Aviation Discussion

[Jamesrob637]

That's because Jet2 are an excellent airline.

Apart from being sponsored by a singer who claims to not wear makeup on Thursday

But never reveals what she does on Friday

And wants to hold your hand even during times of social distancing

The actual outfit is a bit mixed in terms of the fleet. When we (ex and me) flew to Madeira last June we had a 757 out built only a year after she was born (!) and a 20 year old early-gen 737-800 return.

 

[Speed43125]

Apart from being sponsored by a singer who claims to not wear makeup on Thursday

But never reveals what she does on Friday

And wants to hold your hand even during times of social distancing

The actual outfit is a bit mixed in terms of the fleet. When we (ex and me) flew to Madeira last June we had a 757 out built only a year after she was born (!) and a 20 year old early-gen 737-800 return.

Experience on A.net seems to indicate they maintain their fleet to an exceptional standard, and achieve phenomenal availability with their, as you say, ageing fleet.
Think of them like Allegient in terms of purchase strategy, except they actually bother to keep the things airworthy.

 

[TravelDream]

Jet2 do incredible things with their fleet. Honestly, you can get on a 20+ year old 737 and think it is basically brand new.

 

[gsnedders]

It would be much more than that if a genuine emergency landing was going to happen rather than just a return "just in case" e.g. due to a single engine failure. If there is any chance of the "brace" position being needed, that would be re-briefed, in particular, with more detail about how to do it, as well as rebriefing those in the exit row. Yes, you do need to avoid scaring people, but you also need to make sure they know what to do.

It is common in cases where the cabin crew are expecting an emergency landing for them to go through every single person and make sure they know what brace position they should be taking when the order comes.

Often at the times the riskiest part of an emergency landing (on a runway! outlanding is very different!) is any risk of fire spreading after landing; a number of incidents where the crew has been overly cautious led to, for a while, crew perhaps being over-eager to evacuate the aircraft as soon as it is safe to do so.

Experience on A.net seems to indicate they maintain their fleet to an exceptional standard, and achieve phenomenal availability with their, as you say, ageing fleet.
Think of them like Allegient in terms of purchase strategy, except they actually bother to keep the things airworthy.

I certainly have no objection to taking a well-maintained older aircraft. And I really do mean the aircraft, not necessarily the age of the cabin. I might gripe at boarding some of the older, unrefurbished BA 777s given the state of their cabin, but I have absolutely no concern about the safety of the aircraft.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Often at the times the riskiest part of an emergency landing (on a runway! outlanding is very different!) is any risk of fire spreading after landing; a number of incidents where the crew has been overly cautious led to, for a while, crew perhaps being over-eager to evacuate the aircraft as soon as it is safe to do so.

Indeed, and even that carries risks - friction burns plus broken and sprained limbs are a very common side effect of the use of the slides, particularly if the forward landing gear has failed making the rear slides very steep. It's all down to the principle of "it's better than being dead".

I certainly have no objection to taking a well-maintained older aircraft. And I really do mean the aircraft, not necessarily the age of the cabin. I might gripe at boarding some of the older, unrefurbished BA 777s given the state of their cabin, but I have absolutely no concern about the safety of the aircraft.

Any European or US/Canadian operated aircraft can be as sure as you're going to be safe, give or take idiocy like the 737-Max. Indeed, the older it is, the better understood it is.

 

[najaB]

Any European or US/Canadian operated aircraft can be as sure as you're going to be safe

While that should be the case, quite a number of US/European accidents have had shoddy maintenance practices at their root. It tends to be more of a problem with smaller airlines, naturally.

 

[Fat Gaz]

It is common in cases where the cabin crew are expecting an emergency landing for them to go through every single person and make sure they know what brace position they should be taking when the order comes.

I'm genuinely interested in this. Can you give me an example of where this has happened please? I come from a background where this has seldom if ever happened and I am genuinely interested to know that this has actually happened. Part of the reason why for me is what you say about being over-eager.

