Window blinds up, table trays up etc

Idbatterim

Hi, just wondering why they always want blinds, table trays and seats in the upright position for take off and landing, the window shades in particular?

eatmyshorts

Tray tables up so they are not blocking your exit from the seat row during an evacuation.
Blinds open so that the outside area is visible for an assessment prior to an evacuation.

The inability of some people to follow simple instructions these days is staggering.

Growler!!!

Basically for your safety and the safety of those around you.

Seat backs up, cos with it back the person behind you can't take up the brace position.

TheChizler

Also lights off/dimmed is to improve your night vision in case of power failure in an incident. And blinds up also helps vision inside the cabin in case of the above.

Chris_5339762

Lights off and window blinds open is also so your vision is adjusted to the light levels outside... in the event of an evacuation you don't want to be pausing at the top of the slide for your vision to adjust.

Locker10a

Yes as has been mentioned above all these things are part of our cabin secure procedure there are many more items, my airline has a 15 point cabin secure list ! Only some of the items on that list are noticed by passengers but the armrests, tray tables, seat backs, window blinds etc. is all part of preparing the cabin for the critical phases of flight where emergencies are most likely to occur and the reasons have been explained above, i.e. eyes adjusted to natural light, assessment of outside conditions, ability to adapt the correct brace position , cabin in a safe state of affairs should an evacuation become necessary.

No Pants

eatmyshorts wrote: »

The inability of some people to follow simple instructions these days is staggering.

I totally agree, but they could help themselves somewhat by giving a short explanation of why these things are done like you and others have done on this thread. Some people seem to default to the "why am I being inconvenienced" approach, but can be perfectly reasonable once they understand.

I can't remember which airline it was, but one airline that I've flown with had a couple of small paragraphs on the subject at the back of their magazine.

Preset No.3

No Pants wrote: »

ISome people seem to default to the "why am I being inconvenienced" approach,

The same people who get arrested on landing for not following crew instructions.

Cessna_Pilot

Preset No.3 wrote: »

The same people who get arrested on landing for not following crew instructions.

Because they think they know better! Good enough for them!

keith16

No Pants wrote: »

Some people seem to default to the "why am I being inconvenienced" approach, but can be perfectly reasonable once they understand.

I know what you are saying but I hate that attitude in people. Default mode is set to "I'm an arsehole who can do as I please, unless someone tells me otherwise. Even then, they may have to tell me a few times. And I might not be happy about it."

Every flight, you see it. During boarding, morons wandering up and down the aisle like lemmings, unable to identify a two digit number.

The worst experience of flying is not the queuing etc., it's the idiots who can barely spell their own name, causing those queues, who practically have to be hand-held through the entire process but then get all "inconvenienced" when that hand-holding extends to instructing them on their own safety, which if they were capable of thinking about it logically themselves for two seconds, might make the travelling experience a little more palatable for all concerned.

/rant

Locker10a

No Pants wrote: »

I totally agree, but they could help themselves somewhat by giving a short explanation of why these things are done like you and others have done on this thread. Some people seem to default to the "why am I being inconvenienced" approach, but can be perfectly reasonable once they understand.

I can't remember which airline it was, but one airline that I've flown with had a couple of small paragraphs on the subject at the back of their magazine.

I agree even certain items in the safety demo! If there was more of an explanation behind somethings then more passengers would pay attention to it!
People treat planes like buses and the majority have zero comprehension of what goes into airline safety and the training the pilots and crew constantly go through! But airlines dont want to unnerve customers by telling them oh you have to put your seat upright and armrest down to prevent flail injury's and to allow the seat to collapse forward on an impact of X amount of G's when we crash! So we have procedures that we force passengers to comply with despite there being no explanation! Personally i have never had anyone question me when im securing the cabin as to why they have to do this all have happily complied .......so far! Bags in exit rows..... thats another kettle of fish! But once I explain the reason most* people are happy to then comply!

2 stroke

No Pants wrote: »

Some people seem to default to the "why am I being inconvenienced" approach,

While reading this, I was reminded of some dealings that I've had with some airline staff in my job. From stewardesses, to pilots and especially management, I tend to get the same attitude regarding health & safety, and waiting their turn.

Cessna_Pilot

2 stroke wrote: »

While reading this, I was reminded of some dealings that I've had with some airline staff in my job. From stewardesses, to pilots and especially management, I tend to get the same attitude regarding health & safety, and waiting their turn.

Waiting their turn for what?

gctest50

Idbatterim wrote: »

Hi, just wondering why they always want blinds, table trays and seats in the upright position for take off and landing, the window shades in particular?

