don't know what happened on this occasion. Therefore I will not judge anybody.
I do know that at times like these many things would blow out of proportion. There always be people eager to blame, willing to look very clever and smart.
I would like to say - well done to all members of that particular Crew. In the end of the day - they did what they needed to do - maybe with a little bit of struggle. How many of us have done it for real? Think about it.
I have done it myself and opened R1 door on B737 - the most "stubborn" one. I actually (for some reason) found it easier to open than when it wasn't armed. And those who know me will tell you I am a very slim lady. I do believe that when you really have to open it, you will.
I don't know what happened on this occasion. Therefore I will not judge anybody.
I do know that at times like these many things would blow out of proportion. There always be people eager to blame, willing to look very clever and smart.
I would like to say - well done to all members of that particular Crew. In the end of the day - they did what they needed to do - maybe with a little bit of struggle. How many of us have done it for real? Think about it.
Last edited by sweety; 3rd Aug 2004 at 15:07.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal Flyer
What exactly was your point to start with. Your latter posts would indicate that you have read the report, yet your initial post raises questions which are indeed answered by the AAIB investigation.
Where were you trying to lead this?
Also, you quote:
_________________________________________________
the difference at Stansted was that there was no catastrophic fire. If there had been it could have been another Manchester.
_________________________________________________
How did you reach this conclusion?
What exactly was your point to start with. Your latter posts would indicate that you have read the report, yet your initial post raises questions which are indeed answered by the AAIB investigation.
Where were you trying to lead this?
Also, you quote:
_________________________________________________
the difference at Stansted was that there was no catastrophic fire. If there had been it could have been another Manchester.
_________________________________________________
How did you reach this conclusion?
Sadly MOL'S attitude to his staff is spreading throughout the industry. I cannot remember his exact words but he was quoted as saying that pilots were a bunch of overpaid t*****s who spent their formative years dreaming about being Airline Pilots instead of making real money.
So there you are, its all about money, cut corners, accept risk and hope that it never happens. Reminds me of Blair and Brown - screw those who contribute to society and lean over backwards to those who don't (not those who can't - those who don't or won't). There is an old Kipling poem about Tommy Atkins( ordinary British soldier) - nobody gives a toss about him until he is needed - nothing has changed since those days and the same certainly applies to pilots, engineers and cabin crew in todays brave new world of civiil aviation.
So there you are, its all about money, cut corners, accept risk and hope that it never happens. Reminds me of Blair and Brown - screw those who contribute to society and lean over backwards to those who don't (not those who can't - those who don't or won't). There is an old Kipling poem about Tommy Atkins( ordinary British soldier) - nobody gives a toss about him until he is needed - nothing has changed since those days and the same certainly applies to pilots, engineers and cabin crew in todays brave new world of civiil aviation.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers seated near the overwing exits have their responsibility to read the safety card situated in front of them. This card shows them that you look through the window before you open the door and shouldn't open it when you see smoke or fire.
You can't blame cabin crew (who have their stations in front and rear of the cabin) to let passengers evacuate through the right hand side overwing exits!
You can't blame cabin crew (who have their stations in front and rear of the cabin) to let passengers evacuate through the right hand side overwing exits!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharpshot
In answer to your query my main enquiry in starting the thread was in relation to the difficulties reported in opening the doors with the slides engaged - from the range of posts it appears that training practices do vary greatly, and I admit that I was somewhat concerned by what appeared to be Ryanair's response along the lines of - if we are told to change our training we will. It was that more than the AAIB report that started me thinking.
It was not meant as a Ryanair bashing - indeed I have flown with Ryanair twice today as SLF (hence the delay in responding to your query).
A number of posts suggest that some airlines do train crew with actual slide deployment or at least allow the witnessing of deployments - I do not believe I have seen a response from Ryanair crew - does Ryanair?
The second comment/query I had related to stopping downwind as re-reading the Manchester AAIB (in relation to which I had raised a thread last year on smoke hoods) made me think that the Stansted incident could indeed have been far more serious if there had been an actual engine fire. After all 40 PAX exited on the starboard side and 6 over the wing were ordered back into the aircraft. Had there been smoke (and most of the deaths in Manchester were smoke related) the situation could have degenerated rapidly. I have not re-read the Stansted AAIB this evening but my recollection is that the cabin crew did report smoke from the starboard side yet the starboard doors were opened. In the event a very successful evacuation for which the cabin crew deserve all credit - but had there been an actual fire (as reported to ATC) with smoke, fate could have resulted in a devasting situation.
Picking up another post, I appreciate that the tower could well have been second-guessing actual wind direction if they had given information but would the pilots not at least have appreciated such information - to bear in mind as they saw fit?
In answer to your query my main enquiry in starting the thread was in relation to the difficulties reported in opening the doors with the slides engaged - from the range of posts it appears that training practices do vary greatly, and I admit that I was somewhat concerned by what appeared to be Ryanair's response along the lines of - if we are told to change our training we will. It was that more than the AAIB report that started me thinking.
It was not meant as a Ryanair bashing - indeed I have flown with Ryanair twice today as SLF (hence the delay in responding to your query).