Often at the times the riskiest part of an emergency landing (on a runway! outlanding is very different!) is any risk of fire spreading after landing; a number of incidents where the crew has been overly cautious led to, for a while, crew perhaps being over-eager to evacuate the aircraft as soon as it is safe to do so.

And that has happened in 2019 where an aircraft was evacuated whilst the engine was still turning resulting in injury. Here: Stansted 2019

The reason why I ask about the passengers being informed is because in some cases it primes some people to act before they are ordered to, inevitably causing more problems. Further, I can't get my head around why crew go around a cabin explaining how to brace? It's published on a multilingual card in graphic form to explain and it is explained in person at the safety briefing.

It makes more sense to me that they have enough to do/think about getting themselves prepared for the up coming emergency themselves. That is after all the whole reason why they are there. As emergencies are getting increasingly fewer, for some crew it could be their first one. Quite possibly the first after their initial training which could have been some time before. Can you see how I'm bemused by the idea that crew would go around explaining the detail when technically it's already been done?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm genuinely interested in this. Can you give me an example of where this has happened please? I come from a background where this has seldom if ever happened and I am genuinely interested to know that this has actually happened. Part of the reason why for me is what you say about being over-eager.

I'm intrigued - do you work as cabin crew, or are you just really unlucky in terms of being involved in serious aircraft incidents? Even someone who is cabin crew or a pilot is likely never to experience such an incident in their career, so rare it is.

(A precautionary landing due to a "red light" isn't an emergency landing and wouldn't be treated the same)

The reason why I ask about the passengers being informed is because in some cases it primes some people to act before they are ordered to, inevitably causing more problems. Further, I can't get my head around why crew go around a cabin explaining how to brace? It's published on a multilingual card in graphic form to explain and it is explained in person at the safety briefing.

A card that hardly anyone reads, and a briefing that most people pay scant attention to.

It makes more sense to me that they have enough to do/think about getting themselves prepared for the up coming emergency themselves. That is after all the whole reason why they are there.

The cabin crew are there for the safety of the passengers. Briefing them on an abnormal landing is part of that role.

As emergencies are getting increasingly fewer, for some crew it could be their first one. Quite possibly the first after their initial training which could have been some time before. Can you see how I'm bemused by the idea that crew would go around explaining the detail when technically it's already been done?

Because people don't pay attention, by and large, because they don't think it will happen to them (and odds on, it won't, even if they actually are flight crew).

 

[Fat Gaz]

Any European or US/Canadian operated aircraft can be as sure as you're going to be safe, give or take idiocy like the 737-Max. Indeed, the older it is, the better understood it is.

At last I can agree with you on something! And it isn't just the 737-Max either. I believe that "issues' with the production of the 787 are surfacing and there's a worry amongst some that the aircraft which "make those aircraft susceptible to structural failure at loads they should be able to withstand".

Tell you what, I'd rather fly on a 40 year old Boeing than a 3 year old Dreamliner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tell you what, I'd rather fly on a 40 year old Boeing than a 3 year old Dreamliner.

TBH I'd fly on either, I like the Dreamliner - big windows, high cabin pressure and higher moisture levels, the only aircraft I've been on that hasn't made me feel yuck after a long haul (day) flight. But I'd have no qualms about an older aircraft, either. Both are vastly safer than driving to the airport.

 

[Fat Gaz]

I'll try to help you out then.

I'm intrigued - do you work as cabin crew, or are you just really unlucky in terms of being involved in serious aircraft incidents? Even someone who is cabin crew or a pilot is likely never to experience such an incident in their career, so rare it is.

(A precautionary landing due to a "red light" isn't an emergency landing and wouldn't be treated the same)

I'm way too ugly tall to be cabin crew. With regards rarity, is that not what simulators are for? To recreate the "will never happen" incidents, that seem to happen.
A red light? If it's the one that informs you that your undercarriage isn't locked down for landing rather than a green, I suggest it would be treated slightly different.

A card that hardly anyone reads, and a briefing that most people pay scant attention to.

