Who is in Charge and how safe are we?

[777]

I do wonder whether one of the key issues with Asian airlines (and others with a lot of connecting traffic) is the sheer variety of languages likely to be spoken on board these days in these circumstances. Particularly in the era of global hubs and connecting traffic.

There was a time when the language of the home country and the destination would suffice but a CX flight into Shanghai is likely to carry passengers speaking English, multiple Chinese languages and dialects, Japanese, other European languages and who knows how many more. It significantly complicates giving instructions in the event of an emergency and giving a simple instruction like "don't bring your bags" is not necessarily likely to be understood by all passengers.

All this is likely compounded by the fact that there are a lot of people who are very inexperienced in flying and may not have the instructions drilled into their heads.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I do wonder whether one of the key issues with Asian airlines (and others with a lot of connecting traffic) is the sheer variety of languages likely to be spoken on board these days in these circumstances. Particularly in the era of global hubs and connecting traffic.

There was a time when the language of the home country and the destination would suffice but a CX flight into Shanghai is likely to carry passengers speaking English, multiple Chinese languages and dialects, Japanese, other European languages and who knows how many more. It significantly complicates giving instructions in the event of an emergency and giving a simple instruction like "don't bring your bags" is not necessarily likely to be understood by all passengers.

All this is likely compounded by the fact that there are a lot of people who are very inexperienced in flying and may not have the instructions drilled into their heads.

CX to China is not such a good example! I used to fly that route every month and the majority of pax would either understand English, while the rest would understand the putonghua and cantonese announcements. Japanese would fly there direct from Japan, no need to fly via HKG. (Whether or not pax want to listen is another issue ) The fares China-HKG on CX/KA and CA are also (relatively) very expensive. I think most inexperienced travellers would take the option of flying via Schenzhen (which is cheaper but also has less visa / travel restrictions).

 

[777]

CX to China is not such a good example! I used to fly that route every month and the majority of pax would either understand English, while the rest would understand the putonghua and cantonese announcements. Japanese would fly there direct from Japan, no need to fly via HKG.

I think point really applies to any airline with an international feeder network.

 

[freepyjamas]

I've sometimes wondered whether cabin crew that are trained to (and expected to) deliver almost servile levels of service would be any good in an emergency, when firm no-bull**** instinctive leadership is required.

Hope I never have to find out.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I've sometimes wondered whether cabin crew that are trained to (and expected to) deliver almost servile levels of service would be any good in an emergency, when firm no-bull**** instinctive leadership is required.

...

Indeed they can.

As much as some people like to be critical of airlines such as Garuda or China Airlines, we have seen from their accidents that they are very good at evacuating passengers in an emergency (not excusing having the emergency in the first place!!). CX, SQ etc also good at getting pax out as we have seen from emergencies.

But compare that with the delay in ordering an evacuation on the QF 1 at bangkok. I know which airline(s) and crew I'd rather have in the event of an emergency.

 

[jetlagger]

Given my experiences with a variety of carriers.. As for some non-compliant passengers- I have an observant view that it normally occurs within varied geographical regions - with a totally subservient crew.. Pax totally un compliant with the seat belt sign & challenging flight crew for unreasonable requests..
It also must be said that in the event of any emergency - Sure most of the crew would be (pausing) to make sure the hair, nails, eyelashes - extend the correct angle for the cameras... & then emergency training (if remembered) would take precedence..

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Given my experiences with a variety of carriers.. As for some non-compliant passengers- I have an observant view that it normally occurs within asia - with a totally subservient crew.. Pax totally un compliant with the seat belt sign & challenging flight crew for unreasonable requests..
It also must be said that in the event of any emergency - Sure most of the crew would be (pausing) to make sure the hair, nails, eyelashes - extend the correct angle for the cameras... & then emergency training (if remembered) would take precedence..

this is an offensive post, bordering on racist. Your comments about emergency procedure are unfounded. Asian crews may not wish to offend passengers by saying 'no', but that does not mean they are ignorant as you suggest. Nor does the culture of the passengers indicate the competence of the crew to act in an emergency.

 

[ash.1111]

Without being the slightest bit racist, I feel the issue here is that, in Asian countries, being cabin crew is considered a more "service-centred" career.

I also believe that, culturally, flight attendants from that part of the world may feel that they are less able to "speak up" without fear of overstepping their "service" role.

Just my 2c.

