[JohnHarper]

Is Manchester still a ‘mixed fleet’ route?

[JeffD]

@JohnHarper

Yes Manchester is a mixed fleet flight

[MartynSinclair]

@Stowage222

This question is a bit like the “why are there still ashtrays in the toilet question”.

But………. can someone explain why any aircraft has a safety briefing for another aircraft type. …. I feel sure there is a perfectly logical explanation….

[Stowage222]

Martyn
My guess is that’s it’s an integrated software package which is easier (cheaper) to just load on all a/c i.e. 747/777/767.

However, I’m not sure if this is the case for the new BA Dreamliner/A380 combo.

[FDOS_UK]

MartynSinclair – 10/03/2016 22:11 GMT

Think of the IFE system as a computer network, where it saves effort (and thus money) to have a single safety briefing pack that is the same for different types and where the operator just has to select the type.

Of course, this sort of setup is a perfect human factors trap 😉

[MartynSinclair]

I hear you FDOS.. I hear you….

But can you imagine the furore amongst pilots if the same argument was used relating to flight deck software….

Question 1 as pilot enters the flight deck… pick your aircraft type….

[FDOS_UK]

The IFE probably has more computational power than the flight deck software 😉

This is what you need to worry about….

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/166/348280630_a6bd1a4fa7_z.jpg?zz=1

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-commandeered-plane/

[Charles-P]

Software in aircraft is divided into two types:

DO-178B rated software which is used in safety critical applications like the primary control of the airframe. All software of this type has to go through something called the Design Assurance Level which evaluates is competency to do the job it is intended for. There is also something called ARP4754 or Aerospace Recommended Practice which covers further testing and RTCA DO-254, Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware.

The IFE system is not tested to the same level and in short as long is it doesn’t catch fire or interfere with primary flight controls it’s fine.

Some recent scare stories that would have us believe a geek with a laptop can influence the aircraft flight systems via the IFE are utter rubbish. Chris Roberts at One World Labs is a fantasist.

[FDOS_UK]

Charles-P – 11/03/2016 11:04 GMT

You’ll find my tin of irony next to the coppery on the top shelf of my shed tool shelf.

[rferguson]

Fact is, mistakes sometimes happen. Sometimes the wrong video gets loaded and less so played.

The crew should have been fully aware of this situation one would think and made an announcement to allude to this and either do a manual safety demonstration (if the error was realised at an early stage) or made an announcement after the video if the error was realised later.

Fortunately the doors on a 320 are identical to those on a 321 (as are oxygen systems etc etc) so all the crew likely would have had to do was make an announcement after the video demonstration to say that they realise the video was in fact for a 320 aircraft, that the passengers are travelling on a 321 today and the location of the exits are different and are located here (pointed out by the cabin crew). It is poor of the CSM not to do this.

In regards to the CAA – good luck! Did you know that the UK CAA is one of the few aviation bodies in the world primarily funded BY the airlines? And you can guess whom is the major contributor!

@ martynsinclair why are there lav ash trays? Unfortunately a few rotters do insist on still lighting up on board. We need somewhere to be able to safety extinguish the cigarette (or hope the person will chose to themself instead of throwing it in the paper filled waste bin).

[FDOS_UK]

rferguson – 11/03/2016 11:33 GMT

I agree with you, this is a typical human error (i.e. we all do stuff like this) and a single point of failure – maybe the crew member was working on a 321 for a few flights and ‘muscle memory’ took over at a period of high workload.

I’ve seen it happen in the past and the crew stopped and re-ran the video.

Edited.

My wife’s car and mine have the signals/wipers in reversed positions on the stalks – it’s a nightmare and takes me half the journey to remember – muscle memory wins every time

[JeffD]

@ rferguson

Thanks for the response but can I politely point out that the operation of the emergency exits is entirely different. This is my point. The over wing exits on a 320 require you to physically remove the hatch and throw it away from the aircraft. Doors 2/3 on the A321 are operated as standard doors, not emergency hatches as on the 318/9/20. so the safety briefing was entirely wrong. My real issue however is the CSM lied to me, not that under pressure she showed the wrong briefing, after all we all make mistakes.

[rferguson]

Totally right Jefferydavison!

An an A320 there are four main doors and four overwing exists. On a 321 eight main doors (two of which are smaller and used in an emergency only). All operate in the same manner except for the overwing exits on the 320.

An announcement should have been made pointing this out.

It is worth noting though – in a manual safety demonstration there is no instruction on how to open any of the doors. Passengers are directed to the safety card for this information. The crew on your MAN flight would have been better off abandoning the video and doing a manual safety instruction. Or, like I said if the video had already fully played before the mistake was noted make an announcement, point out the actual exits and refer passengers to the safety card (let’s hope that was for the right aircraft!) for information on how the overwing exit doors are opened to avoid confusion.

As a Standard Operating Procedure those sat at the overwing exits should have also had the mandatory briefing on the opening of the doors.

You have every right to complain to BA as the CSM’s response was completely inadequate. It’s always always drilled into us that safety should come first. Regardless of creating potential delays etc.

[Author]

Posts