That's not the cabin crew's problem is it to be fair? Why should the cabin crew have to go around reassuring passengers of what to do if they pay scant regard to a safety brief? Maybe people should take a little more responsibility for their actions some would say.

The cabin crew are there for the safety of the passengers. Briefing them on an abnormal landing is part of that role.

I whole-heartedly agree with the first sentence.

Because people don't pay attention, by and large, because they don't think it will happen to them (and odds on, it won't, even if they actually are flight crew).

Everything outside of the brackets is true. I concur. But you asked of me, may I now ask of you please?
Do you work in a safety critical role? It's the contents of the text between the brackets that piques my interest. I think it explains why we are at loggerheads, we are coming at the same answers from differing angles perhaps.

 

[najaB]

I like the Dreamliner - big windows, high cabin pressure and higher moisture levels, the only aircraft I've been on that hasn't made me feel yuck after a long haul (day) flight

Until recently I would have agreed with you, but there have been too many quality control issues with the 787 of late. Apparently some airlines are refusing to take aircraft made in the SC plant because of them.

 

[Fat Gaz]

TBH I'd fly on either, I like the Dreamliner - big windows, high cabin pressure and higher moisture levels, the only aircraft I've been on that hasn't made me feel yuck after a long haul (day) flight. But I'd have no qualms about an older aircraft, either. Both are vastly safer than driving to the airport.

I think everyone who has been on one would agree. It has had no equal for sometime in that respect. I've not been on an A350 yet to see if that is the same.

Until recently I would have agreed with you, but there have been too many quality control issues with the 787 of late. Apparently some airlines are refusing to take aircraft made in the SC plant because of them.

All round shoddy workmanship can be added that too. The amount of rubbish found left lying around causes a few raised eyebrows. I saw some pics of the metal burrs around electrical connections. Makes one's hair stand on end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm way too ugly tall to be cabin crew. With regards rarity, is that not what simulators are for? To recreate the "will never happen" incidents, that seem to happen.

Yes, they are indeed.

A red light? If it's the one that informs you that your undercarriage isn't locked down for landing rather than a green, I suggest it would be treated slightly different.

I did almost suffix it with "depending what the red light is", to be fair. If the red light was one indicating that the undercarriage was not locked down, then yes, it would be treated as if it was known that it was not locked down. But if you had a red light suggesting, say, an engine oil pressure level problem, that would just be precautionary. (If the engine then failed, that would be different, as would it be if the engine was indicated as on fire).

That's not the cabin crew's problem is it to be fair?

Yes, it is. The cabin crew's role in an incident is basically to ensure that the passengers all get out safely (so far as is possible). That includes passengers who aren't paying attention.

Why should the cabin crew have to go around reassuring passengers of what to do if they pay scant regard to a safety brief? Maybe people should take a little more responsibility for their actions some would say.

I don't believe ignorance is supposed to carry a death sentence, particularly where the cabin crew don't have much else to do at that point.

Of course, what's also of note is that an ignorant person is not just a risk to themselves, they are a risk to others. If the guy in the aisle seat isn't paying attention and doesn't remember the brace position, and is knocked out as a result of the bang to the head that might result by not doing it properly, then there are two people who won't get out as quickly because they have to climb over him instead of being able to stand up and walk out. If they're sat in the exit row the effect could be worse still.

Everything outside of the brackets is true. I concur. But you asked of me, may I now ask of you please?
Do you work in a safety critical role? It's the contents of the text between the brackets that piques my interest. I think it explains why we are at loggerheads, we are coming at the same answers from differing angles perhaps.

No, I'm an IT consultant. My interest in aviation is similar to my interest in rail, though while my rail use is probably fairly average I have done a couple of long periods of European weekly commuting, meaning I've done about 250 flights in my lifetime thus far, which is rather more than most people though obviously nowhere near as many as crew would. Interestingly no serious safety issue arose on any of those - and only one go-around (which was quite fun - you really get to see what the aircraft can do when they put the power on and make the sharp turn!)

