1 in 50 FA rule compromises safety. TC Sunwing test

[snag]

http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/sunwin ... 00907.html

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwired - Dec 17, 2013) - Documents filed in court today by the Canadian Union of Public Employees show Sunwing failed three evacuation tests the company needed to pass before applying the exemption of one flight attendant to 50 passenger seats on its flights.
"Despite repeated failures, and instead of recognizing that the ratio of one to 50 is less safe for passengers, Transport Canada decided to change the normal procedures allowing Sunwing to pass the test on a fourth attempt. It's downright irresponsible - in an actual emergency, the passengers whose lives are at stake have only one chance," said Paul Moist, national president of CUPE. His comments were echoed by Michel Cournoyer, president of CUPE Airline Division.
The tests were conducted by Sunwing on November 22 and 27, 2013. In three attempts, the evacuation of the aircraft was not accomplished in the required time. Transport Canada's Inspector, Luc Mayne, then decided that a mandatory oral safety instruction during evacuations need not be given, and a fourth test was successful.
Josh Walsh, a health and safety representative for CUPE, was present during the tests. In his affidavit filed with the Federal Court, he said he shared his concerns with Inspector Mayne about the last minute modification to the standard procedure. Inspector Mayne simply replied: "I know what I'm doing".
The exemption allowing one flight attendant to 50 passenger seats has been in effect on Sunwing's flights since December 1, 2013.
In light of Transport Canada's manipulation of the testing procedures, and the dangers that might result for the passengers, CUPE has asked the Federal Court for a judicial review of the decision allowing Sunwing to apply the ratio of one flight attendant to 50 passenger seats. CUPE also asked the Court to suspend Sunwing's Transport Canada exemption from the current rule of one flight attendant to 40 passengers' requirement.
CUPE represents 1,000 flight attendants at Sunwing. CUPE represents over 10,000 flight attendants employed by Air Canada, Air Transat, Calm Air, Canadian North, Canjet, Cathay Pacific, First Air and Sunwing.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Was Inspector Luc Mayne given a test result in advance by his bosses or were the test independent ?

With the kind of Transport Canada leadership we have these days, nothing would surprise me.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

The airworthiness Standard

525.803 Emergency Evacuation

(a) Each crew and passenger area must have emergency means to allow rapid evacuation in crash landings, with the landing gear extended as well as with the landing gear retracted, considering the possibility of the aeroplane being on fire.

(b) (Reserved)

(c) For aeroplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity, including the number of crew members required by the operating rules for which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the aeroplane to the ground under simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds. Compliance with this requirement must be shown by actual demonstration using the test criteria outlined in Appendix J of this chapter unless the Minister finds that a combination of analysis and testing will provide data equivalent to that which would be obtained by actual demonstration.

(d) (Reserved)

(e) (Reserved)

(Change 525-3 (91-11-01))

APPENDIX J
Emergency Evacuation

The following test criteria and procedures must be used for showing compliance with 525.803:

(a) The emergency evacuation shall be conducted with exterior ambient light levels of no greater than 0.3 foot-candles prior to the activation of the aeroplane emergency lighting system. The source(s) of the initial exterior ambient light level may remain active or illuminated during the actual demonstration. There shall, however, be no increase in the exterior ambient light level except for that due to activation of the aeroplane emergency lighting system.
(amended 2007/03/08; previous version)

(b) The aeroplane must be in a normal attitude with landing gear extended.

(c) Unless the aeroplane is equipped with an off-wing descent means, stands or ramps may be used for descent from the wing to the ground. Safety equipment such as mats or inverted life rafts may be placed on the floor or ground to protect participants. No other equipment that is not part of the emergency evacuation equipment of the aeroplane may be used to aid the participants in reaching the ground.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this Appendix, only the aeroplane's emergency lighting system may provide illumination.

(e) All emergency equipment required for the planned operation of the aeroplane must be installed.

(f) Each internal door or curtain shall be in the take-off configuration.
(amended 2007/03/08; previous version)

(g) Each crew member shall be seated in the normally assigned seat for take-off and shall remain in the seat until receiving the signal for commencement of the demonstration. Each crew member shall be a person having knowledge of the operation of exits and emergency equipment and, if compliance with section 05_104">705.104 is also being demonstrated, each flight attendant must be a member of a regularly scheduled line crew.
(amended 2007/03/08; previous version)

(h) a representative passenger load of persons in normal health must be used as follows:

(1) At least 40 percent of the passenger load must be female.

