Well done that cabin crew, maybe they hadn't forgotten already that 41 people died in Moscow this week having failed to evacuate a burning aircraft. Lots of speculation still but maybe if everyone on that aircraft had listed to the safety briefing and FOLLOWED the instructions, some of them would still be alive.

These should be PAX memory items. 'Training' never hurts. I always listen and count rows to nearest forward and rear exits as each config on a given type is different even within same airline.

Listening is one thing, actually being able to operate the window latch under emergency circumstances is quite another. Mental health? Capability? Indeed, airlines themselves should take a good hard look at themselves. We have seen those seats sold for higher revenue. Perhaps anyone at these seats then should not drink alcohol,? Breathalyse after spending X hours in lounge prior to departure as well as during the flight? The seats themselves with legroom are doubtless narrower with less room than before. So why are airlines not taking safety seriously? I agree they should be more safety conscious. If that means a config change on certain aircraft to have crew at emergency exit seat so be it. So Mr Pax, you have paid for your seat, paid for your ticket but you are responsible for evacuation procedures of potentially over100 pax. In the cold light of day you actually could not make this up frankly!! Happy flying.

nivsy See my post 19 above for a BA management reaction to what I thought was a constructive suggestion some years ago .......
The "no alcohol " caveat came across strongly at all crew levels.

Full marks to the cabin crew, captain and airline. More like that please. When I was regularly flying as a captain, if I was a passenger I always listened to the safety brief, even if it was the type I was operating. A quick reminder puts the facts foremost in the mind. Apart from that, it's common courtesy.

Interestingly NZ Police said the woman was only charged with using a mobile phone onboard an aircraft, no charge was laid for failing to obey the reasonable instructions of the crew. Both are breaches of the NZ Civil Aviation Act 1990.

.
.......some of them MIGHT still be alive. Nothing certain in this World ( except death and taxes )

I've flown Air NZ and was frankly put off the intended message by their so called "friendly" "interactive" safety videos, often featuring well known characters acting suggested safety actions around such places as The Bay of Islands, Antarctica, etc. Totally unneccesary, too long and boring and glad when they finish.

Just give us the facts, plain and simple, and spare us the theatricals.

Apparently this women was attending to her phone, how surprising is that. Personally I would legislate for all phones to be stowed in hold baggage - Oh ! wait a minute, Lithium batteries ?

Perhaps the flight attendants are trained in unobtrusive testing; if you argue with them about reading the safety card, you are probably not the best person to be seated where the safety of hundreds of people depends upon your ability and willingness to follow instructions. If the FA says not to open the door because the flames are on that side, you don't want somebody who is going to open it anyway.

Water pilot, bingo!

if she's being an uncooperative so and so now, I don't want to find out if she's finally going to listen when the ac is on fire with 41 people stampeding behind her to get out while she tries to get her bag out.

chuck her off. I've done it. Exit row pax became abusive and used threatening language, took it straight to the skipper who threw him off to catch the next flight. Pax flew a few weeks later on one of my flights and quietly sat and observed the briefing, every word.

ive also politely shushed pax talking over the demo when it meant other pax couldn't hear

The crucial point here, as has already been pointed out, is "Exit Row." Although people might have different views on the Air New Zealand safety briefing videos, they do take the exit row seriously, asking, and really wanting an honest answer, if people are OK with the possibility of having to do something in the unlikely event. They also have form for ejecting self-important rich orifices who think they're above taking part in safety measures: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=11455637 Note that when this particular waste of oxygen was offloaded, the other passengers clapped. Just quietly, the FAs might have enjoyed it, too. Not that it would affect their professionalism, though.

I too find the "cute" safety briefings appalling. Yet they are very common nowadays. Why show someone putting on an oxygen mask on a beach, for example? The best demonstration of something is one in which the circumstances in which I need to use something are the circumstances in which it is demonstrated. I won't need to use an oxygen mask unless I am in an aircraft so that is what should be shown.

What I want is a serious, business like presentation which reinforces the idea that my life my well depend on me paying attention.

Different generations and people learn information in many different ways. The younger, digital generation is now very prevalent travelling. I am sure the market research they would have done would show the method they use impacts the biggest majority of passengers. For frequent flyers like myself, first time can be engaging 50th extremely annoying but I suspect majority on flight closer to 1st timers and they are the vital target audience. Have patience, thankfully we are not a homogenace world and really it didn't take that long.

I saw your suggestion but IMHO if you are going to be looking for suitable individuals amongst the passengers to man the overwing exits your best bet isn't a frequent traveller who has done a generic course, perhaps once, an indeterminate time ago. A better bet would be current off duty flight or cabin crew and on many routes in some parts of the world there's often one on a flight, quite possibly more. However the companies would rather sell the exit row seats for extra money ..and that is not something that is confined to BA.

maxter

With respect and as a designer of learning interventions, you are wrong in your assertions. Market research may be able to identify reaction to the briefing (did people like it), it does not measure the retention of the message and whether the recipient of the message will be able to act upon it.

e.g. why is it necessary to demonstrate a simple lap belt operation? There is behavioural research behind that particular demonstration, not market research.

When designing for the younger generation, it is a general rule that they like shorter, sharper, etc - not rambling 6 minute attempts at winning a Palme D'Or.

I can't see any reference to "reasonable instructions" (other than a requirement to be seated and belted up), or to failing to pay attention to the safety briefing, in your link. Which section of the Act are you referring to ?

What about para 65g?
"65GDisruptive conduct towards crew member (1) Every person commits an offence who, while in an aircraft,— (a) uses any threatening, offensive, or insulting words towards a crew member; or (b) behaves in a threatening, offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner towards a crew member; or (c) behaves in a manner that interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties; or (d) intentionally interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties. (2) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000."

Haraka (interesting username) I can understand their caution over what seems like a sensible idea, the liability implications would be significant.

But I do wish companies were stricter over the criteria for occupying an exit row. I have seen people clearly not able to open the door being allowed to remain, as well as obese people who probably would not fit through the overwing exit and those who clearly had insufficient English to follow the briefing.

To give you an idea of how hopeless most passengers are at hearing/following instructions - try looking around when the PA requests that people leave their seatbelts unfastened as the aircraft is being refueled. In my experience, some fasten their seatbelts, most ignore it. I have never seen anyone with a fastened seatbelt unfasten it as a result of that announcement.

(and should not this thread be moved to JB?)

Possibly para 65G?

"65GDisruptive conduct towards crew member (1) Every person commits an offence who, while in an aircraft,— (a) uses any threatening, offensive, or insulting words towards a crew member; or (b) behaves in a threatening, offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner towards a crew member; or (c) behaves in a manner that interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties; or (d) intentionally interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties. (2) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000. (4) It is a defence in a prosecution under subsection (1)(a) for using offensive or insulting words if the defendant proves that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that his or her words would not be overheard by a crew member."

I don't think so. In the UK anyway, not listening to or not watching the safety briefing is not an offense. If charged under '65G' on the basis they didn't respond to a reasonable request to do so by the crew, any decent lawyer would say it wasn't a reasonable request as there is no requirement to listen. Bang to rights on the mobile phone though so QED.