Infants as pax.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Infants as pax.
As this is a Safety topic, is it possible for the mods to leave it on this main forum for max exposure, please?
On another occasion, I've had a "debate" with non-flying staff about the designation (or NON designation) of infants as passengers.
In many carriers today, airlines - in their attempt to cut costs - are working on providing the absolute MINIMUM number of Flight Attendants required, this number being determined by the number of passengers carried - 1 F/A per 50 pax.
But to reduce this number even further, infants are NOT included in the passenger count.
Except on ALL company documentation, eg. Weight & Balance (as given to the cockpit crew), pax inventory..PPI. PSL, PIL...whatever name you want to call it....given to the Purser, or Chief, and the number of infants is included with the total pax count as advised to the cockpit crew by the C/A's.
IMO, the life of an infant is NO different to anyone else - but I guess to an airline they are not occupying (nor purchasing) a seat - although in most cases the parents will still have to pay to have them carried.
So WHY is the total number of F/A's - responsible for the Safety of ALL passengers in the aircraft - not determined by the TOTAL number of lives on board at the time.
It's rubbish, imo, to say that the person who carried them onboard will carry them off in an emergency. for many and vaired reasons.
Can ANYONE please provide me with a plausable reason as to WHY infants are excluded from the total pax count determining the legal number of F/A's required?
On another occasion, I've had a "debate" with non-flying staff about the designation (or NON designation) of infants as passengers.
In many carriers today, airlines - in their attempt to cut costs - are working on providing the absolute MINIMUM number of Flight Attendants required, this number being determined by the number of passengers carried - 1 F/A per 50 pax.
But to reduce this number even further, infants are NOT included in the passenger count.
Except on ALL company documentation, eg. Weight & Balance (as given to the cockpit crew), pax inventory..PPI. PSL, PIL...whatever name you want to call it....given to the Purser, or Chief, and the number of infants is included with the total pax count as advised to the cockpit crew by the C/A's.
IMO, the life of an infant is NO different to anyone else - but I guess to an airline they are not occupying (nor purchasing) a seat - although in most cases the parents will still have to pay to have them carried.
So WHY is the total number of F/A's - responsible for the Safety of ALL passengers in the aircraft - not determined by the TOTAL number of lives on board at the time.
It's rubbish, imo, to say that the person who carried them onboard will carry them off in an emergency. for many and vaired reasons.
Can ANYONE please provide me with a plausable reason as to WHY infants are excluded from the total pax count determining the legal number of F/A's required?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kap, fair comment.
In at least 2 airlines that I can recall, there was a limit on the number of infants per flight. I'm really scratching here but the figure 5 rings a bell on a BAe142 for some reason.
The FAM/ Op's Manual would give the finite answer to this.
cheers
tipsy
PS You haven't done it again have you?
In at least 2 airlines that I can recall, there was a limit on the number of infants per flight. I'm really scratching here but the figure 5 rings a bell on a BAe142 for some reason.
The FAM/ Op's Manual would give the finite answer to this.
cheers
tipsy
PS You haven't done it again have you?
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm Kaptain M,
The number of flight attendants required is based on the number of seats, not passengers.
See FAR Sec. 121.391 for the complete text of the regulations determining required number of flight attendants
CHeers
Wino
The number of flight attendants required is based on the number of seats, not passengers.
See FAR Sec. 121.391 for the complete text of the regulations determining required number of flight attendants
CHeers
Wino
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
That cannot be entirely correct, Wino, as some freighter aircraft have seats installed, but carry NO flight attendants, even when ground staff are occasionally transported.
Let's remember WHY F/A's are required - to organise/assist during any emergency, and esp. an evacuation, which could just as easily occur during (pax) onboard refuelling.
Let's remember WHY F/A's are required - to organise/assist during any emergency, and esp. an evacuation, which could just as easily occur during (pax) onboard refuelling.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well 19 pax aircraft like the Beach 1900 carry NO flight attendants (again its that number of fitted seats thing) with 19 fair paying passengers. The carriage of passengers (Non fare paying) on a freighter is carried under a slightly different exemption that includes making sure the pax are briefed on the operations of the doors and slides.
During Refueling there are certain minimum numbers of flight attendants that are required (50 percent is a good guideline) But the requirements for flight are determined by the number of fitted seats which is why lap children (2 and under) which can legally be carried on the lap without their own seats do not count.
