What one Air Canada pilot thinks about phone use in flight

[RooFlyer]

I was on an Air Canada flight Calgary to Vancouver recently; an E190, in first row of economy, row 4 aisle. About 3 mins out from touchdown, on final approach I look up and 2 rows in front of me, in business is a guy in an aisle seat, on the phone! No question about it, a live conversation. I could see that the FA could see, but he did nothing (such as make a PA), not even as the pax passed him by on exiting the plane.

I was walking up the air bridge and one of the pilots was walking beside me - apparently on a tight connection himself. So I asked him - In Canada, how do I complain about breaches of FAs instructions, such as using a mobile phone in flight? (He obviously didn't know about the particular incident I had in mind). His answer was candid, if nothing else - words to the effect of:

"No-one, really. Phones don't really matter, we only say it because it asserts some authority and people expect us to say it."

I'll add this to my growing list of flagrant breaches of FA 'safety' instructions which are in turn ignored by the FAs that I've observed flying in North America of late (such as laptops on laps during take-off, people getting up to go to the toilet when final seat belt sign comes on for landing etc.

I recall in the 'Ask the Pilot' thread that a senior pilot answered re phone use that it did matter at the margin; if it was a tricky landing then phones definitely needed to be off (this was when the rule was 'off' not flight mode); I hope I captured that correctly.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I was on an Air Canada flight Calgary to Vancouver recently; an E190, in first row of economy, row 4 aisle. About 3 mins out from touchdown, on final approach I look up and 2 rows in front of me, in business is a guy in an aisle seat, on the phone! No question about it, a live conversation. I could see that the FA could see, but he did nothing (such as make a PA), not even as the pax passed him by on exiting the plane.

I was walking up the air bridge and one of the pilots was walking beside me - apparently on a tight connection himself. So I asked him - In Canada, how do I complain about breaches of FAs instructions, such as using a mobile phone in flight? (He obviously didn't know about the particular incident I had in mind). His answer was candid, if nothing else - words to the effect of:

"No-one, really. Phones don't really matter, we only say it because it asserts some authority and people expect us to say it."

I'll add this to my growing list of flagrant breaches of FA 'safety' instructions which are in turn ignored by the FAs that I've observed flying in North America of late (such as laptops on laps during take-off, people getting up to go to the toilet when final seat belt sign comes on for landing etc.

I recall in the 'Ask the Pilot' thread that a senior pilot answered re phone use that it did matter at the margin; if it was a tricky landing then phones definitely needed to be off (this was when the rule was 'off' not flight mode); I hope I captured that correctly.

This seems to be an issue for you! Some of your previous safety concerns were raised here: http://www.australianfrequentflyer..../ba-777-on-fire-las-70652-17.html#post1310639

Is the issue actually one related to your immediate safety, or just that you want to punish those who ignore crew member instructions?

If it is to do with your immediate safety, I ask again, what happened when you approached the crew or offending person and told them to stop doing what they were doing?

If it is a 'punishment' issue - are the crew not in the best position to determine when to take action?

I am 100% sure the crew want to land, safely, just as much as we do!

 

[RooFlyer]

This seems to be an issue for you! Some of your previous safety concerns were raised here: http://www.australianfrequentflyer..../ba-777-on-fire-las-70652-17.html#post1310639

Is the issue actually one related to your immediate safety, or just that you want to punish those who ignore crew member instructions?
<snip>!

Disobedience of crew instructions on board is an issue for me and I'll point them out when they occur, thank-you. When its a matter of a couple of kilos of plastic and metal sitting on the lap of some-one close to me on board during take-off (to which you linked) then its also an issue for my personal safety.

<snip>
If it is to do with your immediate safety, I ask again, what happened when you approached the crew or offending person and told them to stop doing what they were doing?
<snip>

As for approaching the crew, you'll see above what happened. As for approaching the offending person, I couldn't do that at the time, as we were all strapped in and he, in J had gone by the time I, in whY, de-planed. I don't think shouting at him while he was chatting on the phone would have been helpful, in the circumstances. Does this cover off your "again" query?