Until recently I would have agreed with you, but there have been too many quality control issues with the 787 of late. Apparently some airlines are refusing to take aircraft made in the SC plant because of them.

Crikey. Have they been taking advice from CAF?

 

[Western Lord]

Until recently I would have agreed with you, but there have been too many quality control issues with the 787 of late. Apparently some airlines are refusing to take aircraft made in the SC plant because of them.

I would have no qualms flying on a Renton or Everett built Boeing, whatever its age, as long as it has been properly maintained. I would have no qualms flying on a 737 Max as long as I was sure the pilots had been trained how to fly it. There is nothing dangerous about the Max, the problem was trying to pretend it flew the same as earlier models so that pilots wouldn't have to be re-trained, thus saving the airlines money and allowing them to roster the same crews on both NG and Max variants. I never understood the rationale behind this as if the airline threatened to buy Airbuses instead they would not only have to re-train the pilots but take on every other cost involved with introducing a new type to the fleet.

 

[najaB]

I never understood the rationale behind this as if the airline threatened to buy Airbuses instead they would not only have to re-train the pilots but take on every other cost involved with introducing a new type to the fleet.

It was partially about the airline training costs, and largely about grandfather rights. The 737 couldn't be certified as a new aircraft today due to regulations moving on, but the "It looks like a 737, flies like a 737, so it must be a 737!" argument allows the 737 Max family to fly based on the 1967 type certificate.

 

[Fat Gaz]

..... allows the 737 Max family to fly based on the 1967 type certificate.

And look where that got them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And look where that got them.

Well, quite. It really is about time Boeing came up with a new narrowbody platform, probably based on the composite body of the 787.

There's nothing unsafe about a 737 flown correctly, regardless of whether it was made last week or in the 1960s, but it is an incredibly dated aircraft, and making new ones now is not at all dissimilar to the idea of the railway still churning out Mk1 coaches brand-new.

 

[TravelDream]

I'm genuinely interested in this. Can you give me an example of where this has happened please? I come from a background where this has seldom if ever happened and I am genuinely interested to know that this has actually happened. Part of the reason why for me is what you say about being over-eager.

And that has happened in 2019 where an aircraft was evacuated whilst the engine was still turning resulting in injury. Here: Stansted 2019

The reason why I ask about the passengers being informed is because in some cases it primes some people to act before they are ordered to, inevitably causing more problems. Further, I can't get my head around why crew go around a cabin explaining how to brace? It's published on a multilingual card in graphic form to explain and it is explained in person at the safety briefing.

The link you posted shows that the senior cabin crew decided to order the evacuation, not a passenger. The AAIB is clear that the circumstances for them to do that weren't there and he/she shouldn't have ordered the evacuation.
The pilots were also in the wrong. After the door open light showed in the cabin and the crew saw passengers evacuating, their first action should have been to shutdown the right engine. Instead, they called the cabin crew on the intercom to see what was going on. It took them over two minutes to shut down the engine putting passengers lives at risk.

I don't get why some are saying that the cabin crew shouldn't brief the passengers before any emergency landing. If time and conditions allow, SOPs require that pax are briefed on the brace position and evacuation procedures (i.e. waiting for the crew to order it and leaving luggage on the aircraft).

I would have no qualms flying on a Renton or Everett built Boeing, whatever its age, as long as it has been properly maintained. I would have no qualms flying on a 737 Max as long as I was sure the pilots had been trained how to fly it. There is nothing dangerous about the Max, the problem was trying to pretend it flew the same as earlier models so that pilots wouldn't have to be re-trained, thus saving the airlines money and allowing them to roster the same crews on both NG and Max variants. I never understood the rationale behind this as if the airline threatened to buy Airbuses instead they would not only have to re-train the pilots but take on every other cost involved with introducing a new type to the fleet.

Be under no doubt, the plane's MCAS system and the training provided for Max pilots were both fundamentally flawed. I am not trying to absolve Boeing of any blame, however, I think it's no surprise which airlines had crashes with the Max and which didn't.