Cheers
Wino
During Refueling there are certain minimum numbers of flight attendants that are required (50 percent is a good guideline) But the requirements for flight are determined by the number of fitted seats which is why lap children (2 and under) which can legally be carried on the lap without their own seats do not count.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of flight attendants required is based on the number of seats, not passengers.
That is true of many countries in the world, but there are a few exceptions.
Yes, the US FARs and European JARs require that there be one flight attendant for every 50 passenger seats (1:50) or portion thereof installed in the aircraft.
However, in Canada, the CARs require that there be one flight attendant for every 40 passengers (1:40) or portion thereof on board an aircraft. There are additional requirements that in effect dictate a minimum staffing level based on the aircraft type/configuration, the number of exits and any special considerations arising from the certification emergency evacuation demonstration.
The Australian Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) require that there be one flight attendant for every 36 passengers (1:36) or portion thereof on board and for aircraft with more than 216 seats or that has twin aisles, the minimum cannot be less than the number of floor level exits.
The main difference with the various regulatory authorities is that the Canadian and Australian requirements are based upon the number of passengers actually on board whereas the U.S. and European requirements are based upon the number of seats installed in the aircraft, whether occupied or not.
CAR 705.104 - Flight Attendant Requirements
CAO 20.16.3(6) Cabin Attendants
Kaptain M...
Here is one interpretation as established by the lawyers some years ago here in Canada:
Advisory Circular 0116 - Infant Passenger Count
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Thanks for the input so far.
Your link to the advisory circular provided some useful info, thanks CD, namely:-
An infant secured in a lap-held position by a parent or guardian passenger is not counted as a passenger for purposes of determining the minimum number of flight attendants required on board an aircraft, and the maximum number of occupants authorized to be on board an aircraft. However, the infant is counted as a passenger for purposes of applying regulatory requirements such as those pertaining to oxygen, life preservers and survival equipment.
An infant secured in a restraint system is counted as a passenger for purposes of determining the minimum number of flight attendants required on board an aircraft, determining the maximum number of occupants authorized to be on board an aircraft, and applying regulatory requirements such as those pertaining to oxygen, life preservers and survival equipment.
Here in Japan, they confuse the issue, by stating the minimum number of F/A's to be carried based on the number of seats, but then nominate how to determine this number based on actual passengers {
I contend that as infants appear in ALL company documentation as "pax/passengers", that the companies must comply with the determination of F/A's according to the rules THEY have stated!
Why a "lap-held" infant is NOT counted, whereas one who is in say a crib, as provided by almost all airlines, IS counted beggars belief.
This law implies that the infant must be seated in the parent's/guardian's lap for the ENTIRE flight, if the airline companies are going to apply this rule.
We're talking about Safety, for the sake of only ONE extra F/A.
Of course, the argument ALL centres around cost cutting - but HERE is one example of where penny pinching IS reflected on a degradation of Safety.
Is an infant's life worth less than someone older?
Your link to the advisory circular provided some useful info, thanks CD, namely:-
An infant secured in a lap-held position by a parent or guardian passenger is not counted as a passenger for purposes of determining the minimum number of flight attendants required on board an aircraft, and the maximum number of occupants authorized to be on board an aircraft. However, the infant is counted as a passenger for purposes of applying regulatory requirements such as those pertaining to oxygen, life preservers and survival equipment.
An infant secured in a restraint system is counted as a passenger for purposes of determining the minimum number of flight attendants required on board an aircraft, determining the maximum number of occupants authorized to be on board an aircraft, and applying regulatory requirements such as those pertaining to oxygen, life preservers and survival equipment.
Here in Japan, they confuse the issue, by stating the minimum number of F/A's to be carried based on the number of seats, but then nominate how to determine this number based on actual passengers {
I contend that as infants appear in ALL company documentation as "pax/passengers", that the companies must comply with the determination of F/A's according to the rules THEY have stated!
Why a "lap-held" infant is NOT counted, whereas one who is in say a crib, as provided by almost all airlines, IS counted beggars belief.
This law implies that the infant must be seated in the parent's/guardian's lap for the ENTIRE flight, if the airline companies are going to apply this rule.