(2) At least 35 percent of the passenger load must be over 50 years of age.

(3) At least 15 percent of the passenger load must be female and over 50 years of age.

(4) Three life-size dolls, not included as part of the total passenger load, must be carried by passengers to simulate live infants 2 years old or younger.

(5) Crew members, mechanics, and training personnel, who maintain or operated the aeroplane in the normal course of their duties, may not be used as passengers.

(i) No passenger may be assigned a specific seat except as the Minister may require. Except as required by subparagraph (g) of this paragraph, no employee of the applicant may be seated next to an emergency exit.

(j) Seat belts and shoulder harnesses (as required) must be fastened.

(k) Before the start of the demonstration, approximately one-half of the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and other similar articles must be distributed at several locations in aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions.

(l) No prior indication may be given to any crewmember or passenger of the particular exits to be used in the demonstration.

(m) The applicant may not practice, rehearse, or describe the demonstration within the preceding 6 months.

(n) Prior to entering the demonstration aeroplane, the passengers may also be advised to follow directions of crew members but not be instructed on the procedures to be followed in the demonstration, except with respect to safety procedures in place for the demonstration or which have to do with the demonstration site. Prior to the start of the demonstration, the pre-take-off passenger briefing required by section 05_43">705.43 may be given. Flight attendants may assign demonstration subjects to assist persons from the bottom of a slide, consistent with their approved training program.
(amended 2007/03/08; previous version)

(o) The aeroplane shall be configured to prevent disclosure of the active emergency exits to demonstration participants in the aeroplane until the start of the demonstration.
(amended 2007/03/08; previous version)

(p) Exits used in the demonstration shall consist of one exit from each exit pair. The demonstration may be conducted with the escape slides, if provided, inflated and the exits open at the beginning of the demonstration. In this case, all exits shall be configured such that the active exits are not disclosed to the occupants. If this method is used, the exit preparation time for each exit utilized shall be accounted for, and exits that are not to be used in the demonstration shall not be indicated before the demonstration has started. The exits to be used shall be representative of all the emergency exits on the aeroplane and shall be designated by the applicant, subject to approval by the Minister. At least one floor level exit shall be used.
(amended 2007/03/08; previous version)

(q) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all evacuees must leave the aeroplane by a means provided as part of the aeroplane's equipment.

(r) The applicant's approved procedures must be fully utilised, except the flight crew must take no active role in assisting others inside the cabin during the demonstration.

(s) The evacuation time period is completed when the last occupant has evacuated the aeroplane and is on the ground. Provided that the acceptance rate of the stand or ramp is no greater than the acceptance rate of the means available on the aeroplane for descent from the wing during an actual crash situation, evacuees using stands or ramps allowed by paragraph (c) of this Appendix are considered to be on the ground when they are on the stand or ramp.
(Change 525-3 (91-11-01))

(Change 525-6 (93-12-30))

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The regulation

Flight Attendant Requirements

705.104 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no air operator shall operate an aircraft with passengers on board unless the crew includes at least the following number of flight attendants:
(a) 1 to 40 passengers on board, one attendant;
(b) 41 to 80 passengers on board, two attendants; and
(c) 81 or more passengers on board, one attendant for
each unit of 40 passengers or portion thereof.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), no air operator shall operate an aircraft with passengers on board with fewer flight attendants than the number required to satisfy the following requirements:
(a) the air operator shall, for each type and model of aircraft that it operates, assign to each flight attendant the duties to be performed in an emergency, including an emergency evacuation, and shall show that the performance of those duties adequately meets any emergency that may be reasonably anticipated, including the possible incapacitation of another flight attendant; and
(b) the air operator shall ensure that the duties assigned pursuant to paragraph (a) are described in its company operations manual.

(3) An air operator may operate an aircraft with passengers on board with a crew that includes fewer than the minimum number of flight attendants required by subsection (1), if the air operator (a) is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; and
(b) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

(4) Where an aircraft has more than one deck, the number of flight attendants on each deck shall be in accordance with subsections (1) and (2).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Standard

725.104 Flight Attendant Requirements

(1) A flight may be dispatched where accident or sickness occurs enroute and results in one less qualified flight attendant for a flight requiring two or more flight attendants if the following standard is complied with:

(a) the flight is not departing a location where qualified flight attendant employees are stationed;

(b) the pilot-in-command authorizes the assigning of a responsible air operator employee to an approved flight attendant take-off and landing station until that flight reaches the nearest point where qualified flight attendants are stationed;

(c) prior to flight, the assigned employee is briefed under supervision and to the satisfaction of the pilot-in-command, on the operation of emergency exits and emergency procedures, including assigned take-off and landing stations; and

(d) each occurrence is recorded and retained in a company file for two years.