 

[milehighclub]

But compare that with the delay in ordering an evacuation on the QF 1 at bangkok. I know which airline(s) and crew I'd rather have in the event of an emergency.

There was no delay at all and an evacuation was never actually ordered. It was a precautionary disembarkation using slides. Just like the QF32 was a precautionary disembarkation using stairs. There is a big difference between an evacuation and a precautionary.

Just because there is an accident, no need to call an evacuation unless there is an immediate danger. Why cause panic when you can safely disembark the passengers if the aircraft is in stable condition after the incident.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

There was no delay at all and an evacuation was never actually ordered. It was a precautionary disembarkation using slides. Just like the QF32 was a precautionary disembarkation using stairs. There is a big difference between an evacuation and a precautionary.

Just because there is an accident, no need to call an evacuation unless there is an immediate danger. Why cause panic when you can safely disembark the passengers if the aircraft is in stable condition after the incident.

the accident report (final) stated a full emergency evacuation would have been the preferred course of action. while the pilots acted on the information they had, they should also have considered the potential gaps to that information caused by the lack of a communication system. the damage was greater than thought by the crew.

if I'm on an aircraft that runs off a runway with severe structural damage, I want to be out of that plane as quickly as possible, not waiting around while an airline chooses between a precautionary evacuation and a full evacuation. (the report stated that many airlines didnt have the two options, it was either a full evacuation or nothing).

So the way I see it there was kind of a 20 minute delay...

 

[dajop]

this is an offensive post, bordering on racist. Your comments about emergency procedure are unfounded. Asian crews may not wish to offend passengers by saying 'no', but that does not mean they are ignorant as you suggest. Nor does the culture of the passengers indicate the competence of the crew to act in an emergency.

I agree. Whilst there is a certain powerless-ness around seatbelt usage (particularly in China), it's practically impossible to enforce unless you have crew wandering through the cabin during heavy turbulence (not desirable) or immediately after rear wheels down (particulary not desirable - and yes I have seen pax somehow get out of their seats even before the front wheels touched down), they do enforce other rules. Two examples, I was reprimanded quite strongly by a FA on China Southern just over a week ago for supposedly using an i-phone in flight (trouble was it was just an i-pod, and after realising she did apologise). And coming back from SGN on Friday (on SQ) the passenger in front of me decided to fully recline after FA's did pre-take off checks, I gave a subtle signal to the nearest FA, and they came and didn't even ask the offending individual to bring their seat upright, they just pressed the button and did it.

 

[SamR]

And coming back from SGN on Friday (on SQ) the passenger in front of me decided to fully recline after FA's did pre-take off checks, I gave a subtle signal to the nearest FA, and they came and didn't even ask the offending individual to bring their seat upright, they just pressed the button and did it.

That's a pet hate of mine. I love that the FA did that. I would have loved to have seen the look on the passenger's face.

 

[harvyk]

I guess with the CX evac the passengers made some sort of judgment about the seriousness of the situation. The comparison is the Chna Airlines evcuation in August 2007 where the plane was on fire with lots of smoke... in that one most (there were two exceptions I think) of the pax were outta there without cabin baggage.

But the question is, how on earth would a pax, who is not privy to all the information, really be able to make a judgement call on the severity of an evac? OK, the plane might not be on fire that very second, but they don't deploy the slides as a matter of course. If the slides are to be used, and an emergency evac is to take place, the cap't would not have taken that decision lightly, and if the cap't had felt there was a better option available to them (eg using an air bridge or stairs at a gate), I bet they would have taken it.

I do wonder whether one of the key issues with Asian airlines (and others with a lot of connecting traffic) is the sheer variety of languages likely to be spoken on board these days in these circumstances. Particularly in the era of global hubs and connecting traffic.

There was a time when the language of the home country and the destination would suffice but a CX flight into Shanghai is likely to carry passengers speaking English, multiple Chinese languages and dialects, Japanese, other European languages and who knows how many more. It significantly complicates giving instructions in the event of an emergency and giving a simple instruction like "don't bring your bags" is not necessarily likely to be understood by all passengers.

All this is likely compounded by the fact that there are a lot of people who are very inexperienced in flying and may not have the instructions drilled into their heads.

On CX HKG to PVG, it was English, and I believe Cantonese which was spoken, and which all announcement where made in.

