Airbus putting more Y seats on A380

[RooFlyer]

FA on QFi flight today told me that the 90 second evacuation 'rule' must be accomplished even with half the doors/slides unavailable (it might have been for A380s, or in general - not sure). I was kinda disbelieving but she was quite sure (senior type, serving F cabin )

We were talking about the incidents recently of pax in USA taking hand luggage with them down the slides. She said that yes, they (QF FAs) will seriously try to get people to abandon their carry-on on board, rather than just turn a blind eye, as reported in another thread for (I think) some Nth American carriers. She said no-way would they see pax bringing carry-on forward towards a door and not try to do anything about it.

Which is just as I thought, and expected.

 

[dajop]

On the upside, if the flight is operating in economy at a load factor of less than 90.9% there's a good chance the middle seat would be empty. And if it was very lightly loaded it would be nice to have a whole centre row to yourself. Anyway it sound very much like these would be for shorter low yield, higher density routes such as India-DXB, which is completely different to routes like SYD-DXB.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

FA on QFi flight today told me that the 90 second evacuation 'rule' must be accomplished even with half the doors/slides unavailable (it might have been for A380s, or in general - not sure). I was kinda disbelieving but she was quite sure (senior type, serving F cabin )

We were talking about the incidents recently of pax in USA taking hand luggage with them down the slides. She said that yes, they (QF FAs) will seriously try to get people to abandon their carry-on on board, rather than just turn a blind eye, as reported in another thread for (I think) some Nth American carriers. She said no-way would they see pax bringing carry-on forward towards a door and not try to do anything about it.

Which is just as I thought, and expected.

the 90 second rule with half the exits is standard - has been around for a long time. All current aircraft must comply with that.

as for the hand luggage... there are complicating factors to that. The CX evacuation of a 747 at Shanghai saw lots of passengers take baggage with them... the crew have to decide if seizing baggage will slow the evacuation and if they do seize it... where do they stow it so that it doesn't block the path to the exits.

Crew will be standing at the doors shouting commands and ensuring the evacuation runs as smoothly as possible... I would not expect them to be searching down the aisle looking at someone 7 rows away and whether they have their bag with them. And then by the time they reach the exit it may be too late.

the QF32 disembarkation by stairs at SIN raised some issues. Pax were told they cannot take their bags (in case they fall and cause injury) and one crew member seized a bag and threw it across the cabin. i don't necessarily support that attitude.

 

[harvyk]

FA on QFi flight today told me that the 90 second evacuation 'rule' must be accomplished even with half the doors/slides unavailable (it might have been for A380s, or in general - not sure). I was kinda disbelieving but she was quite sure (senior type, serving F cabin )

We were talking about the incidents recently of pax in USA taking hand luggage with them down the slides. She said that yes, they (QF FAs) will seriously try to get people to abandon their carry-on on board, rather than just turn a blind eye, as reported in another thread for (I think) some Nth American carriers. She said no-way would they see pax bringing carry-on forward towards a door and not try to do anything about it.

Which is just as I thought, and expected.

That is correct, it's for all types, and there is a very good reason for it... During an emergency evac, there is every chance that one or more doors will be unusable, for example there could be a fire on one side of the aircraft making the doors unavailable on that side, or the angle which the aircraft has come to a rest means that certain doors are too high from the ground for the slides to reach the ground (at an angle which they are useful), or there is some other obstacle (eg water) which prevents the door from being opened...

Edit: The other that I can think of is the slide itself gets damaged during the evac, and thus makes it no longer usable.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That is correct, it's for all types, and there is a very good reason for it... During an emergency evac, there is every chance that one or more doors will be unusable, for example there could be a fire on one side of the aircraft making the doors unavailable on that side, or the angle which the aircraft has come to a rest means that certain doors are too high from the ground for the slides to reach the ground (at an angle which they are useful), or there is some other obstacle (eg water) which prevents the door from being opened...

Edit: The other that I can think of is the slide itself gets damaged during the evac, and thus makes it no longer usable.

for water an example of the 744 (runway overrun into water)... overwing exits should be disarmed, and the rear fuel tank can put the 5LR door sills under water. So already 4/10 MD exits potentially not suitable.

