Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Interested
Topic Author
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Lifejackets on commercial planes

Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:08 pm

I was half watching the stewardess on easyjet today demonstrating the whistle and light on the life jacket

And 2 questions occurred to me:

1) when is the last time life jackets saved the lives of commercial air crash passengers?

2) when's the last time the whistles and lights on the life jackets actually played a part in saving lives on a plane?

Are we all just going through some bizarre ritual every time we fly on a plane or do they actually ever prove useful?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3651
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Linebackers on commercial planes

Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:12 pm

Aint no blowing of line backers going to save your life, Don't you listen to them!!!!

In all seriousness I would guess that the survivors of 1549 would be pleased to have the lifejackets.

Fred
Image
 
User001
Posts: 1086
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:14 pm

I believe some on the US air ditching used their life jackets.

As for the whistle and light, it’s one of those ‘there if you need it’ items, a bit like insurance. Hopefully you don’t ever have to use them, but, good to know you do have them should you need.
 
Interested
Topic Author
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:24 pm

The Hudson River plane?

Did any of the passengers even go in the water?

I'm sure landing on rivers wasn't in the thoughts when lifejackets were put on planes

Are there any other commercial plane crashes where lifejackets actually saved lives?
 
User avatar
EightyFour
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:35 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:33 pm

Tuninter Flight 1153 comes to mind, ATR-72 ditched in the Mediterranean sea in 2005 due to fuel starvation, 23 survivors out of 39. No idea whether lights or whistles helped with rescue efforts though.
 
COSPN
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:09 am

Many airports are near water .. so it’s a good idea in case of an overrun into the water
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1731
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:18 am

Interested wrote:
The Hudson River plane?

Did any of the passengers even go in the water?


I'd have to go back and check old articles from back when it happened to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that at least a few passengers did go in the water, yes. I vaguely remember reading about a passenger who grabbed a couple of seat cushions and threw them to fellow passengers who were swimming.

I'm sure landing on rivers wasn't in the thoughts when lifejackets were put on planes


Maybe not, but does that really matter? It happened, and possibly the life jackets helped.

Edit: Look at this picture from Wikipedia. It was taken from such a distance that they just look like dark blobs, but those look like people in the water to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airway ... iver_(crop).jpg
 
SL1200MK2
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:59 am

I believe many on ALM flight 980 used them when their DC-9 ditched in the Caribbean. 40 of the 57 pax survived and waited about 90 minutes before they were rescued. So, I presume they were indeed used and were effective.
 
User avatar
GSPFlyer
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:15 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:33 am

Ethiopian 961 comes to mind. Though ironically, some pax didn't survive because they inflated their life jackets before exiting the plane and got stuck inside.
 
SL1200MK2
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:52 am

GSPFlyer wrote:
Ethiopian 961 comes to mind. Though ironically, some pax didn't survive because they inflated their life jackets before exiting the plane and got stuck inside.


This was also an issue in the ALM 980 flight I mentioned above. I’ve seen those things inflate and I can imagine them making an evacuation much more difficult.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8420
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:41 am

According to the NTSB report only 10 passengers on AWE1549 retrieved a life jacket, which is really quite astounding.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
FlapsOne
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:13 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:23 am

Interested wrote:
I was half watching the stewardess on easyjet today demonstrating the whistle and light on the life jacket

And 2 questions occurred to me:

1) when is the last time life jackets saved the lives of commercial air crash passengers?

2) when's the last time the whistles and lights on the life jackets actually played a part in saving lives on a plane?

Are we all just going through some bizarre ritual every time we fly on a plane or do they actually ever prove useful?


I’d rather have it than not. easyJet also give life jackets to parents with infants and are told to read the packaging and instructions prior to departures. Usually I see parents simply stuff them in the seat pocket and wonder what on earth it’s all about.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:26 am

Shouldn't personal locator devices be required to be added to every passenger lifevest?
 
802flyguy
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:00 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
According to the NTSB report only 10 passengers on AWE1549 retrieved a life jacket, which is really quite astounding.


And one of them wore the life jacket the wrong way!
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8265
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:42 pm

Noshow wrote:
Shouldn't personal locator devices be required to be added to every passenger lifevest?