(2) An aeroplane that has met the emergency evacuation demonstration requirements of section 525.803 of the Airworthiness Manual or equivalent, using no more than one flight attendant for the compliance test and has been approved by Transport Canada Civil Aviation, Aircraft Certification, may be operated with one flight attendant provided:
(amended 2002/12/01; >previous version)

(a) the aeroplane is configured for 50 or less passenger seats;

(b) the aeroplane has been type certificated to FAR 25, Amendment 25-51 or later;
(amended 2002/12/01; >previous version)

(c) subject to subsection (3), the public address system and the crew member interphone system at the approved flight attendant take-off and landing station referred to in paragraph (e) is serviceable;
(amended 2006/06/30; >previous version)

(d) emergency and normal procedures in the flight attendant manual clearly reflect the differences when one flight attendant is carried and when more than one flight attendant is carried; and

(e) the flight attendant is assigned to occupy the approved flight attendant take-off and landing station located near a floor level exit.

(3) Despite the requirements of the Minimum Equipment List (MEL), an air operator may operate an aeroplane referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) with the public address system inoperative for 3 consecutive flight cycles, provided that the following conditions are met:
(amended 2006/06/30; >previous version)

(a) alternate operations procedures are specified in the air operator’s company operations manual,

(b) the crew member interphone system with associated calls/chimes is operative,

(c) a megaphone is readily available and operative,

(d) the aeroplane is not being operated from a maintenance base,

(e) self-extension relief is not applied to this item,

(f) a second flight attendant is added to the crew at the first opportunity, and

(g) if the aircraft is being operated from a flight attendant base, a second flight attendant is added and is assigned to a flight attendant station, or, for aircraft equipped with only one flight attendant station, to an aisle passenger seat at an exit row.

[Stinky]

Weren't the flight attendants performing the evacuation extremely motivated to not be successful since their jobs were on the line?
I'm curious how the outcome would have been if it were a normal annual performance review.

[Rogerdodger2]

Good question. I would imagine they were extremely unmotivated. I would think in a real emergency those doors would fly open. Pardon the pun.

[altiplano]

(m) The applicant may not practice, rehearse, or describe the demonstration within the preceding 6 months.

Sounds like they got 3 practice runs...

Weren't the flight attendants performing the evacuation extremely motivated to not be successful since their jobs were on the line?
I'm curious how the outcome would have been if it were a normal annual performance review.

I think that's an unfounded remark. You don't know who was on there, in fact I would bet they weren't selections from the rank and file, more likely trainers/managers given the amount of money Sunwing had riding on this test.

[Stinky]

I think that's an unfounded remark.

It's a question, not a statement. Definitely something to think about though.

[rudder]

If WJ already had the certification for 1:50 on the B737, then why would it be a problem for any other CDN 737 operator? Aren't they the same aircraft? Or was it the fact that SW has more seats on the -800 than WJ?

The 1:50 exemption has been around for a lot longer than people are aware. The 1:50 exemption on the Dash 8-300 and 50 seat CRJ has been in place since either 2001 or 2002.

[wallflower]

I agree absolutely that this exemption compromises safety. What is the point of a rule on such a vital issue if there is an exemption.
The first accident where a passenger dies in an attempted evacuation with 1:50 is going to have some interesting legal implications I would think.

[Troubleshot]

just for some video enjoyment...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gqWeJGwV_U

[ahramin]

Airbus totally cheated on that one Troubleshot. Using Ze Germans should not be allowed.

[whipline]

The test used wasn't evacuating the entire aircraft, it was opening all appropriate doors within 15 seconds of the emergency. Reasons for the failures varied from test to test but the main road block was a procedural thing that can easily be changed. It was and the test was passed. Moving along..

[Bede]

I agree absolutely that this exemption compromises safety. What is the point of a rule on such a vital issue if there is an exemption.
The first accident where a passenger dies in an attempted evacuation with 1:50 is going to have some interesting legal implications I would think.