 

[RooFlyer]

the 90 second rule with half the exits is standard - has been around for a long time. All current aircraft must comply with that.

as for the hand luggage... there are complicating factors to that. The CX evacuation of a 747 at Shanghai saw lots of passengers take baggage with them... the crew have to decide if seizing baggage will slow the evacuation and if they do seize it... where do they stow it so that it doesn't block the path to the exits.

Crew will be standing at the doors shouting commands and ensuring the evacuation runs as smoothly as possible... I would not expect them to be searching down the aisle looking at someone 7 rows away and whether they have their bag with them. And then by the time they reach the exit it may be too late.

the QF32 disembarkation by stairs at SIN raised some issues. Pax were told they cannot take their bags (in case they fall and cause injury) and one crew member seized a bag and threw it across the cabin. i don't necessarily support that attitude.

I absolutely agree with that attitude I bet it got the attention of the other halfwits nearby clutching their roll-aboards!

I, and I don't think anyone here would argue that FAs should be grappling with pax who have carry-ons, about to go down the slide. And every circumstance will be different - we are talking about acute emergencies with smoke filling the cabin to a circumstance where there is no immediate threat, but deplaning by slides has been ordered by the Captain, and all in between.

BUT as circumstances allow, I believe FAs should try their utmost to enforce the safety rules, which in QF's case at least means NO carry-on when you go down the slide. This will range from terse general commands, to targeting that guy who is 3 spots away with 2 carry-ons, blocking the aisle.

This contrasts with the 'policy' apparently on foot in some ?US airlines where FAs should not interfere with pax taking carry-one down slides. Just stupid, not even to try. I assume the 90 second rule applies with pax streaming out of the plane, unencumbered?

Gone a bit O/T, sorry.

 

[harvyk]

I, and I don't think anyone here would argue that FAs should be grappling with pax who have carry-ons, about to go down the slide. And every circumstance will be different - we are talking about acute emergencies with smoke filling the cabin to a circumstance where there is no immediate threat, but deplaning by slides has been ordered by the Captain, and all in between.

It's highly unlikely that an emergency evac by slides would be ordered by a captain unless there was a very real and immediate threat, since using the slides carries a high risk in of itself.

There have been quite a few examples where it was not the emergency itself which has caused injuries, but the evacuation. An example I can think of was an evac of a B747 at the gates at SYD, the brakes overheated and caught fire, thus an evac was ordered. Several people where injured after Door 3R slide (from memory, look up ATSB records if you like) ripped.

Whilst there was certainly a danger from the fire (although the fire was put out before the evac had finished, the ground crew did not muck around), the injuries where all caused from the evac itself.

 

[RooFlyer]

It's highly unlikely that an emergency evac by slides would be ordered by a captain unless there was a very real and immediate threat, since using the slides carries a high risk in of itself.

There have been quite a few examples where it was not the emergency itself which has caused injuries, but the evacuation. An example I can think of was an evac of a B747 at the gates at SYD, the brakes overheated and caught fire, thus an evac was ordered. Several people where injured after Door 3R slide (from memory, look up ATSB records if you like) ripped.

Whilst there was certainly a danger from the fire (although the fire was put out before the evac had finished, the ground crew did not muck around), the injuries where all caused from the evac itself.

We established in another thread that there is an "emergency evacuation" and then there is a "precautionary dis embarkation" - but both may involve the use of slides. I guess if an aircraft is on the ground, and has been involved in an 'incident' (eg off runway excursion - eg QF1 at BKK, landing gear collapse eg US1702) but there's no time desperate emergency (eg fire) the captain and crew assess the risks and pros and cons of de-planing pax by stairs or slides and proceed accordingly.

It was US1702 which got my dander up. Nose wheel tyre(s) burst during take off, pilot aborted take-off and nose wheel collapsed. No fire. I haven't been able to find out what time elapsed between plane coming to standstill and time when slides were deployed, but deployed they were and everyone seemed to take their carry-on with them.






