Claims Qantas is planning to ditch life rafts from some flights to save money

[MEL_Traveller]

I can't much see the point of life rafts, particularly on aeroplanes that don't fly over the open seas. Has anyone ever been saved by one?

The US Airways incident on the hudson. Pax were seated in slides doubling as rafts.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Can anyone advise what VA do in terms of life rafts on the 737's?

As stated, the removal would be required to still meet the capacity requirements of the civil aviation regulations.

Comparisons don't really come in to it here.

During the volcanic ash incident QF decided to stop flying even though just about every other airline continued to fly.

Qantas stated that this was due to them being extra cautious with respect to safety. They were going 'above and beyond' was my interpretation.

So if they are going to go 'above and beyond' - why fall in line with international standards all of a sudden?

 

[amaroo]

As long as QF is operating within the appropriate rules then I couldn't' care less!

Just more standard QF bashing

+1
..........

 

[mannej]

The US Airways incident on the hudson. Pax were seated in slides doubling as rafts.

Where the rafts from the exit, or the extra rafts?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Where the rafts from the exit, or the extra rafts?

IIRC slide rafts.

 

[JohnPhelan]

IIRC slide rafts.

...which are standard equipment. Entirely different from the optional roof rafts.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

Here we go again from The Human Headline. I'm surprised the senator didn't suggest replacing the life rafts with life-size cardboard cut outs of himself to maintain his visual presence across the country.

 

[The Rok]

Up until about 2 months ago all my Network Aviation flights FA Safety Briefing included the statement "Life Jackets are not required for this flight"

Then all of a sudden they started including them in the briefing and presumably fitted them to the planes. Can't say I ever checked to see they were there previously.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

...which are standard equipment. Entirely different from the optional roof rafts.

slide rafts are not necessarily standard equipment.

you can have a slide with the primary function of evacuating pax on land OR a slide that doubles as a raft. the latter obviously has more features associated with its function.

if you have opted for slide rafts, rather than simple slides, you may not need to carry additional life-rafts in the cabin.

edited: I'm not sure if QF 737s have slides or slide rafts currently!

 

[under the radar]

Re: Qantas considering removing life-rafts from aircraft to save money

Qantas considers removing life rafts to save fuel

Can qantas please explain how, if safety is their number one priority, and nothing will ever undermine that (if we believe Qantas spin) - how can cost savings even be considered over an issue of safety?

so you're inferring/(implying) that ALL other airlines that JUST comply to CASA REGULATIONS are not safe.. or safety is not their no.1 priority (this includes VA and every other airline that operates in OZ)...if you have an issue with CASA regulations...I suggest you take that up with CASA....NOT QF!!!!

 

[mrdctau]

The US Airways incident on the hudson. Pax were seated in slides doubling as rafts.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the inflatable slides be removed. I'm merely suggesting that life rafts are of virtually no benefit in the event of a ditching and I'm not aware of any case where they have been of use.

 

[markis10]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the inflatable slides be removed. I'm merely suggesting that life rafts are of virtually no benefit in the event of a ditching and I'm not aware of any case where they have been of use.

Try Pan Am flight 6 back in the fifties as a starting point.

 

[under the radar]

slide rafts are not necessarily standard equipment.

you can have a slide with the primary function of evacuating pax on land OR a slide that doubles as a raft. the latter obviously has more features associated with its function.

if you have opted for slide rafts, rather than simple slides, you may not need to carry additional life-rafts in the cabin.

edited: I'm not sure if QF 737s have slides or slide rafts currently!

QF 737 have SLIDE ONLY attached to its doors....hence the ceiling stowage for rafts..and its just a stowage space...it doesn't need to have actual life rafts on 100% OF FLIGHTS...ONLY required if the aircraft are required to have them as per CASA regulations
I'm very happy to be proven wrong by QF737 crew on here...but I'm fairly confident the regulations haven't changed in the last 3yrs

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the inflatable slides be removed. I'm merely suggesting that life rafts are of virtually no benefit in the event of a ditching and I'm not aware of any case where they have been of use.

i already gave an example of the US airways flight on the Hudson that pax used slide rafts for.

there is a difference between a slide, and a slide-raft. two separate concepts.

 

[under the radar]

Where the rafts from the exit, or the extra rafts?

people are confusing 'slide only' with 'slide/raft', along with the unique situation of the Hudson River 'ditching'...that aircraft was slide/raft fitted...but even a slide only could be used as a 'raft' because of the perfect 'conditions' that enabled that aircraft to do a 'controlled' daylight ditching on the river..OPEN SEA/OCEAN ditching scenarios..with winds/swells/waves are totally different ....if you don't/can't ditch an aircraft in the 'perfect circumstances'...a 'slide raft/ or ceiling raft WONT SAVE YOU!!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Qantas considering removing life-rafts from aircraft to save money

so you're inferring/(implying) that ALL other airlines that JUST comply to CASA REGULATIONS are not safe.. or safety is not their no.1 priority (this includes VA and every other airline that operates in OZ)...if you have an issue with CASA regulations...I suggest you take that up with CASA....NOT QF!!!!

there are plenty of examples where airlines can comply with minimum requirements, but those minimum requirements may not necessarily provide the best safety for passengers.

 

[under the radar]

Re: Qantas considering removing life-rafts from aircraft to save money

there are plenty of examples where airlines can comply with minimum requirements, but those minimum requirements may not necessarily provide the best safety for passengers.

so if it bothers you that much....don't fly!!!..HUMANS constantly place themselves in 'danger'/create 'unnatural' environments/situations throughout their 'daily routine'.. and we will never be 100% 'safe'... airplanes/ships/cars/trains/ blah blah blah....all invented by humans..to make life 'easier'!!.. but when something 'goes wrong' .....we really can only blame HUMANS ... ooops...way too deep for AFF

happy flying

 

[Sojourner]

Re: Qantas considering removing life-rafts from aircraft to save money

A potential 'enhancement' would be for them to implement advanced seat selection and priority boarding of life rafts for Gold, Platinum, or P1 FF members.

 

[Fruitcake]

Try Pan Am flight 6 back in the fifties as a starting point.

Or, for an example of a less well planned open-ocean ditching where life rafts were of no use, ALM980:

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR71-08.pdf

 

[Reggie]

From ninemsn:

Qantas has admitted to operating flights in Australia with no life rafts on board in the past saying the practice is “not necessarily a new thing”.

Qantas admits to flying without life rafts

The airline has today confirmed it is considering a plan to remove liferafts from Boeing 737s flying domestically but has yet to make a final decision.The move would save around $1m a year in fuel, and Qantas would still comply with CASA safety regulations, which permit flights to operate without rafts up to 750 kilometres from the coast.
The airline issued a statement confirming it has been operating a limited number of flights in Australia without the added safety equipment.