A number of posts suggest that some airlines do train crew with actual slide deployment or at least allow the witnessing of deployments - I do not believe I have seen a response from Ryanair crew - does Ryanair?
The second comment/query I had related to stopping downwind as re-reading the Manchester AAIB (in relation to which I had raised a thread last year on smoke hoods) made me think that the Stansted incident could indeed have been far more serious if there had been an actual engine fire. After all 40 PAX exited on the starboard side and 6 over the wing were ordered back into the aircraft. Had there been smoke (and most of the deaths in Manchester were smoke related) the situation could have degenerated rapidly. I have not re-read the Stansted AAIB this evening but my recollection is that the cabin crew did report smoke from the starboard side yet the starboard doors were opened. In the event a very successful evacuation for which the cabin crew deserve all credit - but had there been an actual fire (as reported to ATC) with smoke, fate could have resulted in a devasting situation.
Picking up another post, I appreciate that the tower could well have been second-guessing actual wind direction if they had given information but would the pilots not at least have appreciated such information - to bear in mind as they saw fit?
Passengers seated near the overwing exits have their responsibility to read the safety card situated in front of them. This card shows them that you look through the window before you open the door and shouldn't open it when you see smoke or fire.
You can't blame cabin crew (who have their stations in front and rear of the cabin) to let passengers evacuate through the right hand side overwing exits!
You can't blame cabin crew (who have their stations in front and rear of the cabin) to let passengers evacuate through the right hand side overwing exits!
I was aware of the need to be aware of visible flames before opening an overwing door, mut not the more judgemental case of smoke.
And while were all debating this, is there any evidence that any signs of visible (to the passengers) fire was present when the passengers started to evacuate?
Maybe we might be so lucky as to have a passenger interview to supply facts vs our own postulations.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal flyer, if you are part of the law proffession then let me run this by you.......(I have nothing to do with law which will probably become apparent very quickly as I ramble on!!!!)
If "some" airlines get their cabin crew to deploy a real slide when maintenance is upcoming then only "some" of the cabin crew in this group will get the hands on experience. Due to the nature of the training then a new starter is likely to get this training "some" time in the future. Therefore it is likely at any one time time that "some" members of every airline will not have experienced opening an armed slide. However, mathematically I would argue that "some X some X some = MOST"
Now....someone either has hands on experience or not. The fact that someone on the next aircraft has experience, it doesn't help you if the aircraft which you are currently on is burning. So now we are down to "chance" if you get a CC member with said experience on your flight (in an airline other than RYR that is)
So if we wish to critisise (or indeed charge) RYR for not having any (assume "not any" for the sake of argument) CC with hands on experience then the same criticism must apply to all airlines.
Therefore this is not a RYR problem but a CC training issue.
The only suggested alternative is a simulator, which I think was critisised as unrealistic on this thread.
ergo mi ego upyurbum......if i send you my address can you post my wig
If "some" airlines get their cabin crew to deploy a real slide when maintenance is upcoming then only "some" of the cabin crew in this group will get the hands on experience. Due to the nature of the training then a new starter is likely to get this training "some" time in the future. Therefore it is likely at any one time time that "some" members of every airline will not have experienced opening an armed slide. However, mathematically I would argue that "some X some X some = MOST"
Now....someone either has hands on experience or not. The fact that someone on the next aircraft has experience, it doesn't help you if the aircraft which you are currently on is burning. So now we are down to "chance" if you get a CC member with said experience on your flight (in an airline other than RYR that is)
So if we wish to critisise (or indeed charge) RYR for not having any (assume "not any" for the sake of argument) CC with hands on experience then the same criticism must apply to all airlines.
Therefore this is not a RYR problem but a CC training issue.
The only suggested alternative is a simulator, which I think was critisised as unrealistic on this thread.
ergo mi ego upyurbum......if i send you my address can you post my wig
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bomber Harris
I only have one wig (and that's for Court) and I don't think you've quite earned it yet!
However.....I actually agree with what you say!
It looks like being the case that over time many (maybe most) crew with many airlines will have door opening with slide engaged/slide deployment experience (hopefully not a real emergency) and that must be better than nothing - after all on the job training is well established in all professions. The question arises though - should it be compulsory as part of training? Cabin crew are perhaps unique as in an evacuation each one will be located near a door and seconds count if another crew member has to assist (particularly if PAX are climbing all over each other/blocking acess by this stage).
Also do RYR crew have any door opening/slide engaged experience in training rather than actual experience (for which there is no doubt no substitute but a method of training best avoided)?
Anyway many thanks for the posts and any more hereafter. I'm hanging my wig up for a few weeks for hols as from tomorrow. One more flight (EZY) before risking life and limb on the ocean waves and SOLAS (Safety of LIfe at Sea)) is a whole different story so far as safety is concerned - and not necessarily better.....
I only have one wig (and that's for Court) and I don't think you've quite earned it yet!
However.....I actually agree with what you say!
It looks like being the case that over time many (maybe most) crew with many airlines will have door opening with slide engaged/slide deployment experience (hopefully not a real emergency) and that must be better than nothing - after all on the job training is well established in all professions. The question arises though - should it be compulsory as part of training? Cabin crew are perhaps unique as in an evacuation each one will be located near a door and seconds count if another crew member has to assist (particularly if PAX are climbing all over each other/blocking acess by this stage).