We're talking about Safety, for the sake of only ONE extra F/A.
Of course, the argument ALL centres around cost cutting - but HERE is one example of where penny pinching IS reflected on a degradation of Safety.
Is an infant's life worth less than someone older?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrt....: 'We're talking about Safety, for the sake of only ONE extra F/A. Of course, the argument ALL centres around cost cutting - but HERE is one example of where penny pinching IS reflected on a degradation of Safety.'
Q). Empirically, how many 'infants' have been injured and / or killed in aviation incidents / accidents and in those incidents / accidents would having an extra F/A onboard have made much of difference to the outcome ?
I think we'd all agree that one of the FA's rolls is to open the doors and scream at the pax to get out ( which includes people in charge of infants ). Accordingly one supposes it could be argued that a more legitimate reason for having an extra F/A onboard is to ensure that each door is ‘personned’ (pc) by at least one F/A.
I.e. The legal requirement for most aircraft ( i.e. those which have more than 19 seats ) is for 1 F/A per 50 seats or fraction of seats thereof - and even that number can be reduced to 2 ( subject to certain provisos ).
So extra F/A's onboard specifically to address infant safety, uhm ?!
Q). Empirically, how many 'infants' have been injured and / or killed in aviation incidents / accidents and in those incidents / accidents would having an extra F/A onboard have made much of difference to the outcome ?
I think we'd all agree that one of the FA's rolls is to open the doors and scream at the pax to get out ( which includes people in charge of infants ). Accordingly one supposes it could be argued that a more legitimate reason for having an extra F/A onboard is to ensure that each door is ‘personned’ (pc) by at least one F/A.
I.e. The legal requirement for most aircraft ( i.e. those which have more than 19 seats ) is for 1 F/A per 50 seats or fraction of seats thereof - and even that number can be reduced to 2 ( subject to certain provisos ).
So extra F/A's onboard specifically to address infant safety, uhm ?!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Many llc's these days work on employing the absolute minimum number of F/A's that they can get away with, DA - using the case of the popular B737, this is usually 3 F/A's for a 150 seat configuration.
However, it is not unusual to see a full load of 150, PLUS (say) 6, or 8 infants - a total PAX count of over 150, which would -employing the formula of 1 C.A. per 50 pax (or unit thereof) incur the NECESSITY to have another Cabin Attendant on board, for Safety reasons.
You are correct, DA one of the roles of an F/A is "to open the doors and scream at the pax to get out", however another role, following an evacuation of an aircraft is to check the cabin to ensure that everybody has vacated.
There is no guarantee that the person(s) who carried the infant)s) on board is going to survive, and to demonstrate this necessity, ALL of the airlines with whom I have been employed have small, life size dolls that the checkers will place on/under seats of the mock-ups used during aircrew emergency training and re-validations, to make sure that the infants are all accounted for.
After all, infants ARE passengers........aren't they?
However, it is not unusual to see a full load of 150, PLUS (say) 6, or 8 infants - a total PAX count of over 150, which would -employing the formula of 1 C.A. per 50 pax (or unit thereof) incur the NECESSITY to have another Cabin Attendant on board, for Safety reasons.
You are correct, DA one of the roles of an F/A is "to open the doors and scream at the pax to get out", however another role, following an evacuation of an aircraft is to check the cabin to ensure that everybody has vacated.
There is no guarantee that the person(s) who carried the infant)s) on board is going to survive, and to demonstrate this necessity, ALL of the airlines with whom I have been employed have small, life size dolls that the checkers will place on/under seats of the mock-ups used during aircrew emergency training and re-validations, to make sure that the infants are all accounted for.
After all, infants ARE passengers........aren't they?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assume that you have a severe failure of some description in cruise and you are going to ditch.
How much extra work is each infant going to result in the members of the cabin crew doing? At what point will they not be able to cope (i.e. ensure all pax are briefed and prepared and the cabin secure)? Do the regulations take into account the possible number of infants in the 1 CC:50 SLF ratio? Is there a sufficiently low limit on the max number of infants (plus other disabled pax - blind/deaf/UNMINs/WCHCs/WCHRs) on board an aircraft?
Opinions?