It can go wrong very quickly and then it will burn like nothing else - any little advantage is worth having

It would be these ones :

keith16
I know what you are saying but I hate that attitude in people. Default mode is set to "I'm an arsehole who can do as I please, unless someone tells me otherwise. Even then, they may have to tell me a few times. And I might not be happy about it."

Every flight, you see it. During boarding, morons wandering up and down the aisle like lemmings, unable to identify a two digit number.

that would hang about trying to get their hand luggage cos duty free and then whinge that their face is burnt off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2itvcxfhbI

Tenger

eatmyshorts wrote: »

The inability of some people to follow simple instructions these days is staggering.

While the above sentiment is expressed quite bluntly, it does point to less and less of an inclination to defer to authority in the modern world.

People do question authority these days, perhaps we are all a bit too cynical?

SpaceTime

I think part of the problem is possibly the way that the security screening is has become a bit crazy and people are genuinely being put through hoops, some of which are not all that logical in many respects. Being searched for deadly nail clippers and having their lip balm confiscated etc etc.

On board safety procedures then get seen as an extension of the airport screening etc by some passengers.

Jack1985

The part that always pissed me of was ''we now invite passengers seated in rows one to ten and families to board first'' *All passengers proceed to Gate*

Also on the news only the other day a passenger on a Lufthansa flight didn't fasten her seatbelt when the sign came on at the request of the captain, the cabin crew asked her to fasten her seatbelt and she crossed the belts to give the impression she had, shortly after they hit an air pocket and she lifted from her seat contacting the overhead bins and sustaining serious injury - Annoys me that people think crews are there as an annoyance when their primary concern is most definitely the safety of those onboard.

robindch

Idbatterim wrote: »

Hi, just wondering why they always want blinds, table trays and seats in the upright position for take off and landing, the window shades in particular?

FYI, airlines usually organize to get deliver hold luggage at the furthest carousel in order to get people to walk a few extra yards - problem is people tend to get muscle cramp sitting down for hours at a time and the extra distance can help loosen the muscles so people don't pull their muscles when they go yanking their bags off the carousel.

Remember that next time you're collecting your bags and notice that the carousel that's been allocated is as far away as possible.

2 stroke

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think part of the problem is possibly the way that the security screening is has become a bit crazy and people are genuinely being put through hoops, some of which are not all that logical in many respects. Being searched for deadly nail clippers and having their lip balm confiscated etc etc.

I often wonder if every passenger was encouraged to carry a weapon, would it reduce hijackings. They'd need to be quite brave if everyone could fight back.

SpaceTime

2 stroke wrote: »

I often wonder if every passenger was encouraged to carry a weapon, would it reduce hijackings. They'd need to be quite brave if everyone could fight back.

That's the thing too. I don't think anyone could realistically hijack a plane anymore and it's nothing to do with security measures, it's down to the fact that the 9/11 terrorists used one as a piloted missile.

If someone were to take over a plane now, I'd say the passengers and crew would basically have to take them out at all costs as there'd be no point in negotiating with them.

But genuinely, I do think they need to rationalise the security procedures again. People are being treated way too much like they're going into a prison camp instead of a flight.

debabyjesus

No Pants wrote: »

I can't remember which airline it was, but one airline that I've flown with had a couple of small paragraphs on the subject at the back of their magazine.

Cityjets magazine has it in the back.

Five Lamps

No Pants wrote: »

I totally agree, but they could help themselves somewhat by giving a short explanation of why these things are done like you and others have done on this thread. Some people seem to default to the "why am I being inconvenienced" approach, but can be perfectly reasonable once they understand.

I can't remember which airline it was, but one airline that I've flown with had a couple of small paragraphs on the subject at the back of their magazine.

Why do you need an explanation for two simple instructions? Just do it.

Cessna_Pilot

Five Lamps wrote: »

Why do you need an explanation for two simple instructions? Just do it.

Exactly!

markpb

Five Lamps wrote: »

Why do you need an explanation for two simple instructions? Just do it.

Because people aren't robots and some like to think for themselves?

Growler!!!

markpb wrote: »

Because people aren't robots and some like to think for themselves?

How long past departure time do you want to wait while the crew answer questions?

Do you ask a taxi driver why you wear a seatbelt?

Ever ask a Luas driver why you have to stay clear of the doors when they close?

slimjimmc

Growler!!! wrote: »

How long past departure time do you want to wait while the crew answer questions?

Do you ask a taxi driver why you wear a seatbelt?

