Great logic eolesen. Classic AMR groupthink. I'd figured you would have lost it since you left AA. Try running a screwup on your part by a client/customer and tell them it's their fault because they accepted it.
American Airlines limiting passengers on some jets
- Thread starter Hatu
- Start date
Great logic eolesen. Classic AMR groupthink. I'd figured you would have lost it since you left AA. Try running a screwup on your part by a client/customer and tell them it's their fault because they accepted it.
If APA had discovered the problem, you would have said it was just another fantasy created by Lloyd Hill. Give it a rest.
Meeting the absolute bare minimum FAA requirement comes first. Deniability and career protection of management comes second.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #18
<_< -------- Oh the decision to remove lavs, and add seats were approved by those higher than Engineering. But, the ramifications of doing so lies squarely on those getting paid to think of those "trivial little details", Engineering!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #19
Quite true obviously. Are the 767-300's the only fleet type that requires rafts? If not, then the other types that fly routes requiring rafts are apparently meeting the requirement without blocking seats. Thus the 767-300's would be the only fleet type affected, as the article says.
If my "the rest of the fleet" was misleading, I apologize, but meant nothing other than that the other fleet types requiring rafts apparently had the required number/capacity installed. I certainly didn't mean that every fleet type had rafts installed even if the rafts were not required.
Jim
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
Not blaming the FAA -- Engineering and Cabin Safety both blew it, and own the issue. But the whole reason of having the FAA approve any change ranging from a new placard on a bulkhead to something as intensive as an increase/decrease in seating capacity is to ensure that all the relevant regs are complied with.
That's what agency oversight is for, right?...
It's a fact now that everyone who came into contact with the proposed mod missed checking on raft capacity.
Taking it a step further down the accountability chain... Isn't raft capacity printed in the FA manual? If so, the "safety professionals" who carry that manual also failed to do the math and notice the discrepancy...
Royal Ambassador
Advanced
- Nov 24, 2003
- 142
- 20
All B772 and A300 and some B752 and B738 aircraft also have rafts. Only the B763 fleet has insufficient raft capacity and is subject to the temporary seating limitation. The restriction applies only international and Hawaiian routes. The article wrongly states that seats will be blocked on all AA B763 flights.
First let me say that it's difficult to know a persons intentions from writings. I hope you weren't trying to belittle Flight Attendants by using quotes around the words safety professionals. If you were that's for another discussion.
Second, Flight Attendants can not and should not be in any accountability chain in this circumstance. They are not trained on nor are they responsible for the requirements of FAR 121.339. While they have knowledge of the total raft capacity on any given aircraft, they are not responsible for the calculations of the permitted occupants when the failure of the largest raft is taken into account.
Having said that, despite that lack of accountability, it is a fact that many Flight Attendants expressed concern about the removal of the onboard rafts from the B767-300s during the Cabin Improvement Program. This concern was brushed aside by management in what has become a cycle of continuing failures. There have been failures to listen to employee concerns and suggestions. There have been failures to properly coordinate with the FAA. And there has been a failure in the actual upward accountability chain.
Let's place the responsibility and accountability squarely at the feet of those who failed to do their jobs properly. Don't deflect that with straw man arguments about moving "down the accountability chain".
I could be wrong, but I don't think AA took off rafts. That would be impossible since they are slide/rafts. There are not and has never been any "extra" rafts other than the side/rafts in the door bustles. So, I am not sure what you are refering to. If you are refering to the removal of lavs and added seats, that is totally different. EOleson, it is not the F/A's job to make sure AA has enough raft capacity, but nice try.
Maybe so, but if AA hadn't come clean and dealt with this, I have little doubt the FAA would eventually have made this into a huge political issue and fined the company. Being upfront and dealing with it is a good move to preempt the FAA.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
My point isn't to belittle anyone or shift the blame on this. The fact it took about five years and someone else's aircraft going for a swim to realize that A + B != C where raft capacity was concerned
The buck obviously stops with the guys whose signatures are on the ECO.
That said, safety isn't any one person's responsibility -- it's shared by everyone who touches the aircraft, and that responsibility never stops.
That includes those who wrote the ECO, those who reviewed and approved the drawings (including the FAA), those who updated the manuals, and yes, those who are supposed to read and apply what's written in the manuals.
WCS and IORFA... if you see something that has an impact on you being able to do your job correctly, but you don't report it, who will??? It might not be in your job description, but if you see something and don't question it, that's just as bad as the guys who f*d things up to begin with.
About eight to ten years ago, AA put out a revision to the briefing cards for one of the fleets (I forget which one...). Four days after they were provisioned on the aircraft, a FA noticed that they didn't show the exit path lighting correctly. We had to destroy about 50,000 briefing cards as a result... They'd been reviewed by Cabin Safety, Cabin Service, and Flight Service multiple times before being sent to the printers. Yet it took a line FA to notice that it was wrong...