Also do RYR crew have any door opening/slide engaged experience in training rather than actual experience (for which there is no doubt no substitute but a method of training best avoided)?
Anyway many thanks for the posts and any more hereafter. I'm hanging my wig up for a few weeks for hols as from tomorrow. One more flight (EZY) before risking life and limb on the ocean waves and SOLAS (Safety of LIfe at Sea)) is a whole different story so far as safety is concerned - and not necessarily better.....
Mike Jenvey quotes from the report on the incidednt to G-VSKY in 1997. I used to fly for the operator of G-VSKY and was suprised on joining the company that the cabin crew were not allowed to open the doors in normal circumstances. If they needed a door opened from inside, they had to call one of us from the flight deck to do so.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Bomber has put his finger on the core issue. An emergency evacuation was carried out by a crew. All pax got out in about 60 secs - well under the required time for certification purposes.
Cabin crew had difficulty opening some doors on the windward side and were helped by positioning crew.
Well done to a professional crew doing a good professional job.
Regarding other points about what should be included in safety training, of course a proper cabin simulator that adequately mimics the forces required to open a door in adverse conditions like this case with the slide armed, SHOULD be part of the JAR training requirements but unfortunately it's not so, at least not clearly so. Flight sims have to meet standards for realism - why not door training.
Let the JAA make it compulsory for operators to use a properly realistic simulator for this purpose and any operator who doesn't have access to such training device would have to blow an actual slide. Then we'd all see a big improvement as those unscrupulous operators who try to skimp on training would be penalised financially. It's no use asking the AIIB or even the CAA or the IAA. It has to be JAA wide and then enforced.
But again, remember no one was seriously hurt. Well done to all concerned.
Cabin crew had difficulty opening some doors on the windward side and were helped by positioning crew.
Well done to a professional crew doing a good professional job.
Regarding other points about what should be included in safety training, of course a proper cabin simulator that adequately mimics the forces required to open a door in adverse conditions like this case with the slide armed, SHOULD be part of the JAR training requirements but unfortunately it's not so, at least not clearly so. Flight sims have to meet standards for realism - why not door training.
Let the JAA make it compulsory for operators to use a properly realistic simulator for this purpose and any operator who doesn't have access to such training device would have to blow an actual slide. Then we'd all see a big improvement as those unscrupulous operators who try to skimp on training would be penalised financially. It's no use asking the AIIB or even the CAA or the IAA. It has to be JAA wide and then enforced.
But again, remember no one was seriously hurt. Well done to all concerned.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stripes
Well said. The major’s of the world all have cabin crew simulators with multi-doors with chutes on them for training. My airline introduced about 15 years ago mixed training involving front and back end crews using this type of simulator. The first year of mixed training was a real eye opener for all concerned especially the pilots. There was a lot of inter-departmental rivalry going on which led to poor communications between the pilot group and the flight attendant group which led to some unrealistic training on the part of the back end crew...
The LCC’s are not going to provide this type of training until they are mandated to do so by law or the body count gets so high that our politicians demand change. That is a sad state of affairs for our industry.
Well said. The major’s of the world all have cabin crew simulators with multi-doors with chutes on them for training. My airline introduced about 15 years ago mixed training involving front and back end crews using this type of simulator. The first year of mixed training was a real eye opener for all concerned especially the pilots. There was a lot of inter-departmental rivalry going on which led to poor communications between the pilot group and the flight attendant group which led to some unrealistic training on the part of the back end crew...
The LCC’s are not going to provide this type of training until they are mandated to do so by law or the body count gets so high that our politicians demand change. That is a sad state of affairs for our industry.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Following Comments from Posts REALLY Worry Me
Remember in the 'old' days we were trained to say, 'This is the Captain, Left side only-Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate'.
So far all training that I've done has gone against a logical, informed choice and instead changed the response into a legally correct choice. I wonder if the lawyer that came up with this would wish to be ill informed if they were in the exit row.
Passengers seated near the overwing exits have their responsibility to read the safety card situated in front of them. This card shows them that you look through the window before you open the door and shouldn't open it when you see smoke or fire.
As SLF it really does worry me that the suggestion is that pax should be reponsible for the decision to open the doors.
In my experience in a different Industry (the Railways) absolutely NO decision making should be given to Pax at all.
I worry that in an engine fire situation a door could be opened onto the area of the fire, thus making the situation far worse. Is this not what happened at Manchester???
Where on earth has common sense gone that it is no longer allowed to specify which side the exit should be via!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you will allow me the indulgence of a railway-based scenario, some years ago an express train caught fire, with smoke entering the leading vehicles...
Driver brought the train to a very rapid stand but Pax instead of moving back along the train jumped out of doors onto opposite line and were ploughed up by train on the adjoining line!!!.
In my experience of a number of incident/accidents, Pax acting without some sort of guidance can make a poor situation considerably worse for all sorts of obvious reasons.
If that is how the airline industry is to proceed then you are going down a troubled route