Ever ask a Luas driver why you have to stay clear of the doors when they close?

I think most people would already be aware of the reasons for seat belts whether in a vehicle or aircraft, same for table trays and staying clear of remotely operated doors. However I don't think the reasons for putting up window shades are quite so intuitive and unless explained many people just don't understand. And it doesn't need to be an Q&A session, stick it on the evacuation card or in the magazine. Of course you must comply with crew instructions but it may be easier to get full compliance if people understand the importance of the action.

markpb

Growler!!! wrote: »

How long past departure time do you want to wait while the crew answer questions?

Do you ask a taxi driver why you wear a seatbelt?

Ever ask a Luas driver why you have to stay clear of the doors when they close?

That's a great example of reductio ad absurdum right there. Everyone knows why those things are needs because it's been explained to them. If the airline industry has problems getting people to do something, fails to explain why and rolls their eyes at peoples stupidity or refusal to blindly obey orders, there's no one to blame but themselves. Ignoring human nature is stupid.

vevo

SpaceTime wrote: »

But genuinely, I do think they need to rationalise the security procedures again. People are being treated way too much like they're going into a prison camp instead of a flight.

I had a scary thought the last time I went through security, there was at least 200 of us queuing in a small enough area before the x ray machines, where if someone came in with a bomb they would have done a lot of damage

arubex

I think people have become cynical of the 'safety is our priority' or 'health and safety says so' explanation for everything today, to they extent that they question things that are genuinely safety related like the tray tables and window blinds.

~~

If airlines were concerned with safety above all else we'd be flying in rearward-facing seats with five-point harnesses, each passenger issued with a smoke hood. Cabins would be fitted with fire-suppressing misting systems.

Cabin crew would wear military aircrew-style fireproof Nomex one-piece coveralls instead of high-heels, restrictively tight skirts and fire-friendly nylon blouses.

All aircraft servicing would be performed ETOPS-style with separate crews for each independent system.

~~

So given that airlines don't so any of that, I *can* understand why people ask questions about things like tray tables...

ProfessorPlum

arubex wrote: »

I think people have become cynical of the 'safety is our priority' or 'health and safety says so' explanation for everything today, to they extent that they question things that are genuinely safety related like the tray tables and window blinds.

~~

If airlines were concerned with safety above all else we'd be flying in rearward-facing seats with five-point harnesses, each passenger issued with a smoke hood. Cabins would be fitted with fire-suppressing misting systems.

Cabin crew would wear military aircrew-style fireproof Nomex one-piece coveralls instead of high-heels, restrictively tight skirts and fire-friendly nylon blouses.

All aircraft servicing would be performed ETOPS-style with separate crews for each independent system.

~~

So given that airlines don't so any of that, I *can* understand why people ask questions about things like tray tables...

Well, no, I don't think we'd be flying anywhere because the cost would be prohibitive. It's all about risk v benefit v cost.
As for current instructions, apart from maybe window blinds, I think the rest is fairly obvious. Given that the vast majority of fliers aren't first timers, ther really should be no surprises.

mr.anonymous

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well, no, I don't think we'd be flying anywhere because the cost would be prohibitive. It's all about risk v benefit v cost.
As for current instructions, apart from maybe window blinds, I think the rest is fairly obvious. Given that the vast majority of fliers aren't first timers, ther really should be no surprises.

Very true. That's what a Safety Management System is for.

Airlines are heavily regulated. The aircraft are well maintained. The pilots very well trained. It's a safe industry, not perfect but very good.

eatmyshorts

markpb wrote: »

Ignoring human nature is stupid.

I'll fix that for you...."Human nature is stupid."

:eek:

keith16

markpb wrote: »

Because people aren't robots and some like to think for themselves?

Er, bit of contradiction, no? Thinking for themselves for two minutes would answer a lot of these questions.

markpb

keith16 wrote: »

Er, bit of contradiction, no? Thinking for themselves for two minutes would answer a lot of these questions.

Apparently not because people keep asking the same questions over and over again (here and elsewhere).

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that its okay for people to ignore cabin crew orders, just that people will more readily cooperate if they understand why. If you treat people like robots or soldiers, you'll meet resistance because they're neither of those.

Noo

This thread brings back the memory of a flight I took from london to singapore a couple years ago. A guy was sitting in the emergency row in front of me and wouldn't part with his carry on. Cabin crew asked him to put his bag in the overhead...he refused, went on a big rant saying he's flown so many times before never asked before etc etc. All the cabin crew kept saying was it was procedure, that he could take it back down after take off. As annoyed as I was even getting with they guy, the stewardess never once explained why apart from saying it procedure. I almost butt in to explain to him how it'll be a safety hazard if people have to evacuate through the exit. But before I could he took up her offer to switch seats so he could put his bag under the seat in front of him for take off! He gave up an emergency aisle seat on an a380 on an 11 and half hour flight for that damn bag!

