Lauda 320 UK report

[infrequentflyer789]

Originally Posted by NoelEvans

I agree with a lot of the posters here that the "passport, wallet and phone in your pockets" is good enough, leave the rest.

Well, that ain't good enough for me, not any more. For several years now I've been one of those in the "fun" position of depending on medication (lots of it) to keep me alive. Passport wallet and phone I can fit in a pocket, travel documents too (used to - started to rely more on electronic copies of those now), the meds I cannot, and they won't fit in a waist belt either. The meds must be carried in cabin baggage, doctors' instructions, to do otherwise is to travel against medical advice and thus void insurance too. I may need access to them on board if pills time is during the flight - some of them are time critical, must be taken same time each day within an hour.

I should clarify that I could fit the actual pills (even a weeks worth, or maybe two) in a pocket, probably a fairly large coat pocket, but nevertheless on my person, in a pocket, but I am not allowed to do that. Flying internationally (which is all my flights), the rules require me to transport the pills in original packaging. Prescription meds packaging varies, but is invariably much much larger than the actual pills, pharmacy stockpiles are mostly air. You don't get a choice of packaging either, for me sometimes some of the packets are twice the size of the previous prescription, same drug different brand.

So, what I do is:

• medication (which is always sufficient for planned trip plus extra days for possible delay etc.) is in a small cabin bag, underseat sized, and it goes under seat, not in an overhead.
• backup medication (because I never travel with only one set) is in checked baggage, or if travelling cabin-only it'll be in a travelling companion's cabin bags (solo travel is not a likely occurrence, would require extra planning).
• meds bag will have shoulder strap for quick grabbing and hands-free carrying, because it's coming with me
• if I do get separated from the meds bag in an evac, first backup plan is that I will turn out to have hit my head coming down the slide, with my meds and history that means straight to hospital anywhere with vaguely competent medical (if I'm without that and without the drugs, I'm probably dead anyway) - once in hospital I can get my meds sorted out, I can list all of them, the doses, the times, and have written copies of the list on my person anyway.
• if all else fails I have enough experience that I can probably appear to have a stroke and get shipped to hospital that way - there might not be anything new on CT/MRI but there is plenty of old damage for them to look at.

People do need to think for themselves.

Your problem is that if everyone thinks for themselves then inevitably some of them are going to come up with a different conclusion to you - probably because their circumstances or perspectives are different (see example above). You can't have both "people think for themselves" and "people do exactly as I say".

[Uplinker]

Interesting. So..,..you are not allowed to put a week's worth of daily pills into one of those pill boxes with 7 compartments you see people using?

Who is it who says you have to keep pills in the original packaging, what is their reasoning for that, and is their diktat legally enforceable? Genuine questions.

Noel, you are an airline professional and understand the risks because you do regular safety and CRM courses. But remember that many passengers don't know the risks in the first place, and many leave their brains at home when they go on holiday. How many passengers, (or positioning crew for that matter), do you see reading the safety card as they first sit down?

[Magplug]

@infrequentflyer789.... Do you consider your personal medical needs and the baggage you need to cart them around override the safe and timely evacuation of the other 200+ passengers? A passenger that has special needs is always seated such that they will not impede the majority of other passengers in the event of an evacuation. They will be attended to by the crew when the aircraft is clear.

It sounds very much that flying is an activity that presents you with several medical challenges: From your description.... Being removed from prompt access to a medical facility being the primary one. The need for such large quantities of meds also being rather significant. Do you appraise the airline of these risks before you fly? Or you just say nothing, turn up (because it's my right), and share the risk of a medical diversion or an impeded evacuation without a second thought to your fellow humans?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Uplinker

Who is it who says you have to keep pills in the original packaging, what is their reasoning for that, and is their diktat legally enforceable? Genuine questions.

Many medicines banned by some countries are perfectly legal elsewhere (you can't take codeine into the UAE, for example). Given that it's ultimately down to the bearer to prove that the drugs he/she is carrying are legal, it's prudent to retain the original packaging and also the prescription for anything that might be in doubt.

[Uplinker]

Ah. OK.

I think if it were me, and the pills were vital to my life, I would decant a day or so's worth of the pills into a small pill box, which would live round my neck or in a small bum bag or similar, on my person. I would keep the packaging in my hold bag if I ever needed to prove their bona fides. I would probably get a doctor's letter describing the meds as well.

[Tee Emm]

I tend to disagree that dimming the cabin lights makes no sense.