Thousands of FAs who read that manual page put blind faith in what was written, and never did the math.... If something this big can be overlooked, what else might not be done correctly?
The buck obviously stops with the guys whose signatures are on the ECO.
That said, safety isn't any one person's responsibility -- it's shared by everyone who touches the aircraft, and that responsibility never stops.
That includes those who wrote the ECO, those who reviewed and approved the drawings (including the FAA), those who updated the manuals, and yes, those who are supposed to read and apply what's written in the manuals.
WCS and IORFA... if you see something that has an impact on you being able to do your job correctly, but you don't report it, who will??? It might not be in your job description, but if you see something and don't question it, that's just as bad as the guys who f*d things up to begin with.
About eight to ten years ago, AA put out a revision to the briefing cards for one of the fleets (I forget which one...). Four days after they were provisioned on the aircraft, a FA noticed that they didn't show the exit path lighting correctly. We had to destroy about 50,000 briefing cards as a result... They'd been reviewed by Cabin Safety, Cabin Service, and Flight Service multiple times before being sent to the printers. Yet it took a line FA to notice that it was wrong...
Thousands of FAs who read that manual page put blind faith in what was written, and never did the math.... If something this big can be overlooked, what else might not be done correctly?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #26
I'm not sure it's a matter of "doing the math" as it is a question of what the F/A's are taught or supposed to be knowledgeable of.
Are they required to know the rated capacity of each individual raft or slide/raft?
Are they required to know the buoyancy and seating capacity beyond the rated capacity of each individual raft or slide/raft?
Jim
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
I don't have a FA manual anymore, Jim...
I'd think that it's sort of important to know the capacity of each one... I'm sure it's stenciled on the raft (which does nobody any good until deployed), but you'd think the manual would detail how many souls per raft since the FA's are presumably the ones in charge of loading them, and how many to push thru each door would need to be covered in a pre-ditching briefing.
I'd think that it's sort of important to know the capacity of each one... I'm sure it's stenciled on the raft (which does nobody any good until deployed), but you'd think the manual would detail how many souls per raft since the FA's are presumably the ones in charge of loading them, and how many to push thru each door would need to be covered in a pre-ditching briefing.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #28
The thing is you've got two capacities to consider complying with the FAR's...
1 - Enough life rafts (or slide/rafts) of a rated capacity and buoyancy to accommodate the occupants of the airplane. I assume that this is on the raft, as you say, and may even be in the F/A manual.
2 - The buoyancy and seating capacity beyond the rated capacity of the rafts (or slide/rafts) must accommodate all occupants of the airplane in the event of a loss of one raft of the largest rated capacity. I would think that this is the part that fell through the crack - how hard is it to add up the rated capacity of all the rafts (or slide/rafts) and see if it's more than the capacity of the airplane (and thus meets #1)?
But whether the buoyancy and seating capacity beyond rated capacity is taught or available to the F/A's is the bigger question I would think, since it considers both seating capacity and buoyancy - even if X more people than rated capacity can be seated in the raft, is the raft buoyant enough to support rated capacity plus X people?
Jim
1 - Enough life rafts (or slide/rafts) of a rated capacity and buoyancy to accommodate the occupants of the airplane. I assume that this is on the raft, as you say, and may even be in the F/A manual.
2 - The buoyancy and seating capacity beyond the rated capacity of the rafts (or slide/rafts) must accommodate all occupants of the airplane in the event of a loss of one raft of the largest rated capacity. I would think that this is the part that fell through the crack - how hard is it to add up the rated capacity of all the rafts (or slide/rafts) and see if it's more than the capacity of the airplane (and thus meets #1)?
But whether the buoyancy and seating capacity beyond rated capacity is taught or available to the F/A's is the bigger question I would think, since it considers both seating capacity and buoyancy - even if X more people than rated capacity can be seated in the raft, is the raft buoyant enough to support rated capacity plus X people?
Jim
One question is: How much will the additional rafts weigh and how much additional fuel will be required per flight? The additional fuel will make these flights more costly to operate. Perhaps AA should go back to the drawing board and reconsider the lie flat seats up front. That will mean fewer passengers on board and no need for the additional rafts. Plus their product will be on par with all their competitors.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #30
It should be a pretty straight-forward calculation on the cost side. From the article it appears that additional capacity above rated capacity for no more than 8 people would meet the regulation.
It's the revenue side that's harder to get a handle on. Would enough of the 8 seats made usable by added raft capacity be sold often enough to offset the cost of carrying the extra raft weight?
Jim