That's the light and whistle! Seriously, how far away from the incident site do you expect passengers to be?
 
wexfordflyer
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:35 pm

There's plenty of evidence here that they have proven useful, and that aside, I would hardly call it a bizarre ritual. Aircraft fly over large and small expanses of water, and many airports are located close to water. Thankfully it's a rare occasion that an aircraft enters the water, but goddammit if it does you will be very glad to have anything that's gonna either save your life, or make it a bit easier for you to stay afloat (rather than treading water) while help comes along.

I think a lot of aviation regulation is there for the sake of it (LAGS, electronic equipment), but I certainly wouldn't but life jackets and their acoutrements into that bracket!
Come with me, there's a place I want you to see, where the leaves are dark, I've got a hiding place in central park.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:11 pm

Yflyer wrote:
Interested wrote:
The Hudson River plane?
Did any of the passengers even go in the water?

I'd have to go back and check old articles from back when it happened to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that at least a few passengers did go in the water, yes. I vaguely remember reading about a passenger who grabbed a couple of seat cushions and threw them to fellow passengers who were swimming.

Maybe not, but does that really matter? It happened, and possibly the life jackets helped.

Edit: Look at this picture from Wikipedia. It was taken from such a distance that they just look like dark blobs, but those look like people in the water to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airway ... iver_(crop).jpg

I was going to suggest that with slides doubling as inflatable boats, life jackets are unnecessary, but then I read this...
Wikipedia wrote:
Some evacuees waited for rescue knee-deep in water on the partially submerged slides, some wearing life-vests. Others stood on the wings or, fearing an explosion, swam away from the plane. One passenger, after helping with the evacuation, found the wing so crowded that he jumped into the river and swam to a boat.

The air and water temperatures were about 19 °F (−7 °C) and 41 °F (5 °C) respectively.

I would agree that being forced to watch & listen to a safety briefing on every flight is a bit of a bizarre ritual.

I'm betting one or two FAs will take me to task for that suggestion, but having travelled on one or two boats in my time, I don't recall being subjected to any briefing as to the use or location of lifejackets. I guess they figured that in any emergency, a) we would listen very carefully to a last minute briefing from stewards, and b) failing that we would use common sense.
And anybody who couldn't manage that would fulfil Darwin's Theorem.... :lol:

p.s. what I have occasionally pondered is a kind of airbag for aircraft, so that the entire body of the fuselage remained afloat.
If that had been the case with MH370, it would probably still be bobbing around somewhere in the Indian Ocean even now.
It might save some lives, and the added bonus would be no more expensive underwater search operations to locate FDRs at the bottom of the ocean.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
dredgy
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:13 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:18 pm

Life jackets were used in the evacuation of Air Niugini 73 in just September last year, and probably saved lives as at least a couple of people had head and neck injuries that prevented them independently keeping their head above water and they needed assistance.

They are hard to reach though, so in the case of a water landing, not everybody manages to get their hands on one, or inflates theirs inside the aircraft out of panic.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2897
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:12 pm

Interested wrote:
Are we all just going through some bizarre ritual every time we fly on a plane or do they actually ever prove useful?

There is a huge portion of ritual in it.
Exhibit 1: two cases discussed here, Air Niugini 73 and Hudson miracle went into water near the airport.
14 CFR § 91.509 - Survival equipment for overwater operations - requires life vests only when flying more than 50 miles away from the shore. So flight could legally operated in that spot without flotation equipment - although not to all destinations. In fact, US 1549 LGA-CLT, doesn't require life vests for most routings.
 
TSS
Posts: 3660
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:17 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Shouldn't personal locator devices be required to be added to every passenger lifevest?


That's the light and whistle! Seriously, how far away from the incident site do you expect passengers to be?


Comedian Billy Connolly on water landings, life jackets, and the unexpected dangers of using a whistle while at sea (relevant bit starts @ 6:28)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkxC2bGNlzI
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
nws2002
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:26 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I'm betting one or two FAs will take me to task for that suggestion, but having travelled on one or two boats in my time, I don't recall being subjected to any briefing as to the use or location of lifejackets. I guess they figured that in any emergency, a) we would listen very carefully to a last minute briefing from stewards, and b) failing that we would use common sense.
And anybody who couldn't manage that would fulfil Darwin's Theorem.... :lol:


Every cruise ship I've ever been on has a muster drill.
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:39 pm

How long can you tread water?
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:55 pm

nws2002 wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I'm betting one or two FAs will take me to task for that suggestion, but having travelled on one or two boats in my time, I don't recall being subjected to any briefing as to the use or location of lifejackets. I guess they figured that in any emergency, a) we would listen very carefully to a last minute briefing from stewards, and b) failing that we would use common sense.
And anybody who couldn't manage that would fulfil Darwin's Theorem.... :lol:


Every cruise ship I've ever been on has a muster drill.

