Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Unbelievable - family forced to sit in the aeroplane floor

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Unbelievable - family forced to sit in the aeroplane floor

Old 14th Jan 2019, 08:15
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by roundwego View Post
For F*cks sake all you PC objectors, get a life and grow some balls. The crew used their initiative and got the pax home safely and legally.
The CAA is certainly quite interested in whether this was legal or not, and they're the arbiters of legality. I am not too sure this is legal.

Meanwhile this sort of aggressive and yet ill-informed post is the sort that makes me wonder who the author works for so that I can avoid flying with them in future.
nicolai is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 10:33
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 58
Posts: 726
Imho, some of you need to swat-up on what the EASA regulations actually say.

This family were appropriately seated for take-off & landing wherein, from how I read the article, the child had a regular seat, and the the parents were each seated on a jump-seat, and those seats would also be available to them during flight, i.e. in the event of turbulence and / or the seatbelt sign being illuminated. It's also the case that on the B757 (at least on the ones that I've flown) there are jump-seats located in the mid-cabin which this family could have used, i.e. during the period that the cabin crew required unrestricted access in the galley. However, for whatever reason (did someone shout "compensation!" ?) this family chose to decamp to that vacant area, albeit - from any safety perspective - that's no worse or significant than having a queue of passengers standing in the aisle waiting to use the crapper... and yet they then proceeded to make a song & dance about it in the media.

Here's what the actual EASA regulation says about passenger seating:
  • The operator shall establish procedures to ensure that passengers are seated where, in the event that an emergency evacuation is required, they are able to assist and not hinder evacuation of the aircraft.
So that rule was complied with. There was no emergency and, had there been, i.e. one that required an evacuation, they would, by definition, be on the ground and these pax would be in the seats assigned to them.

Here's what the EASA regs also says about the use of seats & seat belts by passengers:

CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems
  1. Before take-off and landing, and during taxiing, and whenever deemed necessary in the interest of safety, the commander shall be satisfied that each passenger on board occupies a seat or berth with his/her safety belt or restraint system properly secured.
  2. ...
So that rule (1) was also complied with. Had the seatbelt sign been switched on, any & all pax whom were not seated would have been asked to return to their seats and buckle-up, for which this family would have gone to the seats they'd been assigned for takeoff & landing.

Here's what the EASA regulations say about Supplemental Oxygen:
CAT.IDE.A.235 Supplemental oxygen — pressurised aeroplanes
(b) Pressurised aeroplanes operated at pressure altitudes above 25 000 ft shall be equipped with:
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. an oxygen dispensing unit connected to oxygen supply terminals immediately available to each cabin crew member, additional crew member and occupants of passenger seats, wherever seated;
  4. ...
So that rule (3) was also complied with... wherein the fact that some pax (this family, and maybe also other pax moving about in the cabin for whatever reason, e.g. stretching their legs, and / or maybe going for a dump) were not in their seats at specific moments during the flight does not detract from the fact that oxygen is indeed provided at the seats, i.e. when & if the pax happen to be seated in them.

It would seem to me as if the crew did a good job in difficult circumstances, and a legal one too!

Last edited by Old King Coal; 14th Jan 2019 at 10:54.
Old King Coal is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 10:55
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,494
If TUI had handled the matter a little more graciously after the flight, then we may never have heard of this story in the press.

If the family were fairly and promptly compensated from the outset for the inconvenience caused, it is unlikely that they would have gone to the same lengths as they have done to gain media exposure.

The spotlight should not be on the crew but rather those who were responsible for not providing the level of customer care that one would expect after the flight had taken place.
Mister Geezer is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 10:58
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,303
Originally Posted by Old King Coal View Post
Imho, some of you need to swat-up on what the EASA regulations actually say.

This family were appropriately seated for take-off & landing wherein, from how I read the article, the child had a regular seat, and the the parents were each seated on a jump-seat, and those seats would also be available to them during flight, i.e. in the event of turbulence and / or the seatbelt sign being illuminated. It's also the case that on the B757 (at least on the ones that I've flown) there are jump-seats located in the mid-cabin which this family could have used, i.e. during the period that the cabin crew required unrestricted access in the galley. However, for whatever reason (did someone shout "compensation!" ?) this family chose to decamp to that vacant area, albeit - from any safety perspective - that's no worse or significant than having a queue of passengers standing in the aisle waiting to use the crapper... and yet they then proceeded to make a song & dance about it in the media.