Please provide any evidence you have to support your opinion that the exemption compromises safety. Also, please elaborate on the possible legal implications you foresee.

[tbaylx]

I agree absolutely that this exemption compromises safety. What is the point of a rule on such a vital issue if there is an exemption.
The first accident where a passenger dies in an attempted evacuation with 1:50 is going to have some interesting legal implications I would think.

I'm pretty sure its a jobs issue vs a safety issue. Most of the rest of the world has been running quite safely with a 1:50 ratio, albeit a 1:50 ration of installed seats vs passengers like we have in canada.
I get why the flight attendant unions want to prevent it, less jobs, more work I just don't believe that the safety card is anything other than a media attention grab and a fearmongering attempt, not that much different than when the flight deck got rid of the F/E's.

[ea306]

Exactly.

[gonnabeapilot]

This article talks about Sunwing's take on the whole issue:

"These types of live evacuation demonstrations, involving deploying actual door slides are done very infrequently," Mark Williams, president of Sunwing Airlines told THN in response. "The issues with the demonstration revolved around the way the drill was set up, not about the performance of the crew. Once we resolved the way the demonstration was set up, we successfully passed the test."

According to Williams, one in 50 is the international standard for staffing of flight attendants used in the United States and Western Europe, noting that the fifth flight attendant removed as a result of Sunwing moving to this model did not have any door opening responsibilities during an evacuation.

He told THN it is also the standard that was used by Boeing to certify the aircraft for operation around the world.

http://www.travelhotnews.com/reportages ... e_no=46214

[crazy_aviator]

Transport Canada's Inspector, Luc Mayne, then decided that a mandatory oral safety instruction during evacuations need not be given

According to the CARS posted , WHAT mandatory oral breifing DURING the evac ???

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Transport Canada's Inspector, Luc Mayne, then decided that a mandatory oral safety instruction during evacuations need not be given

According to the CARS posted , WHAT mandatory oral breifing DURING the evac ???

(r) The applicant's approved procedures must be fully utilised, except the flight crew must take no active role in assisting others inside the cabin during the demonstration.

It's probably a Sunwing procedure that was skipped, one that likely appears in the Sunwing TC approved procedures.

[gonnabeapilot]

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.

[YYCcrew]

+1

Also. A lot of people don't know this, but in making this exemption request to TC the Air Operator has to pass what is called the 5.9(2) test. That means, in a nut shell. You have to prove that the granted exemption will not compromise safety AND will not negatively effect the public interest. That means... whithin the exemtion request airlines have to state that NO JOBS WILL BE LOST as a result of the exemption being granted. Now, Sunwing is slightly different where they hire and lay off seasonally so a few jobs may be reduced in the off season. For the rest of the stable year around airlines like AC, WJ etc, not a single person can be laid off with this exemption being granted. WJ found themselves in an overstaff situation, but could not layoff so they offered voluntary severence packages, which were over subscribed and generuous. This union making this a safety issue is completely without merit and makes them look un-professional.

[photofly]

That means... whithin the exemtion request airlines have to state that NO JOBS WILL BE LOST as a result of the exemption being granted.

Your interpretation of public interest? Or is that official?

Strikes me the opposite is true.

[Dockjock]

It is less safe, that's why you need an exemption based on passing a test. If it was equally safe they would change the reg and apply it to everyone. Passing the test
presumably proves that, on a case by case basis, certain operators can provide "equivalent" safety. But
I hate this exemption BS, the CARs are full of these. Just apply the regs equally to everyone for crying out loud!

[YYCcrew]

If it was less safe the exemptions would not be approved. The problem is that the regulations are very out of date and the only recourse until they are up to date is to apply for an exemption. I can think of a few exemptions that actually make things safer. 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.

[YYCcrew]

That means... whithin the exemtion request airlines have to state that NO JOBS WILL BE LOST as a result of the exemption being granted.

Your interpretation of public interest? Or is that official?

Strikes me the opposite is true.

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.

[CD]

That means... whithin the exemtion request airlines have to state that NO JOBS WILL BE LOST as a result of the exemption being granted.

Your interpretation of public interest? Or is that official?

Strikes me the opposite is true.

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.

Earlier, Gilles posted information in a separate thread that outlines the public interest requirements:

AvCanada: "PUBLIC INTEREST" and how it pertains to Transport Canada