Is it compulsory?
Do they sit you down and lock the doors? (like on an aircraft!)
Take a roll call to see if you missed it by hiding in your cabin?

Whilst looking, I found this piece of upside down logic;
Laws in some places hold crew members liable to face civil charges if they voluntarily do not attend the muster drill.
For example, in some US states, those who do not attend are fined varying amounts, depending on their rank

"Voluntary", except they will face charges if they don't? :rotfl:

Muster drills are typically not conducted and are usually not required for short trips on the water, such as those taken on ferries, dinner cruises, and riverboats

Short trip = less than 24 hours, or enough to cross the Baltic, the North Sea, Bay of Biscay, or from Europe to Africa across the Mediterranean. Plenty of opportunities for rough weather on those routes.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
nws2002
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:54 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Is it compulsory?
Do they sit you down and lock the doors? (like on an aircraft!)
Take a roll call to see if you missed it by hiding in your cabin?


Yes it is mandatory. They close all the pools, bars, restaurants, entertainment, etc and crewmembers direct you to the muster location indicated on your cruise ship ID card. They either scan the card to mark you present or mark your name off a list. If you don't attend the crew will come find you.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:55 pm

Interested wrote:
The Hudson River plane?

Did any of the passengers even go in the water?

I believe I read somewhere that one passenger jumped into the river to try to swim to land, then thought better and swam back to the plane.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
having travelled on one or two boats in my time, I don't recall being subjected to any briefing as to the use or location of lifejackets. I guess they figured that in any emergency, a) we would listen very carefully to a last minute briefing from stewards, and b) failing that we would use common sense.

I've never seen it done on a ferry or a tour boat, although in the case of the ferries, we weren't on them for more than a few minutes. As for the tour boats, we were on them for maybe an hour tops, if that. As for cruise ships, they actually do the briefing.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Is it compulsory?

Yes.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Do they sit you down and lock the doors? (like on an aircraft!)

They tell you which muster station to go to based on the cabin you're staying in, but that's about the best I remember since the cruise I went on was back in 2007.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Take a roll call to see if you missed it by hiding in your cabin?

No. I don't know how they would even be able to try. You're talking literally thousands of passengers on a cruise ship. Try taking a roll call for that, you'd be there for hours.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Whilst looking, I found this piece of upside down logic;
Laws in some places hold crew members liable to face civil charges if they voluntarily do not attend the muster drill.
For example, in some US states, those who do not attend are fined varying amounts, depending on their rank

"Voluntary", except they will face charges if they don't? :rotfl:

I think you misunderstood something here. The muster drill is NOT voluntary. It's saying crew members who choose NOT to attend the muster drill face charges. Voluntarily meaning they chose not to attend.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Muster drills are typically not conducted and are usually not required for short trips on the water, such as those taken on ferries, dinner cruises, and riverboats

Short trip = less than 24 hours, or enough to cross the Baltic, the North Sea, Bay of Biscay, or from Europe to Africa across the Mediterranean. Plenty of opportunities for rough weather on those routes.

As far as ferries, we're talking about, for instance, the Hudson River ferries in New York. The ones that take you from Liberty Park to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, generally not more than ten minutes, if that. The Maid Of The Mist at the Niagara Falls, which only takes you down to the falls and then back where you started, ten or twenty minutes. The Minnie Ha Ha up in Lake George, New York, which is maybe an hour tops..
Captain Kevin
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:08 am

AirKevin wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Whilst looking, I found this piece of upside down logic;
Laws in some places hold crew members liable to face civil charges if they voluntarily do not attend the muster drill.
For example, in some US states, those who do not attend are fined varying amounts, depending on their rank

"Voluntary", except they will face charges if they don't? :rotfl:

I think you misunderstood something here. The muster drill is NOT voluntary. It's saying crew members who choose NOT to attend the muster drill face charges. Voluntarily meaning they chose not to attend.
Yeah, I definitely misunderstood the definition of "voluntarily". And so did some guy called Merriam-Webster. :roll:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Muster drills are typically not conducted and are usually not required for short trips on the water, such as those taken on ferries, dinner cruises, and riverboats

AirKevin wrote:
As far as ferries, we're talking about, for instance, the Hudson River ferries in New York. The ones that take you from Liberty Park to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, generally not more than ten minutes, if that. The Maid Of The Mist at the Niagara Falls, which only takes you down to the falls and then back where you started, ten or twenty minutes. The Minnie Ha Ha up in Lake George, New York, which is maybe an hour tops..