How much extra work is each infant going to result in the members of the cabin crew doing? At what point will they not be able to cope (i.e. ensure all pax are briefed and prepared and the cabin secure)? Do the regulations take into account the possible number of infants in the 1 CC:50 SLF ratio? Is there a sufficiently low limit on the max number of infants (plus other disabled pax - blind/deaf/UNMINs/WCHCs/WCHRs) on board an aircraft?
Opinions?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the enlightenment of those unfamiliar some of the limits upon the carriage of infants.... these are typically a function of the following:
- The number of additional pax Oxygen dropdown masks ( i.e. at least one per pax seat + one additional mask ) - wherein not all aircraft have equal numbers of O2 masks either side of the aisle(s).
- The number of infant lifejackets & lifecots that are carried.
- The number of available extension seatbelts.
- The need to seat Able Bodied Pax (ABP's) in particular seats - e.g adjacent to doors and / or emergency exits.
- Any local limitation in force, i.e. either regulatory or by company SOP.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Do the regulations take into account the possible number of infants in the 1 CC:50 SLF ratio?
Thanks Captain Stable, that is pretty much the issue I am trying to address.
Although it would appear that in many cases the Regulations of different countries define 1 F/A per X number of passengers, the determination of whether infants are included is obscure.
In my opinion, infants should HAVE to be included in the passenger total that determines the number of Flight Attendants required.
I'd like to use this forum to urge ALL pilots concerned with Safety, to raise this issue with your Company and with the aviation Authority in the country where you are working.
Thanks Captain Stable, that is pretty much the issue I am trying to address.
Although it would appear that in many cases the Regulations of different countries define 1 F/A per X number of passengers, the determination of whether infants are included is obscure.
In my opinion, infants should HAVE to be included in the passenger total that determines the number of Flight Attendants required.
I'd like to use this forum to urge ALL pilots concerned with Safety, to raise this issue with your Company and with the aviation Authority in the country where you are working.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think this is a science. Did you happen to notice that th "50" in the 1:50 rule is a "very round number". Nobody can really say how many pax a CA can safely take care of. You have to be sensible about this sort of thing. However, the regulators have to make a ruling...it's their job....and they picked 50.
Nobody can make a rule (including all of us here) and not have somebody come along and think of a scenario that was never dreamed of during the rule making. The problem is..i guess... rulemakers are slow to update rules.
Anyway, my take on it is that a babe in arms will not take any longer to evacuate that mother alone (in fact mabe quciker if you factor in instinct ) . So no big deal. I think a clinically obese person would take much longer and cause more of an obstruction. Do we regulate against the number of obese people per CA? No, it's not practical.
There are some things we just have to take on the chin in life, and one of them is counting mothers and babes jumping out of an aircraft as one person.
Of course my argument wouldn't stand up in court. Now KM, if you were to ask what would happen at the ensuing board of enquiry....well I have no idea...ask a lawyer. But history has never proven this to be an issue so it is probably unlikely the 'ensuing board of enquiry' will ever occur.
So for me I'm afraid I have to put this one down to nit picking....sorry
Nobody can make a rule (including all of us here) and not have somebody come along and think of a scenario that was never dreamed of during the rule making. The problem is..i guess... rulemakers are slow to update rules.
Anyway, my take on it is that a babe in arms will not take any longer to evacuate that mother alone (in fact mabe quciker if you factor in instinct
) . So no big deal. I think a clinically obese person would take much longer and cause more of an obstruction. Do we regulate against the number of obese people per CA? No, it's not practical.There are some things we just have to take on the chin in life, and one of them is counting mothers and babes jumping out of an aircraft as one person.
Of course my argument wouldn't stand up in court. Now KM, if you were to ask what would happen at the ensuing board of enquiry....well I have no idea...ask a lawyer. But history has never proven this to be an issue so it is probably unlikely the 'ensuing board of enquiry' will ever occur.
So for me I'm afraid I have to put this one down to nit picking....sorry
Kaptin M - it's not just the lo-cos who put the minimum number of cabin crew on 737s these days. Lufthansa stopped putting 4 on and reduced it to 3 earlier this year to try to save costs - at the same time dumbing-down their European Business Class service to its current poor standard.
No doubt all to pay for electric beds and WLAN internet for the premium classes on longhaul?
No doubt all to pay for electric beds and WLAN internet for the premium classes on longhaul?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: south east
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In certain cases it would take longer to evacuate an infant, ie: a planned ditching.