Here's what the actual EASA regulation says about passenger seating:
  • The operator shall establish procedures to ensure that passengers are seated where, in the event that an emergency evacuation is required, they are able to assist and not hinder evacuation of the aircraft.
So that rule was complied with. There was no emergency and, had there been, i.e. one that required an evacuation, they would, by definition, be on the ground and these pax would be in the seats assigned to them.

Here's what the EASA regs also says about the use of seats & seat belts by passengers:

CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems
  1. Before take-off and landing, and during taxiing, and whenever deemed necessary in the interest of safety, the commander shall be satisfied that each passenger on board occupies a seat or berth with his/her safety belt or restraint system properly secured.
  2. ...
So that rule (1) was also complied with. Had the seatbelt sign been switched on, any & all pax whom were not seated would have been asked to return to their seats and buckle-up, for which this family would have gone to the seats they'd been assigned for takeoff & landing.

Here's what the EASA regulations say about Supplemental Oxygen:
CAT.IDE.A.235 Supplemental oxygen ó pressurised aeroplanes
(b) Pressurised aeroplanes operated at pressure altitudes above 25 000 ft shall be equipped with:
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. an oxygen dispensing unit connected to oxygen supply terminals immediately available to each cabin crew member, additional crew member and occupants of passenger seats, wherever seated;
  4. ...
So that rule (3) was also complied with... wherein the fact that some pax (this family, and maybe also other pax moving about in the cabin for whatever reason, e.g. stretching their legs, and / or maybe going for a dump) were not in their seats at specific moments during the flight does not detract from the fact that oxygen is indeed provided at the seats, i.e. when & if the pax happen to be seated in them.

It would seem to me as if the crew did a good job in difficult circumstances, and a legal one too!
That works very well if You are the owner of the aircraft and You write Your own Quality&Safety Manual and OM Part A with a cut and paste from the above. If that is not the case, You must ensure that You apply the rules and procedures laid out by the operator and approved by the CAA of the state of airworthiness, otherwise they might not be too happy that You lay down a set of procedures and then You just do what it suits You best on a day to day basis. As a Commander You are entitled to deviate from Your Operator's rules and regulations in the interest of safety, not in the interest of a commercial issue.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 11:11
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 58
Posts: 726
Those rules, i.e. that I've listed above, are what's laid down by EASA.
Any European / EASA regulated airline's Ops Manual must - as a minimum - reference and / or state those same rules, and / or else list rules that are even more restrictive than the ones defined by EASA, and which the NAA (National Aviation Authority) which overseas the airline then approve (having first confirmed that what's within an amended Ops Manual still complies with the Regulations).

In this instance the Regulations (at least those as defined by EASA) would seem to have been complied with. That said, without access to it, one can't of course comment on what might be written in a specific airlines (TUI's in this case) approved Ops Manual.
Old King Coal is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 11:45
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Guardamar
Posts: 29
If a triple was removed, then (probably) three pax LSJs were also removed. Is, (in the MEL),there not supposed to be one LSJ for each pax carried. No doubt someone will tell me I am not quite correct. As a matter of course, I always check under my seat to see if it there.
alt
aloominumtoob is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 11:54
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Age: 62
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by aloominumtoob View Post
If a triple was removed, then (probably) three pax LSJs were also removed. Is, (in the MEL),there not supposed to be one LSJ for each pax carried. No doubt someone will tell me I am not quite correct. As a matter of course, I always check under my seat to see if it there.
alt
Good point lol - yes it seems the whole seat row 41 DEF was gone - So the 3 lifeboats would be missing - but in any turbulence and seat belt sign on, or an emergency landing the pax would have gone back to their jump seats anyway - and a life vest is stowed nearby.
rog747 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 12:07
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 539
In Germany paying pax are never placed on jump seats anymore for "insurance" reasons since quite some time.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 12:21
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 580
This has nothing to do with a German airline. My UK OMA specifically allows the carriage of passengers on the jump seats at the commanders discretion. There are certain conditions which must be met regarding age and ABP.

Neither the crew or the airline have done anything illegal.
763 jock is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 12:30
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 41
Posts: 3,112
Originally Posted by Old King Coal View Post
Imho, some of you need to swat-up on what the EASA regulations actually say.

