TUNisia From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 5 Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3836 times:
TWA Flight 843 (an L-1011) aborted takeoff at JFK on July 30th 1992. The entire aircraft which was full was evacuated in 90 seconds using only 3 of the available exits. No major injuries were sustained.
I found some YouTube videos of an interview with the crew about the incident. Really amazing stuff...
WNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1317 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3044 times:
Quoting ToTheStars (Reply 1): They don't make crews like that anymore....well they do but are all unemployed from AA at the moment.
I think airline training has really gone downhill in terms of teaching POISE, PROFESSIONALISM and TACT. This is in keeping, I suppose, with society as a whole getting away from the same qualities. Air travel has turned into a cheap ticket from A to B for the pax, and "getting it done" for the crew. Luckily I still enjoy my job (as do many of my WN colleagues) but things are so different now than they were then. Then, people seemed to respect the FA's more, the job they did etc, then again, the crews were much more gracious to the pax... it was very much a two-way street. Blame belongs on BOTH sides, regardless of who's paying. Buying a ticket and being a customer is not an excuse to loose your manners.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
contrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1818 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2878 times:
Quoting WNCrew (Reply 2): Buying a ticket and being a customer is not an excuse to loose your manners.
I completely agree with all you said, especially this point.
L1011Lover From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 971 posts, RR: 15 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
Great video! It should be used by all airlines' training department and shown to all new hire FA's. Teamwork is of the utmost importance in every emergency.
Wonderful crew! They did a tremendous job! hats off!!
m11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1207 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2386 times:
TWA 843 is one of the many examples of why F/As are so important! This accident is in some ways similar to AF358. Everyone got out quickly and relatively unhurt. Had there not been well trained F/As on these flights the outcome would have been completely different.
I should also point out that there were a total of 9 working F/As and 5 dead heading F/As on board that all helped in the evacuation and saved lives. The FAA minimum required cabin crew complement was only six. In my opinion this accident would have had a much different outcome had there only been 6 F/As to evacuate 292 passengers... The 1:50 F/A to pax ratio is to low.
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
JBLUA320 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3160 posts, RR: 21 Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2360 times:
Not to hijack the thread, but when did the 1:50 rule come into effect? I know it's been around a while, but when was it actually changed/enforced and for what reason? What did it change from, or was it an unregulated number?
m11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1207 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
Quoting JBLUA320 (Reply 5): Not to hijack the thread, but when did the 1:50 rule come into effect? I know it's been around a while, but when was it actually changed/enforced and for what reason? What did it change from, or was it an unregulated number?
I remember reading an article a while back and supposedly (I could be completely wrong) the rule was changed in the mid 90s from 1:40 to 1:50. AA supposedly really pushed the FAA to make this change.
CO1404 and US1549 were both operating with the FAA minimum number of required F/As and, although those F/As did AMAZING jobs, there were problems with the evacuation. A bottleneck formed at the overwing exit row of CO1404 and, thank god, two off duty CO pilots were able to direct passengers to quicker escape routes at the main doors. Passengers were also bottle necked at the overwing exits of US1549 and one of the forward F/As had to run down the aisle and scream at them for some of the passengers to come forward. Some of the passengers on the passenger questionnaire wrote that the crew provided no aid. These passengers were seated in the center of the cabin farthest away from the F/As. All three F/As on US1549 performed exceptionally well but 3 of even the best F/As can only do so much to evacuate 150 passengers.
This will never happen because of cost but ideally a 737 or A320 should have five F/As. Two forward, one at the overwing exits, and two at the rear. Almost anyone can open an emergency exit in a non-emergency situation but in an emergency it should not be left entirely up to the passengers in an exit row to open the overwing exits and evacuate passengers out of them. I am getting way off topic but this is something I've been thinking about lately so I thought I'd share.
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
usafdo From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 439 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2279 times:
That accident has it's own web site.....REALLY GOOD!
WNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1317 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2205 times:
m11stephen,
You are correct that the ration of FA's to Pax seats is 1:50, but it's not straight across the board. When you start talking about widebody aircraft you also have to take into consideration floor level exits etc, there are other factors that could increase the "minimum crew" aside from the 1:50 rule : )
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
m11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1207 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2019 times:
Quoting WNCrew (Reply 8): You are correct that the ration of FA's to Pax seats is 1:50, but it's not straight across the board. When you start talking about widebody aircraft you also have to take into consideration floor level exits etc, there are other factors that could increase the "minimum crew" aside from the 1:50 rule : )
I think the rule requires that there is at least one F/A per floor level exit so if not all doors are covered with the 1:50 ratio then there must be more F/As onboard. Who knew F/A staffing levels could be so confusing. Haha
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1834 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 971 posts, 
Haha
Printer friendly format 