The parents have to be instructed how to operate a life cot, not the easiest thing to do when you've had time in the classroom let alone when you're panicking about your survival chances. It would take 1 member of cabin crew quite a while to instruct the parent of one infant & probably 2 if there were several infants on board. Also the cabin crew would probably have to fetch blankets for each infant if they didn't already have them. Safety aside, cabin crew also spend a lot of time during the service warming bottles & baby food & retrieving abandoned nappies, all an extra workload for a minimum crew.
I think this is a very good thread & not before time!
The parents have to be instructed how to operate a life cot, not the easiest thing to do when you've had time in the classroom let alone when you're panicking about your survival chances. It would take 1 member of cabin crew quite a while to instruct the parent of one infant & probably 2 if there were several infants on board. Also the cabin crew would probably have to fetch blankets for each infant if they didn't already have them. Safety aside, cabin crew also spend a lot of time during the service warming bottles & baby food & retrieving abandoned nappies, all an extra workload for a minimum crew.
I think this is a very good thread & not before time!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm cany help feeling that this all a bit of an academic discussion.
Fundamentally the safest way to transport infants is in a proper infant seat and not on an adults lap.
Briefing an adult with an infant during a planned emergency might take more time, but so would any blind or deaf adults, or foreign language only passengers - so should their number also be used to calculate the required number of flight attendants? Where do you draw the line? Safety in the real world sometimes has to take second place to commercial pressure.
Maybe the best thing would be to ensure that the SLF actually pay attention to the pre-flight safety demo properly. Mind you the configuration of some cabins and the number of demos carried out means that some pax can't always see the demo anyway.
Fundamentally the safest way to transport infants is in a proper infant seat and not on an adults lap.
Briefing an adult with an infant during a planned emergency might take more time, but so would any blind or deaf adults, or foreign language only passengers - so should their number also be used to calculate the required number of flight attendants? Where do you draw the line? Safety in the real world sometimes has to take second place to commercial pressure.
Maybe the best thing would be to ensure that the SLF actually pay attention to the pre-flight safety demo properly. Mind you the configuration of some cabins and the number of demos carried out means that some pax can't always see the demo anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fundamentally the safest way to transport infants is in a proper infant seat and not on an adults lap.
However.......Despite seeing children on flights in child seats strapped to the airline seat, and despite assurances weeks prior to the flight, and at checkin before the flight....SD carried Juniors seat out to aircraft to be told at the steps "Sorry you cant take that on the aircraft".....
I argued the safety aspect of said seat and showed we had paid for SD Juniors ticket, who is 2... pointed out that the child seat fits in the airline seats great and we have done it before - on their carrier and others, but FA wouldnt budge. Eventually as other pax were held up I let it drop, seat was put in the hold, and SD junior had to sit in seat far too huge for him with the belt too big etc
On the return Flight it wasnt a problem..
Out of a half dozen flights in the last year with the little guy, One refusal (above, AF) and one objection on boarding - eventually the FA gave in that it was safer after pointing out the seat would fit properly.
Infants on flights is indeed a subject that needs discussing, Airlines & crews should encourage safety, not tell you black is white....
Regards, SD
Despite what I consider the sense shown by SD the fact that an infant pays only 10% of most scheduled fares (or is free on some domestic services) influences parents. I can't help feeling, therefore, that as long as the fare remains so low the anomalies referred to here will remain in place.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope not too much of a diversion, but some (even large, reputable) airline reservations systems cannot even count infants properly...
For instance, FF points redeemers with an infant.
For instance, FF points redeemers with an infant.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hartington,
I assure you that I paid the same price for my ticket as I did for SD juniors ticket, and this is the case for all the airlines I have flown with or checked prices for.....
Regards, SD.
PS. If you are talking about a child under 2, who is to sit on the parents lap, then that could be different. But if you want a separate seat for your child, then you definitely pay for it, I know from experience!!!
I assure you that I paid the same price for my ticket as I did for SD juniors ticket, and this is the case for all the airlines I have flown with or checked prices for.....
Regards, SD.
PS. If you are talking about a child under 2, who is to sit on the parents lap, then that could be different. But if you want a separate seat for your child, then you definitely pay for it, I know from experience!!!