Some of the stories I've heard about Ethiopian would make you never want to fly again. One example that would be obvious from a passenger's perspective is to talk to any Ethiopian staff. Their English varies from poor pidgin English to moderate. Then consider that all training for all staff (pilots/ cabin crew/ engineers) is undertaken in English. If that doesn't scare you, I am no sure what would.

Indonesian aviation has an absolutely terrible reputation. I know of multiple multinationals and governments which don't allow their staff to take any Indonesian airline unless there's no choice such as for a domestic flight (and then only on Garuda). The captain actually maintained relative control when MCAS malfunctioned. Only when handing over to the FO did the aircraft crash*.
*Thought this, arguably, was the captain's fault. He should have enured that he fully briefed the FO on how he was controlling the aircraft using the totally non-standard maximum trim deflection. He didn't. There are suggestions that this was down to language difficulties as the captain was Indian.

I should add that I have flown Ethiopian several times and would again. Even a 'dangerous' airline is exceptionally safe.

 

[najaB]

I don't get why some are saying that the cabin crew shouldn't brief the passengers before any emergency landing.

I don't think anyone has said that the passengers shouldn't be briefed, but rather that...

If time and conditions allow

...often time and conditions don't allow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think anyone has said that the passengers shouldn't be briefed

I believe @Fat Gaz is saying exactly that, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[najaB]

I believe @Fat Gaz is saying exactly that, correct me if I'm wrong.

I read as it saying that the cabin crew's time is better spent getting themselves prepared, so that should take precedence over briefing the passengers. Not that the passengers shouldn't receive any information at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I read as it saying that the cabin crew's time is better spent getting themselves prepared, so that should take precedence over briefing the passengers. Not that the passengers shouldn't receive any information at all.

If there is anything operational to do e.g. safely stowing carts that should clearly be done first. But they are not likely to have much to do that isn't involving passengers, because that's their job. They are not the airline equivalent of a guard; more a safety trained OBS.

 

[najaB]

If there is anything operational to do e.g. safely stowing carts that should clearly be done first. But they are not likely to have much to do that isn't involving passengers, because that's their job. They are not the airline equivalent of a guard; more a safety trained OBS.

I think the confusion might be due to different understanding of what "briefing" actually means - does it mean a quick word with passengers as they check the cabin is secure - for example reminding people in exit rows how the door works, or does it mean a full-on PA and rehash of the safety briefing.

The former is quite likely, the latter is probably not going to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the confusion might be due to different understanding of what "briefing" actually means - does it mean a quick word with passengers as they check the cabin is secure - for example reminding people in exit rows how the door works, or does it mean a full-on PA and rehash of the safety briefing.

The former is quite likely, the latter is probably not going to happen.

Emergency landings are often not immediate - often fuel needs to be burnt off or dumped - which gives plenty of time for the latter in many cases. But as with many things "it depends".

 

[gsnedders]

Emergency landings are often not immediate - often fuel needs to be burnt off or dumped - which gives plenty of time for the latter in many cases. But as with many things "it depends".

This. It vastly depends on the timeframe. Even with an all-engines-out situation at cruise altitude, most aircraft will have around 10 to 20 minutes before they land; in cases where things go wrong on approach/departure, obviously there's unlikely to be any further briefing. And in plenty of cases where an emergency is declared, the emergency may well not justify a further briefing: landing with one engine out is unlikely to be a significant event, for example, despite the reduction (or lack) of redundancy.

In many, many cases if you're at all unsure about the performance of the aircraft the safest thing to do is remain at altitude: while being on the ground is safer, approach is very risky. From cruise, you have both altitude and speed to regain control of the aircraft should anything happen; on approach, you have neither.