As a matter of interest, Cathay Pacific cabin lights are left fully on for night takeoff and landings. Clearly there are different opinions between airlines. Personally I much prefer to have cabin lights bright so at least I can see what is happening the full length of the cabin with my glasses on.
Horses for courses

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by J.O.

The other (and more important) reason for dimming cabin lights is to give the cabin crew a better chance of seeing and assessing the outside conditions through that tiny window to determine if an exit is safe to use - or not. I can't recall which one but there was an accident report done several years ago which identified problems seeing outside because of the brightness of the cabin lighting. This led to the dimming of the lights being SOP in most of the world.

I don't think that you could have flown recently. 'Window' seat pax on arrival in the aircraft slam the blind hard down and proceed to access their social media or phone or text etc., Indeed, most flights these days with all blinds down are more like being in the hold of a freighter (and I have done enough of that too). I have suggested previously that window blinds should be 'up' (off) for takeoff and landing for the reasons you suggest. Nobody appears to be interested, which makes me think that despite the protestations of safety being number 1 priority, a lot of what is done is just a ritual dance that nobody really remembers the reason for nor takes seriously. The problem with this approach is if the cabin crew seem to be just going through the motions then the pax will not take in what they are being told and will try to walk back against the evacuating stream to get their oversize roll-aboard out of the overhead, and if they are seen doing that then others will too.

I would suggest a different approach which is to say WHY something is being briefed (and be truthful). if nobody in the airline knows why it is done then don't brief it/do it as a requirement until someone identifies a reason. Similarly, as someone suggested up thread - tell pax that if they evacuate they will need to leave all bags behind so all important documents/meds/keys should be in pockets or belts. Do this before boarding for obvious reasons. Same with footwear and clothing - it should be suitable for going down a slide then running away from an aircraft over bits of broken aircraft and ideally not be flammable.

I realize that there is a fine line between scaring off the pax and keeping them safe but safety is the number one priority is it not?

[CAAAD]

The engine failure is interesting. I seem to remember that there is a design requirement which prohibits the use of components which can be assembled incorrectly.

This particular fault must have been pretty well known considering the popularity of the engine type.

But the AAIB missed the target by settling for enhanced inspection, always the easy way out. Should have proposed a design change of the IGV and a design review of the whole engine for other similar mistakes.

[NoelEvans]

Originally Posted by Uplinker

Noel, you are an airline professional and understand the risks because you do regular safety and CRM courses. But remember that many passengers don't know the risks in the first place, and many leave their brains at home when they go on holiday.

Quite true! I heard a comment years ago from Cabin Crew that passengers check their brains in with their bags. That was in 'the old days'. I think your comment about leaving them at home is far more up to date. One would think that they might take some interest in their own safety though. Although...

Originally Posted by Uplinker

How many passengers, (or positioning crew for that matter), do you see reading the safety card as they first sit down?

I always, when travelling on holiday or 'positioning', make a point of reading the safety card, looking for the emergency exits and watching the safety demo (even those horrible pseudo-funny BA ones...), even for an aeroplane that I might be type-rated on. Primarily to remind myself of what is where and what might be different but also to try to set an example to other pax around. Our kids were 'indoctrinated' with this and we allowed them to unstrap to be able to kneel on the seats to watch the safety demo then strap in again (as had just been demonstrated!).

About the medication thing:
Have you told the airline of your special needs? (I think that question has already been asked.)
If your medication is so important that you need it every few minutes, then surely a small amount can be carried in a pocket or bum-bag to deal with an evacuation?
Surely if your medication is that important, then after you have evacuated (leaving it all in that potentially burning wreck and by doing so not hindering others from escaping) you report your medical problem to the emergency services that will be attending and they can assist you in getting an emergency supply? Surely those people behind you trying to escape are more important than your temporary medication inconvenience?

I cannot stand the sort of morons that travel as pax so often: I remember a highly publicised depressurisation on a well-known Irish airline where one of the morons sent a photo to a newspaper looking down the cabin of the 'rubber jungle' with the comment "No-one had told us what to do", yet there on the set back right in front of him in his photo was the demo sticker showing him what to do, exactly as he had been told in the demo...!!! (Another beauty from that one was another moron comment that "the ground was getting closer all the time" -- yes, and the ground gets closer all the time on every landing!!