Yeah, I wouldn't expect a safety briefing on any of those.

However, I was thinking of ferries more like...
Image
30,000 tons, with a 9-11 hour crossing at 27 kts.
In Australia, two Spirit of Tasmania ferries carry passengers and vehicles 300 kilometres (190 mi) across Bass Strait, the body of water that separates Tasmania from the Australian mainland, often under turbulent sea conditions.


Or maybe the MS Color Magic at 75,100 tons, running from Oslo to Kiel (20 hours).
Image
I'm not getting any indication of compulsory safety briefings on either of these big boys.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20092
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:33 am

I tell my family to always know where the closest exits are in both directions. If you need to use the life vest you will most likely have at least a little time to figure it out. If you need to evacuate rapidly you won't have time. It is amazing how many pax can't find the lavatories on a calm day. Finding the exits without warning with smoke and screaming all around? Good luck.

To be fair to pax though, this is an unfamiliar and at least somewhat intimidating environment to most of them. For us it's just where we work

Side note: One of the random questions you can get in our annual emergency procedures exam is something like, "What is the difference with the child life jackets apart from size?". Answer at the bottom...

RyanairGuru wrote:
According to the NTSB report only 10 passengers on AWE1549 retrieved a life jacket, which is really quite astounding.


Considering how few pax seem to pay any attention to their surroundings, I'm really not that shocked.

MIflyer12 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Shouldn't personal locator devices be required to be added to every passenger lifevest?


That's the light and whistle! Seriously, how far away from the incident site do you expect passengers to be?


This. Also locator devices have transmitters, which raises all sorts of safety and maintenance issues.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

p.s. what I have occasionally pondered is a kind of airbag for aircraft, so that the entire body of the fuselage remained afloat.
If that had been the case with MH370, it would probably still be bobbing around somewhere in the Indian Ocean even now.
It might save some lives, and the added bonus would be no more expensive underwater search operations to locate FDRs at the bottom of the ocean.


The size of the airbags (because it would be several) would have to be massive, and thus very heavy. Not worth the extremely limited utility. How many aircraft have ditched in one piece and then sunk immediately? Aircraft do float at least for a while, especially if all the valves are closed, e.g. ditching pushbutton on Airbus.


***
Answer to the question: "The child life jacket does not have a whistle."
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:49 pm

I think a common misconception is that the whistles are needed to help signal rescuers to your location. While that may help (though honestly not really since anyone performing a rescue will have a better vantage point - more on that in a second) the main purpose is for banding many passengers together or to alert someone on a life raft to your location. The whistle's help because everyone who is floating in water is at the same level, so even an ocean wave of a foot will obscure someone from your view (where as rescuers will be a comparably significant distance above water level). Ditto with the water activated beacons.

I can think of a couple coast guard documentaries where whistles and beacons played a big role in rescues.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:58 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:

p.s. what I have occasionally pondered is a kind of airbag for aircraft, so that the entire body of the fuselage remained afloat.
If that had been the case with MH370, it would probably still be bobbing around somewhere in the Indian Ocean even now.
It might save some lives, and the added bonus would be no more expensive underwater search operations to locate FDRs at the bottom of the ocean.


The size of the airbags (because it would be several) would have to be massive, and thus very heavy. Not worth the extremely limited utility. How many aircraft have ditched in one piece and then sunk immediately? Aircraft do float at least for a while, especially if all the valves are closed, e.g. ditching pushbutton on Airbus.


We actually do flotation analysis to guarantee a certain amount of float time. We have to limit the total surface area of open holes beneath the water line to control the flow rate of water ingress. I was trying to find the exact FAR this rolls into but I can't seem to find it right now.
 