 

[Fat Gaz]

So, you're heading back from Stateside across the Atlantic. The beast from the east has increased head winds along the way. You get on to the ATIS and it tells you there are reports of strong wind shear in the whole region. As you fly down country to join a stack at your preferred London airport, your captain tots up the figures and arrives at the decision that the margin has gone and that you won't have enough fuel to land safely.
Naturally the captain puts out an urgency call and declares a 'Pan' for a fuel emergency which usually prompts ATC to move the aircraft up the landing queue considerably.
Whilst starting their decent, another run on the figures leaves the pilots thinking that they might not have enough fuel to do that, so they divert to the next nearest airport. This time probably calling a distress or 'Mayday' for being fuel critical. Wind shear is an issue because a go-around is quite normal, but you don't have the fuel for that.

On the ground, the diversionary airport might declare a 'Full Emergency' for its emergency response. A Full Emergency by definition is: "an aircraft approaching the airport is, or is suspected to be, in such trouble that there is imminent danger of an accident."
Not every one wants to hear that on a flight do they? Let's be honest, if this doesn't work out, you won't be making it to the diversionary airport. A field on the approach is more likely.

Over to you! What do you tell the punters sat in the back or What do you want to hear?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Over to you! What do you tell the punters sat in the back or What do you want to hear?

A fuel emergency, i.e. there is nothing whatsoever else wrong with the aircraft? You would probably tell them that the diversion was for "operational reasons" (sensible to say something[1] even if it's meaningless) and leave it at that. I don't believe you would be asking passengers to brace in that sort of event, nor would an evacuation be likely to be needed. You've probably got a very slightly increased risk of runway excursion but otherwise it's effectively a (near-)normal landing, just in the wrong place.

I think we are considering rather different types of emergency here.

If you're talking a situation where there is not believed to be enough fuel to even reach the diversionary airport, then you would probably want to be talking of "a possibly very hard landing" without necessarily saying why, and briefing the brace position and the plan for evacuation and calling it when necessary (if the aircraft is in sufficiently one piece to do so). You certainly don't want to be keeping passengers totally in the dark until you crash in a field (because that isn't going to maximise survivability), and nor would that happen unless it was totally unexpected (such as that BA flight mentioned above where all power was lost just before the runway).

Basically, if you expect you will need the brace position and an evacuation and there is time to brief it (which there likely will be if the emergency is known in advance, because the cabin crew don't really have much of the "aviate" bit to do, and none of the "navigate" bit, so they're pretty much straight onto "communicate") then it will be briefed.

[1] I have been diverted to Glasgow from Edinburgh on sleasyJet (due to fog, if I recall), which being observant I noticed, but they didn't say anything as they didn't want to have to argue with people, which I considered to be very bad customer service, to be honest. Though I recall that it was announced in a slightly amusing way once they did admit it - "Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Glasgow, we know that wasn't where you wanted to go..."

 

[Fat Gaz]

You would probably tell them that the diversion was for "operational reasons" (sensible to say something[1] even if it's meaningless) and leave it at that.

My point exactly. You illustrate perfectly that an experienced traveller (and you are by the way!) would know something was up even if not specifically what.

After all, most people wouldn't want to be told that there isn't enough fuel to get them down safely. Almost anyone can work out what the outcome of that is. The overwhelming majority wouldn't be a positive as yourself and believe in a hard landing for sure. They'd think the worst without any doubt.

Oddly enough, one of the duties of cabin crew is passenger management. That would include all styles of management up to and including restraint. To be crude, it can be said about looking after the herd. And who wants the herd kicking off? Maybe discretion is the better part of valour. Maybe leaving out the biggest part of the truth is worth it in the long run even at the expense of customer service. The crew would never be reprimanded for any customer service "infringements" where safety was concerned.

It is this principle that leads me to wonder at whether you'd ever be briefed about safety aspects after the initial briefing had taken place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is this principle that leads me to wonder at whether you'd ever be briefed about safety aspects after the initial briefing had taken place.

I do get why you'd think that, but it just isn't true - if there is time, it will be briefed, even if it is briefed with an overly positive air to it (they are never going to say "we are going to barrel into the ground at 500mph and you're all going to die" even if that is true).

Maybe watch some Air Crash Investigation (fascinating programme)? That sort of thing tends to be explained on there.