Told off for putting legs up on exit door slide protrusion.

[Fantic125]

This morning on QF 082 from SIN-ADL I was seated in 45K - emergency exit row window seat.

The aircraft was a A330-300, ad the emergency exit door directly in front of me had a fairly large protrusion (I assume for the slide) which had a flat surface the same height as the seat.

As it was an overnight flight I wrapped the blanket around me, put the seat back and put my legs up on the protrusion (as I have done in the past) and tried to get some sleep.

I had my legs up there for about 10 mins when one of the cabin crew came and told me it's against regulations to have my legs up there. I queried it as I've never been told off for it previously, and she said that if I did it again she would report me to the captain.

Has anyone else had this happen, and is it against regulations to rest your legs there?

 

[samh004]

Most protrusions have a sticker on them warning against such acts, and I know myself not to do it.

Realistically I doubt you could set the slide off with the weight of your legs, but I've always known it's against the rules myself.

 

[Sifor]

I queried it as I've never been told off for it previously, and she said that if I did it again she would report me to the captain.

Captain: Alright mate, I told you not to put your legs up, off the plane."

Sorry I had to.

I just can't see what the captain would do, besides putting you in another seat.

I can't give any advice regarding aviation regulation, however I would assume placing your feet on safety equipment could be construed as tampering.

 

[k_sheep]

Hmm I've never seen a sticker there or been told off on D7 .... would put a significant dampener on my favourite seat if this were the case!

 

[notzac]

I queried it as I've never been told off for it previously, and she said that if I did it again she would report me to the captain.

Wow .. that's pretty awesome customer service right there ..

 

[dizperliz]

Technically nothing is allowed on the housing of the slide (feet/newspapers/children), this is enforced by the cabincrew. So depending on the awareness of the crew on the day ect. My understanding of the reasoning behind this is that in the past by putting weight onto the housing of the slide it has damaged the fitting of it over the slide resulting in potential damage of the slide and housing creating the door unserviceable.

 

[milehighclub]

The bustles are not very strong, so any weight on it has the potential to damage the slide/raft.

 

[NM]

The bustles are not very strong, so any weight on it has the potential to damage the slide/raft.

While I agree totally, I do think its a design flaw to install something with such an inviting shape in such a location that does not have the strength to function as multipurpose slide cover and seat/footstool/minibar/laptop table etc. Lack of planning and out-of-the-box thinking by airbus engineers who have obviously not spent enough time sitting in long-haul Y.

So as a result of Airbus short-sightedness, we must observe the sanctity of the slide/raft cover and keep feet (whether clothed/socked, bare or shod) and derrières away from the very inviting, yet poorly designed, ottoman.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I just can't see what the captain would do, besides putting you in another seat..

.....or write a report up for the AFP welcoming committee at the other end who might have a quick chat to you on arrival for disobeying instructions of the crew perhaps.

 

[anat0l]

The bustles are not very strong, so any weight on it has the potential to damage the slide/raft.

I'm with NM on this note. Rather odd the design would not be that resilient, since you can't guarantee that people won't try to sit or lean against the structure.

In saying that, this isn't QF's fault.

Wow .. that's pretty awesome customer service right there ..

And what kind of response do you think was appropriate? It is not as if the OP was being threatened with full book coming at them straight away, but it rather makes it well known that this is a serious directive.

"Sorry honey, but I'll need you to take your feet off that." "That maybe the case, but it's a safety thing, darling." Oh please....

 

[milehighclub]

The slide bustle is not strong on both Boeing and Airbus aircraft by design.

Remember in an emergency that slide/raft will be ripped out from it in a matter of seconds.

It's simply a protective cover over the slide, while not impeding it's deployment in an emergency.

You don't want to encourage people to sit on it or store things around it. It's an emergency equipment item and should be left alone.

 

[dizperliz]

Oh I love this whole 'its Airbus poor design', have you not been on 747 in the past 40 years? You'll see that door has not change a bit with an even bigger protruding bustle into the cabin. You'll find that most doors carrying a slide raft bustle that protrudes into the cabin depending on its size.

 

[notzac]

And what kind of response do you think was appropriate? It is not as if the OP was being threatened with full book coming at them straight away...

An appropriate response? How about something like "I understand that you haven't been told before that you can't place your feet here sir/madam, but it could potentially damage the slide mechanism, which is why we don't allow it. Sorry for the inconvenience."

People generally don't have problem with being told no if a (real or otherwise) justification is provided. Being told "don't do it or I'll tell on you" comes across as defensive and quite possibly angry or threatening depending on the tone of voice .. hence the poor customer service comment.

 

[dizperliz]

how about 'feet off or get off?'

 

[rtyuiop]

If I remember correctly, there's no signage on the bustle to tell you this (there's a 'no sitting' one I think, but that's different). Given aviation's love of signage, that seems like an almost unbelievable oversight if it is indeed prohibited - I've never been told to stop it on a 330 either...

Danny

 

[Balwyn3103]

And unless Fanatic remonstrated after being asked to remove his feet, it's a childish reponse threatening to tell the captin. The FA missed their calling as a kindergarten teacher

 

[Philbyau]

Maybe after reading this post Air NZ will strengthen it , paint it a sexy black, add a pillow top and sell it as "Otto" class? "Missing out on cuddle class cause your single? Try our....

 

[NM]

Oh I love this whole 'its Airbus poor design', have you not been on 747 in the past 40 years? You'll see that door has not change a bit with an even bigger protruding bustle into the cabin. You'll find that most doors carrying a slide raft bustle that protrudes into the cabin depending on its size.

The example being discussed was an A330. I fail to see how that could be caused by Boeing poor design? I made no comment suggesting other manufacturers do or do not have similar design issues. I am very much aware of the similarities with other aircraft, including the 747, on which I have traveled just a few times in the last 40 years (first time on a 747 was 37 years ago).

 

[dizperliz]

Your comment was with reference to it being a poor design by Airbus having the door bustle protruding into the cabin, my point was that this is not just an Airbus in your words 'poor design', the 747 door also has an inviting door bustle so its not just confined to one manufacturer.

 

[NM]

Your comment was with reference to it being a poor design by Airbus having the door bustle protruding into the cabin, my point was that this is not just an Airbus in your words 'poor design', the 747 door also has an inviting door bustle so its not just confined to one manufacturer.

To be precise, my comment was not about the door bustle protruding into the cabin bing the problem, but about making such a protrusion unsuitable for supporting the weight of protruding body parts, IFE devices, coughtail receptacles or even news papers/magazines when its there and inviting such actions from those blessed enough to be seated within reach or queued and awaiting relief at the nearby located waste receptacles (which are suitable for supporting previously mentioned items).

I acknowledge this is not unique to Airbus aircraft, but the design limitation on the aircraft involved in the OP is, in my opinion, an Airbus design limitation. Similarly, the design short-falls on 747 aircraft are not an Airbus design issue, but a result of Boeing's design process.