Taxi with passengers not seated
 

Guys,

scenario: outside position, engines running. big aircraft, like 321,cpt starts taxiing and passengers not all seated. Who is responsible in this case when an injury occurs? captain who starts taxiing? chief of cabin not reporting that pax are still in the cabin?

Thanks folks

Captain is responsible. The F.A.'s must report any unsecured pax.

Got in a tiff with a F.A. when a agent booked myself and my puppy in a emergency exit row. This ditz started to big deal it after pushback, I calmly explained to her that we could return to the gate and re-seat us or accept it.

She addressed the captain (I had not purchased my ticket with my UATP card).

Bottom line the Captain should have returned to the gate.

Can never see what the big deal is, pax standing up while taxiing.

We happily sell them tickets on the flight, for a train, which will do 100mph, and on which you may not get a seat, never mind a seat belt.

Just think we should buy our insurance from the same place that the train companies buy theirs.

MB

misterblue - when trains have brakes as effective as aircraft your read-across nonsense will apply!!:ugh:

You should try standing up in a Sydney bus! They can brake as fast as a plane, and they can sure as %$^% rip around corners even faster! :ouch:

Or the passenger who has not complied with a lawful order from the crew to sit down and belt up (assuming the the seatbelt signs are on etc). However, in this litigation culture the passenger will never take any personal responsibility so the airline can expect to be the target of any legal action.

Too many passengers have no respect whatsoever for the legal authority of an aircraft captain and his crew and take air travel no more seriously than jumping on a bus or a tube. These people are the ones that often become victims of natural selection when an emergency does occur.

Rookie pax, like I was, years ago, when I stood during the ride to the stand might be excused but, like me, should listen to what they are told.
I was immediately compliant and felt sorry for the CC member who was forced to wise me up. :cool:

Question from one who deals with the SLF and doesn't understand!!
 

Hi Guys hope you don't mind a gatecrash to the tech log forum :)

I work for a certain loco carrier whose SOP's say the SLF have to be seated on taxi....we don't move unless all slides are armed. In fact the the SOP's go on to say the SLF carers aka the CC can only be up for safety related duties....."simples" to understand even for a CC manager and a base captain or is it???:confused: I'm confused because what happened to my friend, an ex fellow SCCM, could happen to me and I would like clarity. Thank god for this thread:ok:

Aircraft comes to stop in XXX. Seatbelt sign switched off which as per SOP is SCCM's instruction to disarm slides. The following is what happened next to the best of my knowledge:

• Disarm doors command given to CC by SCCM
• Jolt felt to plane from behind prompting SCCM to delay disarming of allocated door and to contact F/D
• No response from F/D so SCCM follows SOP. No apparent need to evacuate so disarms own door.
• Without prior warning plane then taxi's some distance with all doors disarmed, SLF in aisles, seatbelt signs still off and emergency exits blocked.

On disembarking SCCM approaches F/D to find out what happened as she needs to file CSR due to breach of safety procedures etc.

Told by F/D no need to report anything :hmm: Is there??

When having to hold short of parking or on the apron, I make an announcement to the passengers. In short, I provide details of the importance of remaining seated until the seatbelt sign is switched off. I’ve had an occasion or two where a passenger thought they were more special than the rest, and took a tumble. In those cases where one was complaining of pain and discomfort, I pulled the CVR CB for the just in case factor, which proved to be a good thing. Statements from witness were taken as well, for the just in case factor… again proved to be a good thing.

Well, the usual ambulance chaser filed a suit on behalf of the injured passenger.


At the deposition the plaintiff was asked these basic questions.

Question - On the night of the XXth, were you on flight XXX from ABC to DEF?

Then transcipts from the CVR were distributed, and then the tape was played.

Question – Why did you not comply with the instructions from the captain and the cabin crew?

After the basic questions, and written statements were presented...case dropped.

And better, the plaintiff became a defendant when our company sued him to recover our legal expenses incurred from his law suit.

VC Pilot, now you know what some of us Colonials feel like reading some of the posts in the mother tongue.

The Seat belt sign is on.The Pax is responsible for the injury encountered during that time.
The FA can only ask the Pax to follow rules.
regds
MEL.

Sorry, Cornish Jack, I must be a bit dopey today.

Thought I'd heard about lots of train crashes, where they stop ever so suddenly, but clearly I'd just dreamed them...

MB

Historically speaking, wot allowed trains to travel faster and faster woz the capability of the brakes, not of the source of power. It took many accidents (and hundreds if not thousands of lost lives) for this fact to be recognized. At the risk of being accused of being a scioloist, in the course of normal operation A/C only have to brake (in any hurry that is) on the available length of the runway. I doubt if - light rail aside - any train could decelerate anything like as fast as a typical a/c being encouraged to take the first exit.

So the laws of physics apply to a train in a different manner to an airplane ?

The thrust of my observation (reverse thrust?) is that trains stop slower. Summat to do with available braking power : weight ratio maybe.

On the other hand I am not in any way disputing that passengers who ignore instructions to belt up have only themselves to blame.

Jofm5
 

"So the laws of physics apply to a train in a different manner to an airplane ?"

No this argument is just silly for several reasons, trains v/s planes. Aircraft endure movements and forces during NORMAL OPERATION that trains simply do not. A rail is straighter and more level than a taxiway or runway and certainly AIR.

Trains accelerate,decelerate,climb,sink etc.etc at expected values. Never been on a train and experienced turbulance. I have certainly gotten jerked around in the cabin of an aircraft during taxi out in a freighter.

There are many more factors like the logistics of getting sardines seated.

Passenger trains.
These were killing folks by the hundreds until one rather bright young man came alone and devised a rather clever solution to the problem.
His name was George Westinghouse.

Better she should have a quick discussion with FD and settle it privately, rather than going into print.

OTOH, an unlikely event, considering the attitudes of some SCCM's.:rolleyes:

Mud whatever...you're a non-rev...if I had to return to the gate for you or your yappy little pet...you're getting off...so much for your card...

As for PAX standing up while taxiing, outbound, not acceptable...

Inbound however...

While pulling into the gate if they're up clearing the overheads, despite warnings from the cabin crew and the cockpit, I have found that a "gentle" tap on the over-engineered braking system of the B-727 quickly seats the offending miscreants...either back in their seat or in the asile...

The thing to remember is, when the "early risers" are grabbing their stuff to be the "first off" they could fall on or drop their stuff on some innocent old lady, etc...

To answer your question...the Airline, while maybe not liable, will settle....

Mud...I'd love to have you and your dog on my Flt...(NOT)...Pass Priv's are just that...a perk of your job, not your personal right...think about that next time....

The fact that the SCCM was talked out of a report speaks of a poor safety culture, open reporting of all incidents is vital to improve safety

No it's not. If a report is filed an investigated the reason for the break in SOPs may be found and prevent it happening again or a change in SOPs may be in order.

The object is to improve safety not to lay the blame at anyones feet.

From an engineering POV, surely the different deceleration in normal operation of train v plane is that, while a train has the luxury of several miles of track in which to decelerate from 125mph , aircraft generally don't.
In abnormal situations, both can decelerate pretty impressively.

I wouldn't mind seeing figures on the deceleration of a taxiing aircraft compared to a modern bus in an emergency stop situation.