EasternSon
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:07 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:47 pm

Please, please, please listen to the safety briefings. I have personally seen with my own eyes people's total inability to don a life vest, even after they have been given specific one-on-one instruction. It's scary and sad.

But, what we should be talking about is inaccessibility. Most people on the 1549 got off without a life vest because they couldn't locate it quickly enough. They searched for a second or two, then left their seats.

Next time you're in an aircraft, reach under the seat (probably with your face smashed into the seat into the seat in front of you) and see if you can get your hand on the fabric strip that you're supposed pull to open the compartment- if you can even identify it as the right thing to pull without being able to see it. Try to do it in less than 5-10 seconds.

Now, imagine being panicked out of your mind, with people screaming all around, and flight attendants shouting instructions.

Do you think you'd be able to find it?
"The only people for me are the mad ones...." Jack Kerouac
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:48 pm

EasternSon wrote:
But, what we should be talking about is inaccessibility. Most people on the 1549 got off without a life vest because they couldn't locate it quickly enough. They searched for a second or two, then left their seats.

Next time you're in an aircraft, reach under the seat (probably with your face smashed into the seat into the seat in front of you) and see if you can get your hand on the fabric strip that you're supposed pull to open the compartment- if you can even identify it as the right thing to pull without being able to see it. Try to do it in less than 5-10 seconds.

Now, imagine being panicked out of your mind, with people screaming all around, and flight attendants shouting instructions.

Do you think you'd be able to find it?
Wouldn't it be easier if your life vest was located under the seat in front of you? The only issue would be providing a life vest for the row of seats at the front of an aircraft, but they also have the problem that their tray-table cannot be suspended from the (non-existent) seat in front of them. And yet somehow airlines have got around that problem.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
stratclub
Posts: 1372
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:51 pm

EasternSon wrote:
Please, please, please listen to the safety briefings. I have personally seen with my own eyes people's total inability to don a life vest, even after they have been given specific one-on-one instruction. It's scary and sad.

But, what we should be talking about is inaccessibility. Most people on the 1549 got off without a life vest because they couldn't locate it quickly enough. They searched for a second or two, then left their seats.

Next time you're in an aircraft, reach under the seat (probably with your face smashed into the seat into the seat in front of you) and see if you can get your hand on the fabric strip that you're supposed pull to open the compartment- if you can even identify it as the right thing to pull without being able to see it. Try to do it in less than 5-10 seconds.

Now, imagine being panicked out of your mind, with people screaming all around, and flight attendants shouting instructions.

Do you think you'd be able to find it?



Yes,it's right here (View looking outboard and aft):

Image
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:08 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Whilst looking, I found this piece of upside down logic;

"Voluntary", except they will face charges if they don't? :rotfl:

I think you misunderstood something here. The muster drill is NOT voluntary. It's saying crew members who choose NOT to attend the muster drill face charges. Voluntarily meaning they chose not to attend.
Yeah, I definitely misunderstood the definition of "voluntarily". And so did some guy called Merriam-Webster. :roll:

Don't know why the sarcastic eye-roll was necessary. It all comes down to the positioning of the words. This:
Laws in some places hold crew members liable to face civil charges if they voluntarily do not attend the muster drill.
For example, in some US states, those who do not attend are fined varying amounts, depending on their rank

is different from this:
Laws in some places hold crew members liable to face civil charges if they do not attend the voluntarily muster drill.
For example, in some US states, those who do not attend are fined varying amounts, depending on their rank

The latter would be indicating that the muster drill was voluntary, in which case, I could see your point. But that's not what was said. The law is stating that if the crew member chooses not to attend the muster drill, they could face charges. Certainly there could be situations where crew members don't attend for factors beyond their control. For instance, if a crew member slips on an ice cube, falls, and breaks a leg and ends up missing the muster drill, that's not really a situation where they chose to skip it.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
However, I was thinking of ferries more like...
Image
30,000 tons, with a 9-11 hour crossing at 27 kts.
In Australia, two Spirit of Tasmania ferries carry passengers and vehicles 300 kilometres (190 mi) across Bass Strait, the body of water that separates Tasmania from the Australian mainland, often under turbulent sea conditions.


Or maybe the MS Color Magic at 75,100 tons, running from Oslo to Kiel (20 hours).
Image
I'm not getting any indication of compulsory safety briefings on either of these big boys.

