nk15

No whiplash for the test dummy without the airbag, looked dead on impact. The whole video indirectly showcases the benefit of the rear-facing seat.

1kBill

I remember being in Bangkok several years ago and reading of an emergency evacuation of a 747 (that may have been UA's) in which the only reported injuries happened to pax who had to leave the plane barefoot. Ever since then, I make a point of always having shoes on during take-off and landing.

chavala

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do have issues with power-tripping FAs making up rules which I must obey or get kicked off the plane.
Where do you draw the line? Today it's "feet on the floor" (fine advice perhaps, but NOT a rule). What's next?

rickg523

Paraphrasing General Vargas (from the movie "Bananas"):
"From this day on, the official language of [United Airlines] will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all [passengers] will be required wear their underwear on the outside! Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now... 16 years old!"

fezzington

Wow... Tons of misinformation in this thread. Also some startling power trip tales.

• No:
  • Pax don't have to be in a brace position for takeoff and landing. Only time FAs are supposed to come around enforcing this is for "planned" (read: time to prepare) emergency landings.
    • FAs do have to "brace" in one of two positions when in a jumpseat, for every takeoff/touchdown. Some will even do it in a passenger seat.
  • The exit shades do not have to be open on US flagged Airlines (In fact, this is explicitly stated in UAL FA's Policy manual)
  • You don't have to take headphones off
• Yes:
  • You must wear your shoulder strap in Polaris (I know it's uncomfortable...)
  • You must unplug from the outlets (even if power is technically cut off for some time)
  • Your headrest must be stowed, (even if some find that instruction silly).

Someone mentioned 50,000 FAs. UAL has something closer to 25,000.

HMPS

Surprising how many "right thinking" people want to rebel not knowing the EXACT regs. If the instruction "costs you nothing" why not comply because logic says broken leg(s) will retard your evac, but more important will delay my getting to safety. These attitudes proliferate.

narvik

Thanks...
But what about "crossed feet"???

nk15

Good point. I think two main issues that may also need fixing in evacuations are (a) people taking luggage, and (b) hesitating to go down the slides. Every single second of evacuation delay may equal an extra casualty, as probably the case in the recent Aeroflot fire accident.

Unfortunately the "cost you nothing" piece is subjective, it causes some minor inconvenience, and coupled with the extremely low probability of an evacuation, and the newness and perceived uncertainty of the importance of the info, will cause some people not to take it seriously.

The other issue mentioned above is, "would you have time to uncross your feet upon impact, instinctively, or would they be broken instantly". This is an empirical or expertise-related question, I guess.

Annalisa12

I'm happy to do whatever I asm told.

YadiMolina

With 25,000 people, I can understand some outliers that might interpret some rules or directives differently (assuming that's the case with crossed feet and drinks on the center armrest). But this doesn't happen in a vacuum. Don't the other crew converse about such things?

lincolnjkc

A few years ago I saw a foreign documentary (Europe? Australia? Canada? I can't remember specifically) where they cited a study that found that passengers are more likely to pay attention to, and comply with, safety instructions if the consequences of not complying are given in explicit detail -- something along the lines of instead of "fasten your seatbelt low and tight..." using "To minimize the risk of broken bones and severe internal bleeding in the event of a crash, fasten your seatbelt low and tight..." etc. -- however generally in the industry the "don't panic the passenger" mentality has prevailed and doing the safety briefing in a low key, perfunctory, manner has prevailed to downplay the (already small) risk as much as possible.

(I love shows along the lines of Maday, etc. for the chain-of-failure analysis--and have even watched Why Planes Crash on The Weather Channel in flight. My wife can't stand the genre, let alone the thought it in flight, and I suspect the vast majority of air travelers are closer to her in choosing to be as blissfully unaware as one can be)

Likewise the rather infrequent occurrence of issues leads to a complacency -- I mean in 900+ flights I've had one emergency landing (no hydraulics on a Q400), a few diversions, and 4-5 rejected takeoffs-- never, knock on wood, anything "serious" so it's easy to view it as a routine inconvenience.

LarryJ

The un-crossed feet is part of the "brace position".

JimInOhio

I reread post #1 and it struck me, as presented, the FA didn't say "no crossed feet" was a regulation. He/she may have been simply saying it for passengers' own good, not to mention others around said passenger.

chavala

ExplorerWannabe

Not never ever but I have never been asked by an FA to do something that I felt was unreasonable or out of line with his/her responsibilities. A lot of the stories or complaints I see here on FT honestly sound to me like aggrieved self-appointed "elite" who can't believe they are asked to do something they don't want to and ascribe it all to FAs on power trips. I find the senses of entitlement in these threads somewhat comical. I have never encountered this particular admonition before but it makes sense from a safety standpoint and even according to the OP was only stated to apply to take-off and landing. Seriously, people can't uncross their feet or wear shoes for 10 minutes? I can't believe people still have their shoes off during take-off or landing -- forget the potentials for emergencies on landing, everyone I see is in a rush to get off as soon as we land anyway.

If the FA stated this was a rule, s/he would have been incorrect but it's still good advice and it wasn't clear to me in the OP whether this was advice or a command.