This family were appropriately seated for take-off & landing wherein, from how I read the article, the child had a regular seat, and the the parents were each seated on a jump-seat, and those seats would also be available to them during flight, i.e. in the event of turbulence and / or the seatbelt sign being illuminated. It's also the case that on the B757 (at least on the ones that I've flown) there are jump-seats located in the mid-cabin which this family could have used, i.e. during the period that the cabin crew required unrestricted access in the galley. However, for whatever reason (did someone shout "compensation!" ?) this family chose to decamp to that vacant area, albeit - from any safety perspective - that's no worse or significant than having a queue of passengers standing in the aisle waiting to use the crapper... and yet they then proceeded to make a song & dance about it in the media.

Here's what the actual EASA regulation says about passenger seating:
  • The operator shall establish procedures to ensure that passengers are seated where, in the event that an emergency evacuation is required, they are able to assist and not hinder evacuation of the aircraft.
So that rule was complied with. There was no emergency and, had there been, i.e. one that required an evacuation, they would, by definition, be on the ground and these pax would be in the seats assigned to them.

Here's what the EASA regs also says about the use of seats & seat belts by passengers:

CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems
  1. Before take-off and landing, and during taxiing, and whenever deemed necessary in the interest of safety, the commander shall be satisfied that each passenger on board occupies a seat or berth with his/her safety belt or restraint system properly secured.
  2. ...
So that rule (1) was also complied with. Had the seatbelt sign been switched on, any & all pax whom were not seated would have been asked to return to their seats and buckle-up, for which this family would have gone to the seats they'd been assigned for takeoff & landing.

Here's what the EASA regulations say about Supplemental Oxygen:
CAT.IDE.A.235 Supplemental oxygen — pressurised aeroplanes
(b) Pressurised aeroplanes operated at pressure altitudes above 25 000 ft shall be equipped with:
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. an oxygen dispensing unit connected to oxygen supply terminals immediately available to each cabin crew member, additional crew member and occupants of passenger seats, wherever seated;
  4. ...
So that rule (3) was also complied with... wherein the fact that some pax (this family, and maybe also other pax moving about in the cabin for whatever reason, e.g. stretching their legs, and / or maybe going for a dump) were not in their seats at specific moments during the flight does not detract from the fact that oxygen is indeed provided at the seats, i.e. when & if the pax happen to be seated in them.

It would seem to me as if the crew did a good job in difficult circumstances, and a legal one too!
That's all well and good, but if the crew did not take the pax to the other jumpseats during service, then that is the problem, that is when the pax are suddenly no longer meeting the requirements.
What we don't know is who directed them to sit down where they did. If it was the crew, then straight away, they have breached all the regs you've mentioned.

This below is the interesting one in this case, as this was complied with right up to the moment that the crew asked them to move out of the galley. At that point, they were no longer in compliance. Could they have got back to their seats in the event of an emergency? Who knows. That depends on what the emergency is and what is going on. Which means that you really can't argue that this is being complied with any more. It was. Then through the actions of the crew, it wasn't.

CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems
  1. Before take-off and landing, and during taxiing, and whenever deemed necessary in the interest of safety, the commander shall be satisfied that each passenger on board occupies a seat or berth with his/her safety belt or restraint system properly secured.
The CC should never have allowed them to sit on the floor like this. Or at least made sure they had permanent access to suitable jumpseats elsewhere in the cabin at all times.

No matter what you might think of the situation, if the crew did not manage the situation at all times to ensure that the pax had assigned seats and the wherewithall to operate them, then they are in breach. If they did and the pax decided that the floor was more comfortable than the jumpseats (a very realistic proposition!) then, there is no story here and it's a whole load of guff about nothing, other than the fact that TUI have been a wee bit daft in PR terms...

Unfortunately, if the CC have made this mistake, it'll be the commander who cops it. It always is.
Say again s l o w l y is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 14:53
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 743
it'll be the commander who cops it. It always is.
Yes, well, that's the meaning of "Responsible" that goes with the word you use, "Commander". If no-one on the flight deck knew of the developing situation (unlikely, surely?), it's because the CC did not feel they should tell them. Which raises all sorts of questions.
old,not bold is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 15:15
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by old,not bold View Post
If no-one on the flight deck knew of the developing situation (unlikely, surely?)
Unlikely indeed, since the article states:
"'The co-pilot came and sat with us on the floor and said he just wanted to thank us for our co-operation and understanding. He said that how calm we were and he was so grateful because he would have had to, he would have missed the time slot take off."
Joe_K is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 15:42
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 49
Posts: 782
The bigger issue is that TUI only offered a refund when they knew the story was going to played out on the BBC, on Tuesday Evening:-
'After the family contacted Rip Off Britain, TUI refunded their fares'
Presumably until then they had made no such offer?
Up until the media got involved it was a F--- off response, after media lots of back-peddling and humble pie and dosh thrown out to placate said passengers. The Airline wasn't doing anything illegal I think (although I am not familiar with UK regs), but given the issue it would have been sensible to refund them before it blew up (as they well knew it might).
flash8 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 15:55
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 43
I'll leave the debate about compliance with aviation law to the professionals, but would like to make a point about the commercial aspects.