Interesting. Wouldn't have thought anything that big would be considered a ferry.
Captain Kevin
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20092
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:47 am

AirKevin wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
AirKevin wrote:

I think you misunderstood something here. The muster drill is NOT voluntary. It's saying crew members who choose NOT to attend the muster drill face charges. Voluntarily meaning they chose not to attend.
Yeah, I definitely misunderstood the definition of "voluntarily". And so did some guy called Merriam-Webster. :roll:

Don't know why the sarcastic eye-roll was necessary. It all comes down to the positioning of the words. This:
Laws in some places hold crew members liable to face civil charges if they voluntarily do not attend the muster drill.
For example, in some US states, those who do not attend are fined varying amounts, depending on their rank

is different from this:
Laws in some places hold crew members liable to face civil charges if they do not attend the voluntarily muster drill.
For example, in some US states, those who do not attend are fined varying amounts, depending on their rank

The latter would be indicating that the muster drill was voluntary, in which case, I could see your point. But that's not what was said. The law is stating that if the crew member chooses not to attend the muster drill, they could face charges. Certainly there could be situations where crew members don't attend for factors beyond their control. For instance, if a crew member slips on an ice cube, falls, and breaks a leg and ends up missing the muster drill, that's not really a situation where they chose to skip it.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
However, I was thinking of ferries more like...
Image
30,000 tons, with a 9-11 hour crossing at 27 kts.
In Australia, two Spirit of Tasmania ferries carry passengers and vehicles 300 kilometres (190 mi) across Bass Strait, the body of water that separates Tasmania from the Australian mainland, often under turbulent sea conditions.


Or maybe the MS Color Magic at 75,100 tons, running from Oslo to Kiel (20 hours).
Image
I'm not getting any indication of compulsory safety briefings on either of these big boys.

Interesting. Wouldn't have thought anything that big would be considered a ferry.


As I see it, these ships are ferries because their main purpose is transportation between two locations. As opposed to a cruise ship where the main purpose is the journey itself.

Large ferries generally have the ability to carry cars, lorries and sometimes trains. Cruise ships do not.

Image
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:16 am

AirKevin wrote:
I think you misunderstood something here. The muster drill is NOT voluntary. It's saying crew members who choose NOT to attend the muster drill face charges. Voluntarily meaning they chose not to attend.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Yeah, I definitely misunderstood the definition of "voluntarily". And so did some guy called Merriam-Webster. :roll:

AirKevin wrote:
Don't know why the sarcastic eye-roll was necessary. It all comes down to the positioning of the words.

Er, no! You are going against every dictionary known to the English speaking world.

Look - there's no need for us to go to war over this. I simply found the choice of words ridiculous for the simple reason that "compulsory" and "voluntary" are antonyms.
Compulsory is defined as "forcing one's compliance or participation by or as if by law ", or exactly what is required of these crew members.

You don't often hear anybody claiming that they "voluntarily" adhered to a mandatory speed limit.
But if you are ok with that concept, I'll quietly walk away from continuing this argument.

What is perhaps more relevant (or puzzling) is that some US states will charge the employee for non-attendance.
As I see it; by failing to maintain their safety proficiency, those crew members have made themselves unemployed. The buck now passes to the employer who should refuse to employ them or pay them.
However, if the employer uses labor that is not properly qualified, surely it should be the employer who should face charges?

I then delved into the original Wikipedia links and found that in the case of Kentucky, the reference was nothing to do with safety drills on ships. It was an 1865 Act in respect of the Kentucky Militia, Article III, Section XXXVI which specifies fines according to rank for any member of the Militia who fails to appear properly armed and dressed on any day of muster.
I suppose the fact that Kentucky is a land-locked state was my first clue that things were a bit cuckoo.

With that in mind, I'm not sure that the other link to Ohio is going to be much better. :banghead:

Nevertheless, I enjoyed the exercise. Now I just need to find a way to explain to Wikipedia that their article is full of holes (as well as poor English).
And it also reminded me that one of the most obscure awards I have ever found was "Honorary Kentucky Admiral". :rotfl:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
In Australia, two Spirit of Tasmania ferries carry passengers and vehicles 300 kilometres (190 mi) across Bass Strait, the body of water that separates Tasmania from the Australian mainland, often under turbulent sea conditions.

The MS Color Magic at 75,100 tons, running from Oslo to Kiel (20 hours).