<snip>
If it is a 'punishment' issue - are the crew not in the best position to determine when to take action?
<snip>

That depends if the crew give a stuff about regulator-mandated safety rules. If they apparently don't - as was evidenced on this flight - then I'll attempt to make the breach known. If a crew member was apparently drunk to you and you mentioned it to a FA who then brushed you off ... would you just let it rest there? I sure wouldn't.

I have no problem with making my own reaction proportional, but I don't turn a blind eye to safety assuming some-one else is taking care of it. I'd recommend that philosophy in general.

<snip>

I am 100% sure the crew want to land, safely, just as much as we do!

I'm sure they do too ... but I'm not so sure they are interested in enforcing all the various regulator-mandated safety rules. I can sympathise with their situation - some pax will get bellicose when told to turn off a phone; if the pax ignores them, then there's not much else they can do when strapped in, so they look foolish. But as I said in that thread you linked to:

If passengers are allowed to ignore safety instructions as a matter of course, why should they treat the instruction to leave carry-on behind in an emergency any more seriously?

Perhaps you might answer that one for me?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The issue is whether you perceive a real and immediate risk to your safety. If you felt such, why would you not say something? Even calling out to so,some, two rows in front 'please turn off your mobile'?

is it worth crashing because you didn't want to call out?

if you didn't perceive a real and immediate threat to your danger, then what's the issue?

If if I see someone next to me with their lap top out during landing, I'll ask them to put it away. If I see someone ineligible to be at an exit, I ask the crew to investigate and reseat them.

raising the issue after the fact is of little use to my safety at that specific time. If I don't feel the need to act at the time, obviously I'm not seeing or appreciating any immediate and real risk.

I dont, for example, see any real issue if pax move for a short time after the seat belt sign has been illuminated prior to descent. Especially if that sign comes on automatically 30 minutes before landing once crew are given instruction to 'prepare the cabin for landing'.

i know, from flying qantas, that the seat belt sign comes on much closer to landing, and it must be honoured in those cases. as long as passengers are seating by that time in other airlines, I don't see a problem. different airlines have different policies and procedures.

 

[RooFlyer]

To me, this continuing questioning me of my attitudes to various safety related situations is bordering on the obsessive, but as talking about myself is one of my favourite topics, I'll indulge you a last time. If this doesn't satisfy your curiosity, I'm afraid any follow up will have to wait till maybe we meet at a social function.

Broadly, as I mentioned above, what I might do or say is proportional to the situation. I have called out to a pax who stood up during a bumpy landing approach (as did others) because I was genuinely concerned for their safety. I have asked adjacent pax who were on the phone when they shouldn't have been to turn off the phone (this was when it was 'phones off' not 'flight mode'); not because I was concerned for my or their safety but because they were instructed to turn the phone off, and didn't. I wouldn't shout across the cabin re phone use, as this would be out of proportion to the situation.

I rarely see the point in engaging with a FA about some pax's behaviour after the flight, as there is nothing to be done and both they and I have other priorities then. However, if the FA has blatantly failed to enforce safety rules, I see that as a training issue, and at the feet of management for failing to arrange training adequately. I'm more likely to follow-up with the airline or a regulator if I think it warrants it. They can always ignore me/the issue, but I'll be satisfied that I tried to do something about the issue, rather than look the other way.

Even calling out to so,some, two rows in front 'please turn off your mobile'?

is it worth crashing because you didn't want to call out?

You don't really believe that using a phone will crash a plane, do you? I don't. But I know that a senior pilot in 'Ask the Pilot' thread said to the effect (IIRC) that having phones transmitting during a tricky landing could affect things, so best they be off, so that's good enough for me to appreciate what should be done.

As another example, I would call out and be pro-active if some-one was having a tug at a door handle in flight. I know it won't actually open, but I wouldn't want them to get in the habit of doing it.

