EuropeanPete

The thing about taxiing vs. takeoff is that there’s less than a millisecond separating them, which is not long enough to secure the cabin.

PLeblond

Not to get too deep into semantics, but on the airlines I mostly fly, there is a distinct call from the pointy end saying something to the effect of "flight attendants prepare for departure." The FAs take slightly more than a millisecond to get to their seats. I understand the point Pete24601 was trying to make is that walking around during taxi is not dangerous, and I agree with that point. The issue is that FAs need to confirm to the pilots that the cabin is secure before take off and logistically speaking, that is better done at the gate than holding short at the end of the runway.

Also, I have once used the lav on taxi. Personal emergency situation. Was in Y in a 767 with a centre galley/lavs configuration. There was an FA sitting in her seat directly in front and facing me. I was in the aisle (seat B) and the lav was to my right/her left. She saw the expression on my face and actually held the door open for me. We were on the long taxi out of YUL to 24L so I had time to remedy the issue before taking off.

Shuttle_Endeavour

I think the U.K. civil aviation authority regulates in a similar manner to the military aviation authority in the use of the words shall or should.

A regulation contains the word shall. This is obligatory, but the regulation is setting out what is to be achieved (such as a safe system to facilitate aircraft evacuation).

You then have the acceptable means of compliance, which normally contains should, and this sets out the ways to achieve the regulation. It is written as a should, because it is recognised there may be an alternative means to meet the regulatory intent. Hence the shoulds are not obligatory, but normally are the simplest way to meet the regulation.

I can’t find the relevant CAA publication that details this, I will let some other regulation expert post the links!

edited to remove my own inadvertent use of shall and should!

fransknorge

CWS should re-re-..-tell the story of the flight attendant who had a broken leg, with a very audible cracking sound, while the pilot had to apply emergency braking during a slow taxi. You might revisit your view that this is not dangerous.

PLeblond

1 incident how many hundreds of thousands of flights?

As an example, injuries to crew from carry-on suitcases are orders of magnitude more common and an important cause of work place injury to flight attendants yet I seem to be the only person who wants to ban carry-on on commercial flights...

As I said, I agree that people should be seated and strapped in at pushback for logistical reasons, but the actual dangers of walking around the cabin on taxi are very, very low.

fransknorge

BA cabin crew do not handle carry-on, they will not put it up for you or help you put it up. Specifically because of the risk of injury. So your example is not adequate, there are action taken to curb those types of injury by ordering cabin crew to not handle them.

Schind

You're correct regarding shall v should. This CAA rule, and probably virtually all the others they have, is a direct copy of the EASA regulation from back in the day (and maybe the EASA regulation was originally copied from the CAA at some point).
From the EU English style guide -

"Positive imperative. To impose an obligation or a requirement, EU legislation uses shall [eg.] The T2 declaration form shall be used for all such consignments. The following products shall be clearly labelled, indicating …
Here, shall means the same as must. In contrast with EU usage, most English speaking countries now generally use must instead of shall. So you may do the same when translating non-EU legislation as long as you do so consistently."

Sigwx

I’ve carried heavier shopping in plastic bags for life vs the weight of the door plugs. IIRC Airbus have the weight printed on them, albeit it’s been a while since I’ve been sat on an exit row so I might be mixing that up with the 737. 13kgs rings a bell from memory.

Yes it would be useful if it was automated allocation if left empty but there is also a requirement for being able bodied and willing to help, so there may well be shuffling of pax again in that scenario too. If the mass & balance calcs need those rows empty on lightly loaded flights, they stay empty. If everyone says no they are not willing to help they also stay empty. Flames licking their ankles after a catastrophic failure and abrupt halt may well bring about a change in their willingness to help, also why you’ll never see me in shorts and flip flops on an aircraft.

Don’t forget, the fuselage is only 3mm thick, then all that remains is some Perspex, a bit of glass, some thermal blanketing and a light plastic fascia, oh and a light weigh handle and latch/vent mechanism between you and a significant draft.

PLeblond

"Carry-on items falling from overhead storage bins struck about a third of responding flight attendants at least once during a one-year period. This was among the findings of a membership survey by the Association of Flight Attendants–Communications Workers of America (AFA-CWA). "

Source: https://flightsafety.org/asw-article...a%20(AFA%2DCWA).

UK equipment is more or less the same so unless Carry-on falls differently in the UK, I would suggest it is valid.

Sigwx

It falls differently in terms of applicable regulations and extant laws. We don’t care about US laws in the UK apart from those pertinent to operating services in and out of the USA, and there are only a few such as ramp delays and air carrier access etc that make a significant difference whilst on US soil. The reminder on a G-reg aircraft is up to the UK. Different sovereign states, different regs and laws. The irony is that on manual handling training legislation, the UK is far more stringent that in the US on an equivalent to federal level, I know individual states can be as or more stringent, so it would figure it should be the other way around, but if you can’t lift it and stow it in the UK, it shouldn’t be onboard in the first place. The GCC carriers are more like the US, if it weights half an elephant and you wear a grey/ sand and red/ maroon and charcoal uniform, best pick up and stow the bag habibti unless someone complains about you.

PLeblond

I'm not sure where laws or elephants come into place here. Also, we are getting far off topic, so I don't want to perpetuate the tangent too much.

The survey speaks to luggage falling, not what laws it falls under. Last time I was in the UK, gravity there was pretty much the same as the gravity when I was in the US. Canadian gravity seems the same too, if not a little more polite.

My point simply was that carry-on is multiple times more a danger to FAs than moving about while taxing.

Having been struck by falling carry-on luggage multiple times on flights in my life, I can attest to the risk described in the survey.

Greenpen

What I don’t understand is why someone does not want the added luxury of extra leg space in an exit row. When I fly ET I fight from the moment of booking to secure an exit row but I have seen other passengers refuse the attempts of crew to get them to move to those seats.

On another issue mentioned in this thread, I have never understood why cabin crew can move around the aeroplane while passengers are forbidden so to do. In some circumstances they may have the responsibility for ensuring safety but they are up and around preparing food and drinks and getting themselves to where they need to be immediately after the bongs that release them shortly after takeoff.

Ldnn1

For someone who's not tall so doesn't have an issue with legroom in normal rows, there's very little benefit of the exit row. In most configurations it's still not quite spacious enough to get out from the window seat without disturbing the aisle pax, and it comes with disadvantages of fixed armrests, smaller windows, and inability to have laptop or indeed anything stowed in/under your seat. It's also often colder there.

I will sometimes take it on longer flights, but it's far from a no-brainer for me.