Under the Consumer Rights Act, the consumers would be perfectly entitled to take action to gain redress for the way they were treated.

Selling people regular seats and then putting them into jump seats (and moving them to run the service) is unlikely to go down well with a judge.

So anyone criticising the consumers for seeking proper compensation is well off the reality.

I don't blame them for taking pix for evidence, either, as the subsequent offer of £30 was derisory and sadly predictable - the airline industry does have a rep for behaving like cheapskates in this type of situation.

To support this view from personal and recent experience, last year, my wife and I had booked premium economy seats on a TATL flight with a UK airline, who then cancelled the flight and then reinstated it with an all Y aircraft; amazingly, they didn't wish to accept a cancellation from us, despite this being an absolute right under EC261 and also falling foul of the CRA. Only when threatened with small claims action did they change their view.

So my sympathy is with the pax here, they did not get what they paid for and they were right to go the press.
Final 3 Greens is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 16:16
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newcastle
Age: 48
Posts: 553
Removed as per
MATELO is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 16:39
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: my easychair
Posts: 31
use to be in this industry. Would not touch this situation with a 100 foot barge pool. I guess Cappy had the ability to foresee turb so pax could return to illegal fltatt. jump seats . NOT

This business has arrived at the bottom of the garbage pail. The people involved should hang their heads in same. 120 paxs req. 120 seats with seat belts and oxygen masks available. Fairly easy concept.
slack is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 19:15
  #57 (permalink)  
3db
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kingston, Surrey, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 73
Final 3 greens
About 5-7 years ago I made my first booking with a LoCo. Booking software insisted wife and myself could sit on same seat - couldn't change anything on-line. Contacted customer service, after the hour or more wait. Ask for refund, Told we have your money, f*** off (anticipating problems, I was recording the call). Had to issue a County Court summons, airline did not attend. Judgement in my favour. Airline didn't pay. Bailiffs instructed, who told me they would get payment. Seems its a regular occurrence, they turn up with bolt cutters for main gate early in the morning and a wheel clamp. They phone airline (they know the number as its regular), airline pay up. It worked for me, but I wonder how cost effective it really is, even if most people don't issue a summons.
More concerning is in spring this year we need to fly same carrier as it is the only convenient carrier. Booked, no problem as far as I know, but entered my email address as a new user, it "welcomed me back" as a satisfied passenger. I will judge that after the flights!
3db is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 19:39
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 41
Posts: 3,112
Originally Posted by old,not bold View Post
Yes, well, that's the meaning of "Responsible" that goes with the word you use, "Commander". If no-one on the flight deck knew of the developing situation (unlikely, surely?), it's because the CC did not feel they should tell them. Which raises all sorts of questions.
Well, we've all flown with some crew members who believe in the separation between flight deck and cabin. Once the doors are closed I have certainly met a few who didn't feel the need to pass on information even after explicit instructions...

Not exactly good CRM and I suspect this incident will be making its way onto CRM syllabuses rather rapidly.
Say again s l o w l y is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 19:42
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,310
Mrs Taylor added: 'The co-pilot came and sat with us on the floor and said he just wanted to thank us for our co-operation and understanding.''He said that how calm we were and he was so grateful because he would have had to, he would have missed the time slot take off.'
As Chesley Sullenberger surmised about an article he read,

'We were once recruited and assessed for our judgement, these days we are recruited and assessed for our compliance'

If the FO actually said that, it would appear that OTP is more prevalent in the crew's mind.
Pilot in command means just that. It is why the law protects the Captain and indeed penalises him or her. The definition of strict liability ensures that pilots are required and held accountable to their actions.

Whether or not this is illegal is best left to the regulator, the vexing element of this is that the flight crew were more concerned with slot maintenance and OTP which are rather lower down the hierarchy of concerns flight crew ought be focused on.
Rated De is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 19:45
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by Johnny [email protected] Pants View Post
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dnt-exist.html

Iknow itís the Daily Fail, but this seems to be a genuine tale.
Considering its illegal i'd be surprised.
airsouthwest is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.