Tenger

Noo wrote: »

This thread brings back the memory of a flight I took from london to singapore a couple years ago. A guy was sitting in the emergency row in front of me and wouldn't part with his carry on......... He gave up an emergency aisle seat on an a380 on an 11 and half hour flight for that damn bag!

Ah, Human nature, you can't beat it.



You do make a good point about the crew not explaining the background to the pax. Perhaps SIA training is to direct the pax to comply with procedure without explaining. A less strictly regimented airline may be more flexible with explaining 'procedures'.

Lapin

Even the arcaic British Rail learned many years ago that explaining little things to passengers helped to ease the number of complaints made against them.

A simple thing like telling people why a train was late put passengers at their ease to a certain degree and removed the frustration associated with being kept in the dark.

Absolutely no reason why airlines cannot adopt a similar approach to passengers who in all likelyhood are simply being curious.

Bluntly telling people to 'just do it' or dismiss it as 'procedure' doesn't help.

A bit of good manners costs nothing either.

Fagashlil

Tenger wrote: »

You do make a good point about the crew not explaining the background to the pax. Perhaps SIA training is to direct the pax to comply with procedure without explaining. A less strictly regimented airline may be more flexible with explaining 'procedures'.

Even when we do explain why, people still question it. I've lost count of the amount of times a Pax has told me something is bullsh!t just cos it doesn't make sense to them!

No Pants

debabyjesus wrote: »

Cityjets magazine has it in the back.

That was probably it all right, I had to fly with them once earlier in the year out of London City.

Locker10a

Lapin wrote: »

Even the arcaic British Rail learned many years ago that explaining little things to passengers helped to ease the number of complaints made against them.

A simple thing like telling people why a train was late put passengers at their ease to a certain degree and removed the frustration associated with being kept in the dark.

Absolutely no reason why airlines cannot adopt a similar approach to passengers who in all likelyhood are simply being curious.

Bluntly telling people to 'just do it' or dismiss it as 'procedure' doesn't help.

A bit of good manners costs nothing either.

I don't think its rude not explaining things its not fair to say someone doesn't have good manners because they are doing what they are told we were TOLD to be assertive when enforcing regulations and procedures! Again I agree with explaining stuff but people still tend to be alot more nervous about flying than taking the train generally airlines already miss on on millions of potential income from people with a fear of flying! They don't want to put anymore people off! However I agree with your point!! The airlines don't unfortunately

keith16

markpb wrote: »

Apparently not because people keep asking the same questions over and over again (here and elsewhere).

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that its okay for people to ignore cabin crew orders, just that people will more readily cooperate if they understand why. If you treat people like robots or soldiers, you'll meet resistance because they're neither of those.

What you're saying is clearly a contradiction. People ask questions because they are clearly incapable of figuring it our for themselves.

Asking "why, why, why" is something a child does. And when my children get to that stage, I'll be encouraging them to think critically for themselves.

As another poster says above, even when things are spelled out in black and white for people, it as often rejected as "bullshit". That speaks to an incredible lack of maturity and self-awareness on their part and is just downright ignorant.

It's amazing how self-absorbed and unaware people are when everything is perceived as an attack on them personally.

In any case, who needs to hear "clip up table tops and blinds because if we crash you will need to see and find your way out of this smouldering wreck".

If that explanation was given, those same idiots would be giving out too :rolleyes:

No Pants

Five Lamps wrote: »

Why do you need an explanation for two simple instructions? Just do it.

I have obeyed whatever instructions were given. Don't mistake natural curiosity for belligerence.

LXFlyer

I think, to be fair, airlines do not want to be mentioning any more than necessary the possibility of the aircraft crashing or an evacuation taking place during the safety demo.

There are enough people scared of flying as it is without going into those sort of details.

Sometimes it's just better to let sleeping dogs lie.

No Pants

lxflyer wrote: »

I think, to be fair, airlines do not want to be mentioning any more than necessary the possibility of the aircraft crashing or an evacuation taking place during the safety demo.

There are enough people scared of flying as it is without going into those sort of details.

Sometimes it's just better to let sleeping dogs lie.

That's a good point.