I agree. Whilst there is a certain powerless-ness around seatbelt usage (particularly in China), it's practically impossible to enforce unless you have crew wandering through the cabin during heavy turbulence (not desirable) or immediately after rear wheels down (particulary not desirable - and yes I have seen pax somehow get out of their seats even before the front wheels touched down), they do enforce other rules. Two examples, I was reprimanded quite strongly by a FA on China Southern just over a week ago for supposedly using an i-phone in flight (trouble was it was just an i-pod, and after realising she did apologise). And coming back from SGN on Friday (on SQ) the passenger in front of me decided to fully recline after FA's did pre-take off checks, I gave a subtle signal to the nearest FA, and they came and didn't even ask the offending individual to bring their seat upright, they just pressed the button and did it.

Actually again, my experiences with CX suggest they do exactly that. On illumination of the seatbelt sign during turbulence, I have seen FA's walk down the aisle ensuring everyone had their seat belt on. It surprised me a little to be honest.


I strongly suspect most people who have flown, would have started in their home country, where the local language (or languages) was most likely spoken. Thus they would have most likely seen at least one safety announcement in their own language, plus the images in the safety card use pretty unambiguous pictures to re-enforce that message. I suspect that it's an uncaring attitude which is adopted, rather than specifically not understanding, and I've seen that uncaring attitude on domestic flights here in AU. An extension of "it won't happen to me".

 

[jetlagger]

this is an offensive post, bordering on racist. Your comments about emergency procedure are unfounded. Asian crews may not wish to offend passengers by saying 'no', but that does not mean they are ignorant as you suggest. Nor does the culture of the passengers indicate the competence of the crew to act in an emergency.

Your comments were unfounded - the post was merely a comment on my observations - I have edited the post so as not to offend any sensitivities in regard to wrongfully interpreting any particular race. The original reference was referring to a geographical region.. Just rather, IMO your interpretive value were slightly off mark. Furthermore, believe me, just for the record - I am far from being a racist.

 

[anat0l]

Indeed they can.

As much as some people like to be critical of airlines such as Garuda or China Airlines, we have seen from their accidents that they are very good at evacuating passengers in an emergency (not excusing having the emergency in the first place!!). CX, SQ etc also good at getting pax out as we have seen from emergencies.

But compare that with the delay in ordering an evacuation on the QF 1 at bangkok. I know which airline(s) and crew I'd rather have in the event of an emergency.

And yet we have a crew like on QF32 who managed to guide a fairly crippled aircraft to the ground. I think that says something which is not insignificant.

That's not to say QF get everything right! QF1 certainly was a wake-up call for all procedures, including one to the more overarching CASA. However, despite any other fault they have right now, I'd be far from dismissing the QF crew as useless (let alone "inferior" or "insufficient") in an emergency.


I wonder if jb747 can offer more insight about the ramifications of QF1...


To bring this post back more on topic, I'd say that some passengers are very dismissive of the need to regard safety on board. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to control passengers in this respect unless they are actively disobeying a safety directive or doing something blatantly unsafe. This is the unfortunate residual risk we take when we fly. As I said, you can't sue an idiot for damages once you're both death.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

On CX HKG to PVG, it was English, and I believe Cantonese which was spoken, and which all announcement where made in.

CX to China is always English, Cantonese and Putonghua (which is half the reason CX inflight announcements are always so annoying... you get each three times AND every 10 seconds it seems they're harping on about something...)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And yet we have a crew like on QF32 who managed to guide a fairly crippled aircraft to the ground. I think that says something which is not insignificant.

That's not to say QF get everything right! QF1 certainly was a wake-up call for all procedures, including one to the more overarching CASA. However, despite any other fault they have right now, I'd be far from dismissing the QF crew as useless (let alone "inferior" or "insufficient") in an emergency.


I wonder if jb747 can offer more insight about the ramifications of QF1...

I agree - but when people start to make disparaging comments about airline(s) from a particular region it is always a good idea to look closer to home (not throwing stones in glass houses etc).

I don't in any way suggest that QF crews aren't some of the best, but so too are others like the JL crew that battled the rear bulkhead explosion. That was some remarkable flying.

My point was that not all Asian airlines = bad. And not all western airlines = good.

 

[ksthommo]

How about this Iranian Male who somehow jumped out of a Qatar Airlines
flight after landing in Denpasar. Must have been confused with the currency
conversion.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/lawandorder/iranian-man-jumps-out-of-plane-in-bali/535817