QF deadheading pilot saves the day...

[legroom]

I would have. If the businessman was injured Mr Moron should have been identified so he can pay compensation via due process.

At the very least, Mr Imbecile should have received a good talking to from the airline so hopefully he won't go on repeating his misdeed somewhere else later.

 

[amaroo]

Back in the late 80's we were returning from a holiday in Saipan and Guam - we were flying Continental Airlines on an absolutely clapped out bird (can't recall type) as the wheels left the ground on take-off the panel above fell and hit me on the head - then the oxygen masks dropped down on me and a couple of other very nervous flyers.

FA got out of his seat and asked me to stand up and help shove it all back in.....standing at the angle of take-off was fun and we got the job done.

 

[rogerkambah]

I have stood up to close an overhead locker during takeoff. It was immediately across the aisle form my seat. There was no yelling to sit down. No drama at all.

But it's a judgement call. If there is no immediate danger the bin might well be able to stay open. If you are taking off from somewhere like Hong Kong and there is rough weather you might want to shut the bin



edited to add just asked a cabin crew friend of mine about this (not from QF): they said they have seen pax do this a couple times and as far as they are concerned it is common sense (to close the bin) and could prevent potential injury in doing so.

Same with me. I've jumped up on climb-out to close a bin, as I knew the ac was shortly going to turn on track, and there was a 50/50 chance of the bin contents being emptied on the pax below. I try not to sit in aisle seats for this reason, and if I am usually check that the bin above me is closed properly before takeoff or landing.

 

[legroom]

... I try not to sit in aisle seats for this reason, and if I am usually check that the bin above me is closed properly before takeoff or landing.

Good tip !

It's our neck on the line - literally.

 

[Pushka]

Having known of a woman who was knocked when a locker flew open and a bag fell on her head, and caused injury and bleeding (plus a move to the front) I'd expect someone to jump up and close it. The risks are higher that something would fall out with the amount of hand luggage people bring on board plus the weight, than someone jumping up and down to shut it.

 

[williamsf1]

Is the FA's prime role in this situation to be ready to open the door incase of a emergency? ie stay at thier position untill the captain calls for the doors to be disarmed ?

 

[mannej]

Having known of a woman who was knocked when a locker flew open and a bag fell on her head, and caused injury and bleeding (plus a move to the front) I'd expect someone to jump up and close it. The risks are higher that something would fall out with the amount of hand luggage people bring on board plus the weight, than someone jumping up and down to shut it.

If we are looking at the physics of the situation, a flying FA has the potential to cause much greater damage than a bag. Both have the potential to cause injury never the less.

 

[Quickstatus]

They are seated next to exits, but the disarm doors is to disarm the emergency slides from deploying when door is opened. Door is only opened when aircraft comes to complete stop either normally or crash. So to leave their "post" while the aircraft has not stopped will not stop them from executing this part of their duties. It takes all of a few seconds to fix the overhead bin. Usually there is another FA for the door on the otherside, and I think they have to crosscheck each other before notifying captain doors disarmed. So i dont believe the bin issue would have interfered. Again happy to be wrong

 

[under the radar]

the F/A actually fulfilled their legal requirement...and actually the pax didn't (regardless of 'who' they are) .... it's a CASA(Civil Aviation Safety Authority) requirement ...you may not like it, but 'them's the rules' ... furthermore, F/As are bound by numerous CASA requirements which from a paxs 'point of view' may seem 'silly/stupid'. But if F/As fail to meet CASA requirements...they are out of a job

 

[legroom]

I have heard this line before "them's the rules..."

I doubt if the rule writers had taken into account the scenario of an open locker / falling objects / potential neck injury (incl. para / quadriplegia).

There is a subtle difference between controlled vs uncontrolled / low-potential vs a high-potential risk.

The risk of falling objects is potentially far higher than the risks resulting from pax / FA flying through the airplane in most ordinary scenarios IMHO.

The law on negligence is based on the rule of forseeability where it could be argued that it is reasonable to forsee the dangers of an open locker with heavy (loaded) objects falling onto the head / neck of people sitting underneath.

Were this to happen and the pax suing the airline (as I am sure you would agree they should), the FAs would fall back on their "rules" but I would bet my 2c on the judges to apply Lord Atkin's dicta.

The obvious winners would be our "learned friends".


PS: I am not a lawyer

the F/A actually fulfilled their legal requirement...and actually the pax didn't (regardless of 'who' they are) .... it's a CASA(Civil Aviation Safety Authority) requirement ...you may not like it, but 'them's the rules' ... furthermore, F/As are bound by numerous CASA requirements which from a paxs 'point of view' may seem 'silly/stupid'. But if F/As fail to meet CASA requirements...they are out of a job

 

[under the radar]

I have heard this line before "them's the rules..."

I doubt if the rule writers had taken into account the scenario of an open locker / falling objects / potential neck injury (incl. para / quadriplegia).

There is a subtle difference between controlled vs uncontrolled / low-potential vs a high-potential risk.

The risk of falling objects is potentially far higher than the risks resulting from pax / FA flying through the airplane in most ordinary scenarios IMHO.

The law on negligence is based on the rule of forseeability where it could be argued that it is reasonable to forsee the dangers of an open locker with heavy (loaded) objects falling onto the head / neck of people sitting underneath.

Were this to happen and the pax suing the airline (as I am sure you would agree they should), the FAs would fall back on their "rules" but I would bet my 2c on the judges to apply Lord Atkin's dicta.

The obvious winners would be our "learned friends".


PS: I am not a lawyer

ive stated the facts....please direct your concerns to CASA

 

[markis10]

Were this to happen and the pax suing the airline (as I am sure you would agree they should), the FAs would fall back on their "rules" but I would bet my 2c on the judges to apply Lord Atkin's dicta.

The obvious winners would be our "learned friends".


PS: I am not a lawyer

I doubt your outcome would eventuate, simply because laws exist that prioritise actions when it comes to safety, under the CASRs the cabin crew have the responsibility to man the exits no matter what, duty of care to the aircraft being legislated as of higher importance than any individual.