If there was no 'dire emergency', and the slides were simply the method for dis-embarkation provided, then I would understand that people might be inclined to take gear with them. Who knows, maybe the crew actually said they could. markis10 said that some airlines have policies where crew do not try to interfere if pax are taking carry-on with them, I guess judging that the risk of slide damage was less of an issue than getting people out the doors as fast as possible.

Hence my discussion with the FA on my recent QF flight from LAX. She was aware of the US incident, and the aftermath, and was horrified that any crew would NOT do whatever they reasonably could to stop pax taking gear down the slides, no matter what the circumstance. A damaged slide will not only delay de-planeing, but can induce panic if pax think they are trapped. "You really want to do everything you can to prevent damage to slides, even if there I no immediate threat" I think was pretty close to what she said.

Suggest we take this discussion onto a new thread if wished to continue, as I see mods tsk tsk ing

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I absolutely agree with that attitude I bet it got the attention of the other halfwits nearby clutching their roll-aboards!

the QF32 was a disembarkation by stairs. Do you think it is appropriate for a member of crew to seize a bag and throw it high in the air to the other side of the cabin? On what basis do you think baggage is not allowed via stairs? The decision was already made that it was perfectly safe (no slides required). What about essential medicines carried in the bag by a passenger, required for urgent or immediate use?

People seem to forget that aircraft are embarked and disembarked by stairs every day, thousands of times. And people don't get in to great injury doing so.

 

[RooFlyer]

the QF32 was a disembarkation by stairs. Do you think it is appropriate for a member of crew to seize a bag and throw it high in the air to the other side of the cabin? On what basis do you think baggage is not allowed via stairs? The decision was already made that it was perfectly safe (no slides required). What about essential medicines carried in the bag by a passenger, required for urgent or immediate use?

People seem to forget that aircraft are embarked and disembarked by stairs every day, thousands of times. And people don't get in to great injury doing so.

I assume that the pax were told not to take their carry-on off the plane. Obviously something motivated the crew member to do what he did ... I'm assuming he didn't go around chucking pax's cases around the cabin as a matter of course. I'm guessing he was angry that his specific instructions were being blatantly ignored.

Given that there was still spilled fuel and foam and emergency crews all about the plane at the time of dis-embarkation, I'm believe your comment that

People seem to forget that aircraft are embarked and disembarked by stairs every day, thousands of times. And people don't get in to great injury doing so

... is a bit disingenuous. It was hardly a routine dis-embarkation via stairs! I doubt anyone thought it was "perfectly safe" at that stage, but given they had an hour or so to organize stairs, then that was the obvious way to de-plane!

I travel with medicines I need to take twice a day. If I were on QF32 I would have grabbed them and stuffed them in my pocket; or even just the toiletries bag, extracting contents as I went. As you observed, it was not a 'panicked' / emergency de-planing. I wonder if frail people were not urged to hurry down the stairs, but were assisted towards the end? I guess I they had medicines there would have been time to get them.

I really should read the report, I guess. :idea: Here's the link if anyone wants to join me. Investigation: AO-2010-089 - In-flight uncontained engine failure Airbus A380-842, VH-OQA, overhead Batam Island, Indonesia, 4 November 2010

This really is much ado about little and I'm not going to prolong this o/t any more. I obey crew's instructions and I'd like others to do as well. I don't know details of the specific circumstances of many incidents, but I have asked the general question directly of QF crew and received the answer that satisfies me that I'd be in good hands in an emergency on board QF. And any prat who dis-obeys a crew member's instructions in such a circumstance deserves everything that's coming to him or her.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This really is much ado about little and I'm not going to prolong this o/t any more. I obey crew's instructions and I'd like others to do as well. I don't know details of the specific circumstances of many incidents, but I have asked the general question directly of QF crew and received the answer that satisfies me that I'd be in good hands in an emergency on board QF. And any prat who dis-obeys a crew member's instructions in such a circumstance deserves everything that's coming to him or her.

then you really need to read the report into QF1... you will get a different scenario where you would not be satisfied with the crew after reading that...