Our first visit to NZ we had this safety demo video:

The Most Epic Safety Video Ever Made

; the second time was this:

An Unexpected Briefing

and the last time was this:

Worlds Coolest Safety Video

. We flew on one of their B737s once but sadly didn't get this one:

Nothing to Hide

! Those are good ways of getting attention... But then the pax were nicer there too, and on all our domestic flights were standing back to allow people in rows ahead to disembark first, something unheard of with most of the world's "got to be first off to go and wait for my bags" morons.

(Am I showing too much of a dislike for pax?)

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by CAAAD

But the AAIB missed the target by settling for enhanced inspection, always the easy way out. Should have proposed a design change of the IGV and a design review of the whole engine for other similar mistakes.

As far as I can see, the AAIB didn't make any engine-related recommendations related to the investigation.

[CAAAD]

DaveReid,
Well yes, they made no recommendation, but they did seem to indicate that they went along with the easy way out.

[Uplinker]

infrequentflyer789

See, the problem is, you say you must take your bag of meds with you. Another person whose hand-written manuscript for a book that took them 2 yrs to write will want to take that. The student whose dissertation is in their bag. The person with the only set of photographic negatives of family memories. The person carrying plans for a secret invention. The courier carrying commercially sensitive documents. The person who needs to self inject insulin. People who don't want to be without their make-up.

You and all these folk could be the ones holding up or obstructing other passengers in an emergency evacuation because you want to take your bags off. It is a selfish attitude and could result in the death of other people, from smoke inhalation or burns, or crush injuries. (You sound even more selfish and fraudulent when you say you would actually fake injuries in order to push-in to the top of the queue to the local hospital)

All the examples above, including yours have easy answers which do not require taking cabin bags off.

If you would die without your meds, then for a start, you should be declaring your special medical needs to the airline, and, if it was me; I would have a 1 day supply of pills, taken out of their packaging, around my neck. If you get stopped by security and they demand to know what the pills are, you can show them the packaging they came from in your bag and your list and your doctor's letter and your insurance document.

.....Your problem is that if everyone thinks for themselves then inevitably some of them are going to come up with a different conclusion to you - probably because their circumstances or perspectives are different (see example above). You can't have both "people think for themselves" and "people do exactly as I say".

Passengers will never have done an evacuation drill. Nor will they have partaken in regular SEP, (Safety and Emergency Procedures) training, that all aircrew regularly undertake. Passengers do not appreciate the risks. Passengers do not know what to do. Most passengers don't read the safety card in their seat pocket. Most passengers ignore the safety demonstration and some read their newspaper during it. So, passengers have to be told what do in an emergency. They have to be shouted at, because it needs to happen NOW, without them trying to think it through - there simply isn't time. The certification is 90 seconds to evacuate everyone from an airliner. In an emergency, passengers must do what they are told quickly.

That's the "do what I say" bit.

The "think for yourself" bit is; if we had to evacuate and I lost my cabin bag/meds/manuscript/make-up/iPad/wallet/passport etc; how would I cope? What could I do to replace them? Also: read the safety card and listen carefully to the safety demo.

[wiggy]

If you're not a fashionista and don't mind looking like a para on D-Day one possible solution to the pills/passport/documents/car keys/house keys/mobile phone/wallet problem is what is now know as "wearable luggage"...

[Maninthebar]

May invite attention at Security! :-)

[Uplinker]

FWIW, if I am a passenger I wear a short sleeved shirt with a breast pocket, and a fleece. (And black jeans).

I can modulate my personal temperature on the aircraft by wearing or removing the fleece. I put my passport and boarding card and phone in my shirt breast pocket. My wallet, (with credit cards, driving licence and paper money) is in my jean's back pocket. My keys, (one front door key, one car key with remote fob, one bike lock key), are in my jeans front pocket. I normally wear a wrist-watch.

If I had to get up and leave in a hurry, I could do so with just these items on my person, and not need to take my cabin bag. If I needed to take a taxi and book into a hotel, and buy more clothes etc, I could do so with my credit card.

The fleece would keep me warm outside if required and I look fairly smart and presentable in that and the black jeans

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by Maninthebar

May invite attention at Security! :-)

Not sure it would as long as it goes through the X-ray and you don't attempt to go through the archway wearing it.

The stuff as been around for a while, it seems to mainly by those attempting to avoid the ancillary charges levied by one or two airlines..


https://www.skyscanner.net/news/best...aggage-charges

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...tems%E2%80%9D.


Personally I'm not that extreme - I do pretty much as Uplinker describes.