Jack1985

Just spotted this on avherald; (http://avherald.com/h?article=4764adb5&opt=0)

A Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-ENB performing flight FR-4398 from Dublin (Ireland) to Reus,SP (Spain), was on approach to Reus' runway 25 when the crew requested an ambulance and medical services to meet the aircraft upon landing reporting severe turbulence along the route had caused bleeding injuries to two passengers, a number of cabin crew were injured as well. The aircraft landed safely on runway 25.

The aircraft is still on the ground in Reus, the scheduled return flight FR-4399 already has a delay of more than 3 hours.

Hope the pax and crew are well.

bk

Fagashlil wrote: »

Even when we do explain why, people still question it. I've lost count of the amount of times a Pax has told me something is bullsh!t just cos it doesn't make sense to them!

In fairness, sometimes the passengers are correct.

For instance the plane bursting into flames/crashing if I left my iPad turned on turned out to be clearly bull****.

If a certain US Senator hadn't called bull**** on the FAA and asked them to prove that electronics actually caused any danger during take off and landing, then they would still be banned and passengers would still be calling it bull****.

We all know that Airport Security is full of bull**** procedures, for instance taking a nail file off aircrew at security checks (For those who don't know, there is a large fire axe in the cockpit of every jet that the crew have access to).

The danger with having bull**** regulations and procedures like this, is that people know they are bull**** and tends to reduce the authority of aircrew and makes it less likely people will follow the procedures which really are important (e.g. always where your belt, no bags in the exit row, etc.).

No Pants

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have learned a couple of things from this thread. Thanks all.

mr.anonymous

bk wrote: »

In fairness, sometimes the passengers are correct.

The danger with having bull**** regulations and procedures like this, is that people know they are bull**** and tends to reduce the authority of aircrew and makes it less likely people will follow the procedures which really are important (e.g. always where your belt, no bags in the exit row, etc.).

The National Transportation Safety Board is about to release its Final Report in to the Asiana landing accident at San Francisco last July.

When the tail of the aircraft struck the sea wall, the rear galley was destroyed, killing 4 cabin crew.

Two other pax were killed also. The were ejected from the aircraft on impact because they weren't wearing seat belts. The NTSB stated that they would still be alive if they (followed procedure and) wore a seat belt.

One of these two pax was ran over by an Airport fire truck. I'm not sure if they had survived the impact and that killed them, or if they were already dead.

Bull**** procedures don't really exist in aviation. They could have saved 2 lives in the Asiana accident. Ignoring the regulations has claimed many lives - Cork Crash is another example.

Some changes in regulations are a direct result of someone being killed by their absence. For example, lighting in aircraft aisles to show you where the exit is if the cabin is filled with smoke. A British Airways accident at Manchester and an Air Canada accident in the US wouldn't have claimed so many lives if this lighting was installed.

A lot of procedures seem like bull****. How many times have the life jackets on aircraft ever been used? I can't really think of any cases, but the point is to have them there in case of an emergency.

Tenger

mr.anonymous wrote: »

......

A lot of procedures seem like bull****. How many times have the life jackets on aircraft ever been used? I can't really think of any cases, but the point is to have them there in case of an emergency.

I think he was referring to some seemingly nonsensical procedures. ie hot water boilers off for take-off/landing.
Obviously lifejackets, seatbelts, fire fighting equipment, exit rows etc would not be seen as nonsensical.

In fact a point was raised in the US recently by a knob, sorry passenger who queried why pax at exit rows were being served alcoholic drinks. I personally think the guy writing about it was over the top but it does raise a question about exit row seating ans suitability. Many airlines allow pax to pre-book these seats, having an minimum age limit and clause about mobility is standard.

L1011

mr.anonymous wrote: »

When the tail of the aircraft struck the sea wall, the rear galley was destroyed, killing 4 cabin crew.

I'm not sure what crash you're reading about, because this didn't happen.

One passenger died at the site from the crash, one is disputable as to whether they would have died had they not been run over and one died in hospital a week later. No crew died.

mr.anonymous

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not sure what crash you're reading about, because this didn't happen.

One passenger died at the site from the crash, one is disputable as to whether they would have died had they not been run over and one died in hospital a week later. No crew died.

Quote from AvHerald:

The NTSB reported that 6 occupants were ejected from the aircraft during the accident sequence, 2 passengers and 4 cabin crew. The cabin crew were wearing their constraints however were ejected due to the destruction of the aft galley. The two ejected passengers were not wearing their seat belts and could still be alive. One of these two passengers were rolled over by two fire trucks. The NTSB said that had these two passengers worn their seat belts, they would likely have remained within the cabin and survived the accident.