AirKevin wrote:
Interesting. Wouldn't have thought anything that big would be considered a ferry.

No worries; you're welcome. :D

p.s. thanks to Starlionblue too :bigthumbsup:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:24 am

All of which is entirely irrelevant to the use of flotation devices on aircraft, and the briefing thereof.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:22 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Look - there's no need for us to go to war over this. I simply found the choice of words ridiculous for the simple reason that "compulsory" and "voluntary" are antonyms.
Compulsory is defined as "forcing one's compliance or participation by or as if by law ", or exactly what is required of these crew members.

The muster drill is compulsory, yes. The word voluntarily was not used to describe the attendance of the muster drill itself, but rather the crew member's decision not to attend.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
You don't often hear anybody claiming that they "voluntarily" adhered to a mandatory speed limit.

No, you're right, you don't, because most people are going way over the speed limit, so they are voluntarily busting the speed limit. The speed limit itself is mandatory, but it seems that almost everybody out on the road is always busting the speed limit.
Captain Kevin
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4324
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:53 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
I think you misunderstood something here. The muster drill is NOT voluntary. It's saying crew members who choose NOT to attend the muster drill face charges. Voluntarily meaning they chose not to attend.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Yeah, I definitely misunderstood the definition of "voluntarily". And so did some guy called Merriam-Webster. :roll:

AirKevin wrote:
Don't know why the sarcastic eye-roll was necessary. It all comes down to the positioning of the words.

Er, no! You are going against every dictionary known to the English speaking world.

Look - there's no need for us to go to war over this. I simply found the choice of words ridiculous for the simple reason that "compulsory" and "voluntary" are antonyms.
Compulsory is defined as "forcing one's compliance or participation by or as if by law ", or exactly what is required of these crew members.

You don't often hear anybody claiming that they "voluntarily" adhered to a mandatory speed limit.
But if you are ok with that concept, I'll quietly walk away from continuing this argument.

What is perhaps more relevant (or puzzling) is that some US states will charge the employee for non-attendance.
As I see it; by failing to maintain their safety proficiency, those crew members have made themselves unemployed. The buck now passes to the employer who should refuse to employ them or pay them.
However, if the employer uses labor that is not properly qualified, surely it should be the employer who should face charges?

I then delved into the original Wikipedia links and found that in the case of Kentucky, the reference was nothing to do with safety drills on ships. It was an 1865 Act in respect of the Kentucky Militia, Article III, Section XXXVI which specifies fines according to rank for any member of the Militia who fails to appear properly armed and dressed on any day of muster.
I suppose the fact that Kentucky is a land-locked state was my first clue that things were a bit cuckoo.

With that in mind, I'm not sure that the other link to Ohio is going to be much better. :banghead:

Nevertheless, I enjoyed the exercise. Now I just need to find a way to explain to Wikipedia that their article is full of holes (as well as poor English).
And it also reminded me that one of the most obscure awards I have ever found was "Honorary Kentucky Admiral". :rotfl:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
In Australia, two Spirit of Tasmania ferries carry passengers and vehicles 300 kilometres (190 mi) across Bass Strait, the body of water that separates Tasmania from the Australian mainland, often under turbulent sea conditions.

The MS Color Magic at 75,100 tons, running from Oslo to Kiel (20 hours).

AirKevin wrote:
Interesting. Wouldn't have thought anything that big would be considered a ferry.

No worries; you're welcome. :D

p.s. thanks to Starlionblue too :bigthumbsup:


Agree with airkevin, the wording is confusing but he is right. You are “voluntarily” not attending the drill. I.e. it in some circumstances may be necessary to not attend the drill at the order of the captain, in which case you did not attend the drill because you were mandated to be somewhere else or perform a different task.

In your example with the speed limit sign, you can be ticketed for voluntarily exceeding the speed limit, but a situation theoretically could arrive where a police officer orders you to exceed the speed limit (maybe to clear a street for an incoming fire truck). You would not be ticketed for being ordered to disobey the sign.
 
Lukas757
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 11:59 pm

Re: Lifejackets on commercial planes

Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:26 pm

802flyguy wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
According to the NTSB report only 10 passengers on AWE1549 retrieved a life jacket, which is really quite astounding.


And one of them wore the life jacket the wrong way!


At least one....

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Woodreau and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos