Qantas Frequent Flyer - Seatbelts off during refueling

Mrs. Zarf4 was on a flight from LAX > SYD earlier this week where they had to divert to Noumea due to excessive fog in both SYD and the alternate landing site in BNE.

During the two-hour layover in New Caledonia for refueling and waiting for the weather to clear, the flight crew was adamant that all pax keep their seatbelts unfastened during the refueling process. I'd surmise the obvious reason would be to hasten disembarkation in the event of fire but I've been on quite a few domestic US flights where the aircraft has taken on additional Jet-A during a refuel stop (planned & unplanned) and have never heard of such an instruction.

Is this a QF requirement/policy? Something unique about Noumea? If this is based on a potential safety issue shouldn't the pax be deplaned as a matter of policy? Inquiring minds want to know.

It's to assist an evac if the fuel catches alight.

Whether it's a CASA (Australian Airline Authority) or an airline specific rule (I've heard it on multiple Australian carriers), I think the best advice is to leave the belt unfastened.

I have flown the AF A380 twice from IAD to CDG and both times we were told not to fasten seatbelts due to refueling while we were parked at the gate.

I was on a PER-SYD red eye the other night and refuelling was taking place. Were advised to keep the seat belts off until it was complete.

I thought it would be standard procedure throughout the industry to have seat belts unfastened during refueling?

Ditto a few times domestically.

Boarded while plane was being refueled and instructed NOT to fasten seat belts

Was just on QF11 SYD-LAX last night and same thing happened - crew did a good job of keeping drinks flowing whilst we waited!

There is a document here about refuelling that may be of interest

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-GND_HAND-SEQ01.pdf

Is this a QF requirement/policy? Something unique about Noumea? If this is based on a potential safety issue shouldn't the pax be deplaned as a matter of policy? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think it is common accross all airlines. I have experienced that on at least two other ones. As for the deplaning, it is not always possible for all sorts of reasons, but if and when possible, AFAIK, it is preferred option.

I've had it happen a number of times. 747, 380, 330. Aircraft type doesn't matter.
Most times it has happened has been during boarding at the gate. I've seen it enough times to notice that if the seat belt light is off at the gate, then they are likely still refueling and not to put the belt on.

I've had this a number of times. My frustration with it on one premium asian carrier is that tell you not to fasten your seat belt but leave the fasten seat belt sign on and then never tell you that you should fasten your seatbelt.

I've had this at least two times and may people fly without seatbelts on until landing.

I've seen it happen in different airlines, and also different types. Although I would imagine that the aircraft would've been fully fueled when we get on board unless you really like to make use of your priority boarding privileges. :)

The same happend to me on EasyJet the other day so I am not sure why this has come up, as it sort of makes sense, but not to tell you to refasten them seems very odd. Easyjet do come through and make sure, as does QF

Whenever I have had it happened, the cabin crew have ALWAYS come on, just prior to tbe safethy briefing, to say something along the lines of "All passengers; sets belts must now be fastened".

In fact, I seem to recall this when the aircraft WSN'T being refuelled as well.

Dave

It is common across all airlines. Even in the US during refuelling stops (even unplanned like the OP) there has always been an announcement to unfasten seat belts.

The seat belt sign should be switched off at the time, and either stairs/airbridge attached (preferable) OR doors should be selected to automatic and a crew member at each door to (a) protect against unauthorised use of the door and (b) to assist in rapid evac if required.

If the airline does not for some reason ask for seat belts to be unfastened then it would be common sense for passengers to do this of their own accord.

Why would you fasten your seatbelt while the aircraft is on the tarmac and not ready for departure?
I travel in an aisle seat, so am used to non-aisle pax in the row wanting to get in and out before departure. I fasten my seatbelt when the they announce the door has been closed for departure....

Why would you fasten your seatbelt while the aircraft is on the tarmac and not ready for departure?
I travel in an aisle seat, so am used to non-aisle pax in the row wanting to get in and out before departure. I fasten my seatbelt when the they announce the door has been closed for departure....

Usually the seat belt sign comes on way before the aircraft is ready for departure... and passengers are required to comply with all lighted signs under federal law.

I suppose it is really a way for the airline to make sure people get a move on and get seated rather than hanging around and going to the WC and so on (ie lit sign implies some sort of urgency...)

I have always been intrigued..... Why are the cabin lights dimmed on take off and landing for our Safety and Comfort and then turned back on for service?

Is it a safety issue?

I have always been intrigued..... Why are the cabin lights dimmed on take off and landing for our Safety and Comfort and then turned back on for service?

Is it a safety issue?

Lights are likely to fail in a crash and a dark cabin makes your eyes more able to instantly see things. If lights were on, your eyes would need some seconds to adjust and see in the darkness. Those few seconds may be critical in an evac.

Lights are likely to fail in a crash and a dark cabin makes your eyes more able to instantly see things. If lights were on, your eyes would need some seconds to adjust and see in the darkness. Those few seconds may be critical in an evac.

That is a view, but not the view that Qantas used to take. until a few years ago, Qantas's approach was to have the cabin lighting at maximum for take off and landing

That is a view, but not the view that Qantas used to take. until a few years ago, Qantas's approach was to have the cabin lighting at maximum for take off and landing

I can only remember as far back as a flight I did ex london in 1999... they were dimming the lights for takeoff and landing back then... at least for international.

I can only remember as far back as a flight I did ex london in 1999... they were dimming the lights for takeoff and landing back then... at least for international.

They were defininately doing cabin lights to maximum on most international flights I did much more recently

I can see the logic for that option too. If there is a need for an emergency evacuation and there is lighting, more easy to see

They were defininately doing cabin lights to maximum on most international flights I did much more recently

I can see the logic for that option too. If there is a need for an emergency evacuation and there is lighting, more easy to see

interesting.. maybe it's up to individual crews? my hkg departure in nov to mel was lights dimmed, my dfw departure to bne also lights dimmed.

the problem is that lighting may be the first thing to go until the emergency lights kick in. having brightly lit cabins is a bad idea, and does not seem to be normal practice followed my most carriers I have been on.

interesting.. maybe it's up to individual crews? my hkg departure in nov to mel was lights dimmed, my dfw departure to bne also lights dimmed.

the problem is that lighting may be the first thing to go until the emergency lights kick in. having brightly lit cabins is a bad idea, and does not seem to be normal practice followed my most carriers I have been on.

the limited recent flights I have taken with QF over the last cpl of years have all been dimmed, but I do remember them being on high in the past back when I was using QF regularly.

First time I can recall hearing this announcement was this week on QF2.

the limited recent flights I have taken with QF over the last cpl of years have all been dimmed, but I do remember them being on high in the past back when I was using QF regularly.

This is correct ( about the cain lights :) ).

Perhaps QF have gone from the old attitude of "cabin lights on so the fools flying other aircraft can see us and avoid us" to the newer attitude of "we have demonstrated that we are just as likely to have an accident as others so we should prepare for the worst".

the problem is that lighting may be the first thing to go until the emergency lights kick in. having brightly lit cabins is a bad idea, and does not seem to be normal practice followed my most carriers I have been on.

I don't know the statistics on the number of times where lighting has still be on where an emergency evacuation is required vs where lighting has failed. I will agree that having cabin lights dimmed does seem to be the common approach

I asked the crew on a QF domestic flight a few years ago why the lights were always on during take off and landing when anywhere else they are dimmed. I was told it was a requirement of Australian law and it was proven to be the safest thing to do. I said it was rather at odds with the rest of the world and they laughed and agreed that it couldn't be right and good sense said dim the lights but they were required to keep them on.

And so true, both things cannot be the safest thing to do.

I asked the crew on a QF domestic flight a few years ago why the lights were always on during take off and landing when anywhere else they are dimmed. I was told it was a requirement of Australian law and it was proven to be the safest thing to do. I said it was rather at odds with the rest of the world and they laughed and agreed that it couldn't be right and good sense said dim the lights but they were required to keep them on.

And so true, both things cannot be the safest thing to do. Two schools of thought.

One is that if the plane crashes with cabin lighting dimmed, then those inside will have their eye-sight adjusted to better see what is going on outside, so no disorientation.

(How this gels with a 1400 departure from anywere is something I can't rationalise).

The other school of thought is that if the cabin lights are dimmed, in the event of an accident, the passengers will have their vision attuned to low-light conditions, thereby making an evacuation quicker and easier.

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other, if you ask me.

there is also the argument that having cabin lighting illuminated will help emergency services in the event of an "irregular" landing, more light making their job easier.

Dave

(How this gels with a 1400 departure from anywere is something I can't rationalise)

I think it's easier to have a standard policy on dimming lights as opposed to working out which flights you do and don't dim them. Like you said, dimming them doesn't do anything for a daytime flight, but allows a simple set of procedures to be followed.

I think it's easier to have a standard policy on dimming lights as opposed to working out which flights you do and don't dim them. Like you said, dimming them doesn't do anything for a daytime flight, but allows a simple set of procedures to be followed.

but on daytime flights all widow shades should ideally be open - so that the cabin is at the same lighting level as outside (preventing the reaction of being in a dark room when someone turn on a light) + to be able to see outside conditions.

but on daytime flights all widow shades should ideally be open - so that the cabin is at the same lighting level as outside (preventing the reaction of being in a dark room when someone turn on a light) + to be able to see outside conditions.

There have definitely been differing views of whether lights should be high or low given how QF used to do the opposite; I suspect that there is no correct answer as to which should be done and which would end up being the best, would depend on the situation that occurs

There have definitely been differing views of whether lights should be high or low given how QF used to do the opposite; I suspect that there is no correct answer as to which should be done and which would end up being the best, would depend on the situation that occurs

it is too late once the situation is occurring to determine which one is best...

there will be an optimal position, that will be which ever has the higher chance of assisting passengers over a range of different scenarios, even if that is 49.99 v 50.01.

but I did see a YouTube video of a (real life) evacuation of a Spanish airliner which took place during the day. the cabin lights were off... it was pretty dark... although that may have just been the quality of the video.

I know you keep saying qf used to have lights on full... but I have never had a single flight where that has happened. i certainly would have noticed it because it is against the industry practice I am used to.

I know you keep saying qf used to have lights on full... but I have never had a single flight where that has happened. i certainly would have noticed it because it is against the industry practice I am used to.

I have been on flights that used to do it and my recollection has been confirmed by 2 other posters in this thread and I found it noticeable when they changed

There may not be an optimal that applies in all cases and all times of day though having a single policy applying on all flights seems to be a more simple process to have

Dave

I know you keep saying qf used to have lights on full... but I have never had a single flight where that has happened. i certainly would have noticed it because it is against the industry practice I am used to.

QF certainly used to operate with full cabin lights ON for landings. Unsure when this went to lights off, but possibly 10 yrs ago. It was also evident from observing passing aircraft which had a strong line of lights clearly visible from outside. IIRC there was publicity that this was for increasing aircraft visibility to other aircraft. In this case, QF aircraft were noticeably different to others which had lights off.

Whether it's a CASA (Australian Airline Authority) or an airline specific rule (I've heard it on multiple Australian carriers), I think the best advice is to leave the belt unfastened.
It is indeed required as per the Civil Aviation Orders 20.9, 4.2 "Fuelling with passengers on board":
(d) while the fuel is loaded:

(i) the aircraft’s “fasten seat belt” signs are turned off; and

(ii) the aircraft’s “no smoking” signs are turned on; and

(iii) the aircraft’s emergency lights (if any) are armed;

It is indeed required as per the Civil Aviation Orders 20.9, 4.2 "Fuelling with passengers on board":

But that just requires that the seatbelt sign is off, having the sign off does not require passengers to actually unfasten the seatbelts.

Dave

But that just requires that the seatbelt sign is off, having the sign off does not require passengers to actually unfasten the seatbelts.

DaveWhen I've boarded QF aircraft which were refueling, the sign has been off and they said a number of times on the PA to not fasten seatbelts.
The one time I've been on a flight which diverted for fuel, after parking (at a remote stand near the KUL MH hangers), they told pax to unfasten belts as fuel trucks pulled up (along with a bus and some vans of ground staff after photos of the A380).

But that just requires that the seatbelt sign is off, having the sign off does not require passengers to actually unfasten the seatbelts.

Dave
I didn't reproduce the whole CAO, but here is your reference:
(a) before the fuel is loaded, all persons who may be on board, or entering or leaving, the aircraft while the fuel is loaded are told that:

(i) fuel is to be loaded; and

(ii) their seat-belts must not be fastened while the fuel is loaded; and................