The point I have tried to make, and I think you aren't seeing the wood for the trees, is that when FAs or flight crew give an instruction, it should be obeyed, whether or not any person thinks its un-necessary. If they are not obeyed, I think the FA should be pro-active in enforcing the rule, within the practicalities at the time. Why? Because when the poo hits the fan, and its an emergency and whether or not a pax obeys a FAs instruction could mean life or death for me, I want that pax to reflexively obey the instruction, not just think 'whatever'. Whether or not I actually do something about an issue at the time, depends on the situation, the threat level and the practicalities at the time.

But you do your own thing on board, by all means.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My questioning about your attitudes to safety is to try and understand your drivers.

If you have genuine safety concern, I think it is valid. If it is a genuine concern, any passenger should mention it immediately, either to the cabin crew, or directly with the passenger if it is not possible to do so via the crew.

On the other hand, getting upset because someone is not following instructions, particularly if there is no safety element, might perceived as someone just wanting to control others. The person may be acting in contravention of a rule, but I, as a passenger, am not the police. Their actions aren't affecting me directly, I have no cause or nexus to get involved.

On qantas, seat belt sign 'on' means 'everyone be seated (now)'. On other airlines, seatbelt sign 'on' may mean 'you now have a couple of minutes to get everything finalised, then be seated please'. I'm not going to get upset, or try and control passengers in the latter situation for not immediately obeying the seat belt sign.

 

[OzEire]

Safety onboard is a system, training of crew, engineering, attitudes, management policy, regulation, human factors such as teamwork and CRM, etc. built up over many years (and incidents). I would count an airline culture in this mix.

My take on the crew member's attitude is that they know the regulation but think that their personal opinion outweighs the regulation or operator policy. Which is no longer about the phone and more about the culture at the airline... What other regulations does this crew member think are ok to ignore? What airline group behaviours make that crew member think that ignoring rules is ok? If management turn a blind eye often, or don't enforce breaches of regulation then an element of the safety 'system' is not working.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What other regulations does this crew member think are ok to ignore? What airline group behaviours make that crew member think that ignoring rules is ok? If management turn a blind eye often, or don't enforce breaches of regulation then an element of the safety 'system' is not working.

I don't necessarily see one links to the other.

Take mobile phones... they're supposed to be in flight-mode (at the very least). But no doubt hundreds, if not thousands of flights take off every day with one or more phones still in normal power and transmit mode.

I don't see this happening as airlines deciding to 'pick and choose' which regulations they follow, or that they are ignoring safety. Or that where it matters, they aren't anything less than 100% committed to safety.

Obviously the guy shouldn't have been talking on his phone before landing. But I don't necessarily see that isolated incident as evidence of wide-spread disrespect to safety.

 

[RooFlyer]

Safety onboard is a system, training of crew, engineering, attitudes, management policy, regulation, human factors such as teamwork and CRM, etc. built up over many years (and incidents). I would count an airline culture in this mix.

My take on the crew member's attitude is that they know the regulation but think that their personal opinion outweighs the regulation or operator policy. Which is no longer about the phone and more about the culture at the airline... What other regulations does this crew member think are ok to ignore? What airline group behaviours make that crew member think that ignoring rules is ok? If management turn a blind eye often, or don't enforce breaches of regulation then an element of the safety 'system' is not working.

Agree with this a million %.

Its not up to the FAs to decide what regs to enforce and which not to and its irrelevant to this discussion whether a bunch of phones are actually on or off in flight.

The culture between Qantas for instance and say Air Canada or the old US Airways is chalk and cheese. Neither are perfect, but you know on Qantas they make the rules clear and if they find you not complying, there is almost always a request to comply, which escalates if not done. I've pointed out a number of instances on US carriers (and If I'd seen them in Australia, I'd have done the same) where the FAs quite clearly are aware of non compliance and did sweet fanny adams about it.

The Air Canada pilot/SO that I engaged with; if he found something amiss in his pre flight check would it be a case of "you know, its small and doesn't matter" ?