1 in 50 FA rule compromises safety. TC Sunwing test

[photofly]

I've looked at that thread, and I don't see where it says that reducing head count is contrary to the public interest. Spell it out for me please.

Nope, that would be official. It has to be in the exemption request document. You cannot use an exemption that forces people out of work.

Link to an official document please.

[CD]

Word on the street is that due to the high interest from all of the Canadian operators for 1/50 an amendment to the regulations or a global exemption is coming soon from TC.

I think it unlikely that there would be a "global" exemption at this point but I suppose it could happen. As for regulatory change, that has been proposed and the changes are available in the CARAC Activity Reporting System.

Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA) Search

The 14 NPAs to search for include 2004-016 through 2004-027, 2005-083 and 2005-084.

For some of the other discussions that have been posted, here are a few links over the years:

Montreal Gazette: Better air safety would cost peanuts - August 13, 1997
AvCanada: Airlines may be allowed to use fewer attendants - May 8, 2006
Globe and Mail: Ottawa may allow airlines to use fewer flight attendants - May 8, 2006
Canwest News Service: Air sickness - May 20, 2006
Calgary Sun: WestJet seeks rules change - February 12, 2009
FlyerTalk: WestJet seeks rules change for fewer flight attendants - February 12, 2009
Canada.com: From flight attendant to WestJet CEO: Gregg Saretsky's career takes off - March 24, 2010

[BE82]

Having only 1 FA for every 50 pax is a huge breach of safety, a study conducted by Harvard showed that 5 out of 5 times, Carriers with Ops Spec 070 (One flight attendant per 50 passengers), compared to those in compliance with 705.104 had a delay of 210 seconds on the delivery of peanuts to the passengers seated on the last row.

[Major Cong]

+1

[Joren]

Let's be honest here.... this is CUPE and this is about jobs, nothing more. The US and western Europe operate with the one in 50 rule and not only is it deemed safe by their regulating authorities, airlines from the various countries have been allowed to operate into Canada using this ratio as well. If safety is really such an issue, maybe CUPE should also be lobbying the government to ban any non-Canadian registered airline from operating into our country until they conform to our 1 in 40 standard. Even with in Canada dash 8s and RJs have been operating with the 1 in 50 exemption for years and nobody seemed to worry too much about that. In fact, in some instances the new exemption is actually "safer" than the old one. The current standard requires 1 FA for every 40 PAX on the aircraft where the new exemption requires a ratio of 1 FA for every 50 SEATS on the aircraft. So if an aircraft holds 177 people (like a WS 738) but the flight only has 120 pax on it, under the current standard the flight could be operated with only 3 FAs. However since WS now operates under the new exemption, the flight must still operate with 4 FAs regardless of the passenger load. So depending on load factors, the exemption might actually require a GREATER number of FAs be onboard than the current regulations require. Again, you don't hear CUPE lobbying the government to expand the current regulations to require 1 FA for every 40 Seats (because after all, what difference does load factor make if their argument is focused around the need to open exit doors and assist in an evacuation??).

What this is all about is that the day WestJet first applied for the exemption, every other airline in Canada started evaluating whether or not it would be worth it to do the same. Notice how there were no appeals by CUPE when WestJet was approved?? What about the concern for the safety of the flying public from a union who represents aviation professionals?? Sunwing was the first CUPE airline to pull the pin and apply and be approved. That's when this all kicked off. From my understanding, Air Transat has applied for the exemption but has not been successful in passing the test and Air Canada is seriously considering applying for the exemption as well. CUPE claims to represent 10,000 Flight Attendants in Canada of which approximately 800 work for Sunwing. Sunwing has always hired seasonally for the winter so the ability to operate with fewer FAs resulted in 0 lay-offs during the winter however it will result in more lay-offs during the summer months. It sucks for those who might be laid off this summer for the first time in years and part of this whole battle is CUPE trying to save their jobs. But more than anything, this is about the 9200 other Flight Attendants who work for various other CUPE airlines who might be facing large scale staffing reductions if their airlines are successful in getting the 1 in 50 exemption. I know everyone loves to take pot shots at Sunwing but this has nothing to do with the safety of the airline... this is CUPE fighting for CUPE jobs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, CUPE HAS been fighting this, and from a safety standpoint, since before 1995. Besides getting close to being older than dirt, I can remember discussions about 1:40 going to 1:50 back in the late 80's going into the 90's.

I can't with 100% certainty that they did protest when any particular group got the exemption, but I'm reasonably sure that they would have, given that they've been protesting changes to the ratio since the late 80s. I know for a fact that they did after Sunwing got their exemption - because the 3 failures and only passing the test on the 4th attempt was a real attention-getter.

I always find it ironic that people talk about the US and Europe also having 1:50 and that we should follow - but fail to mention that Australia has, I believe, a 1:36 ratio. (There seems to be some evidence that the regulator there grants exemptions to this rule)

The problem is that even back then, the Government and those that are in charge of aviation safety really don't want to hear from professionals that actually work in the industry. Unless they have a CEO, CFO or similar designation behind their name. You're shocked, I'm sure!

Below is a video from 1995 that CUPE Airline Division put together containing testimony from people who've experienced evacuations and what they felt about changes to the legislation - back in the 90's.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g3_6vqsAciE

[snoopy]

Well there you go... Air Canada is doing it too - citing Westjet's lead: http://www.theprovince.com/business/Few ... story.html

The article claims 1 in 50 is the international standard - is this true?

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[timel]

Petition here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/transpo ... n-airlines

The safety of the travelling public depends on having an appropriate number of cabin crew trained in safety and security procedures, as demonstrated by Asiana flight 214's crash in San Francisco on July 6th, 2013, when all but two passengers were successfully evacuated from a burning aircraft by a full contingent of brave flight attendants - at the time, the flight had a ratio of 1 flight attendant per 24 passengers.

This was again demonstrated during Air France flight 358's crash in Toronto Pearson on August 2nd 2005, when a full complement of cabin crew managed to evacuate all passengers safely from a burning aircraft in less than 90 seconds. At the time, the flight had a ratio of 1 flight attendant per 30 passengers.

[Capt. Underpants]

Petition here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/transpo ... n-airlines

The safety of the travelling public depends on having an appropriate number of cabin crew trained in safety and security procedures, as demonstrated by Asiana flight 214's crash in San Francisco on July 6th, 2013, when all but two passengers were successfully evacuated from a burning aircraft by a full contingent of brave flight attendants - at the time, the flight had a ratio of 1 flight attendant per 24 passengers.

This was again demonstrated during Air France flight 358's crash in Toronto Pearson on August 2nd 2005, when a full complement of cabin crew managed to evacuate all passengers safely from a burning aircraft in less than 90 seconds. At the time, the flight had a ratio of 1 flight attendant per 30 passengers.

That flight was being operated by a carrier from a country where 1 in 50 is the standard for cabin crew, but some people refuse to acknowledge that.

[timel]

That flight was being operated by a carrier from a country where 1 in 50 is the standard for cabin crew, but some people refuse to acknowledge that.

Sure. The point is that test that were done with the ration 1 in 50 failed multiple times and ended up working. (Sure they selected their samples)

Now you have two real examples were ratios below 1 in 40 worked out in real life. And the 1 on 50 that in simulation failed on first attempts

[Capt. Underpants]

As has already been said, they failed the test because they had a procedure which included a briefing element that was redundant and a waste of critical time

It sounds as if once that was figured out, changes were made and the test was passed.

P.S.

I don't know if Sunwing picked their samples, but I know of another company where crew were called in on reserve and were not told what they were doing until they arrived at the crew room. They were put on a bus, taken to the hangar and did the tests.

[timel]

As has already been said, they failed the test because they had a procedure which included a briefing element that was redundant and a waste of critical time

It sounds as if once that was figured out, changes were made and the test was passed.

P.S.

I don't know if Sunwing picked their samples, but I know of another company where crew were called in on reserve and were not told what they were doing until they arrived at the crew room. They were put on a bus, taken to the hangar and did the tests.

Sunwing 4 times attempts and WJ 3 I think.
Like you say, crew on reserve, already trained, fit and drilled on procedures.

They did not stop the bus in the middle of the street asked for old women, the blind guy and the one with broken leg to step in.

[BeechjetYKZ]

Call me naive but how does having 1 more FA help with evacuation times? They aren't pushing the passengers out the door and down the slides. It's just one more person in the cabin to take up space and yell during an emergency which IMO does not help. Passengers are responsible for getting themselves and their dependant travellers out of the plane. There are four armed (with slides) exit doors on the 737 and 4 flight attendants are there to open each one. The 4 overwing exit doors basically open themselves (once a passenger pulls on the red handle).

[timel]

Call me naive but how does having 1 more FA help with evacuation times? They aren't pushing the passengers out the door and down the slides. It's just one more person in the cabin to take up space and yell during an emergency which IMO does not help. Passengers are responsible for getting themselves and their dependant travellers out of the plane. There are four armed (with slides) exit doors on the 737 and 4 flight attendants are there to open each one. The 4 overwing exit doors basically open themselves (once a passenger pulls on the red handle).

Pffff...

Ok will speak on their behalf, from what I know.

FAs have to extinguish a fire in less than 10 seconds, provide first aid, CPR, they have training for sea, forest and desert survival. They are trained to restrain PAX in case of danger in flight. PAX who can't walk, are blind, deaf or are old people in an evacuation, heard of them...?

I mean those evacuations tests are performed with FAs under perfect conditions. Do you think they sample all kind of people for test evacuations. Not at all. Again Transport Canada congratulations for lowering standards.


Give orders and provide some structure in an emergency exit, do you think it is done just by shouting and giving orders? This are drills performed and practiced on a regular base. By the way orders and shouting are proven to be the most efficient way of helping peoples in emergency situations.

If there is an emergency, a decompression or heavy turbulences, and first aid must be provided to multiple pax, how do you think you will work that out with 4 FAs?


It won't be us pilots, doing all of that work and help people not go through nervous brake down.

I believe most airlines pilots respect and understand FAs jobs, it is team work, pilots just get most of the rewards in emergencies, it does not mean they don't have a team after them making sure all goes smooth.

By the way, it takes a few FAs just to block half of the airplane trying to exit from the back doors of the airplane in case of ditching, cause if the doors are opened, the airplane will get full of water...