FAA RULING

[wnbubbleboy]

Southwest attendants can leave planes during stops, FAA says
Decision allows attendants to escort kids, people in wheelchairs
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Southwest Airlines won U.S. permission to keep letting flight attendants leave planes to perform other duties as jets load and unload, helping the carrier avoid cost increases.

Attendants can do work such as escorting children and helping travelers in wheelchairs between connecting flights, the Federal Aviation Administration said. The decision reversed an FAA manager’s April 2006 directive that all three attendants on each flight had to stay on board.

American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, US Airways and AirTran backed Southwest’s request, saying they wanted to adopt the practice. Southwest said in September its attendants continued to leave their planes while it appealed the FAA’s initial decision.

Southwest, the largest U.S. low-fare airline, wants to keep its jets’ average stay at gates between flights at 25 minutes, a key to the company’s profit. Losing the appeal would have lengthened ground times, raised costs and required higher fares, the Dallas-based carrier said.

Two attendants would be able to leave the plane while passengers exit, and one could be away during boarding, under the FAA decision posted July 6 in Washington.

 

[X-U]

Southwest attendants can leave planes during stops, FAA says
Decision allows attendants to escort kids, people in wheelchairs
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Southwest Airlines won U.S. permission to keep letting flight attendants leave planes to perform other duties as jets load and unload, helping the carrier avoid cost increases.

Attendants can do work such as escorting children and helping travelers in wheelchairs between connecting flights, the Federal Aviation Administration said. The decision reversed an FAA manager’s April 2006 directive that all three attendants on each flight had to stay on board.

American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, US Airways and AirTran backed Southwest’s request, saying they wanted to adopt the practice. Southwest said in September its attendants continued to leave their planes while it appealed the FAA’s initial decision.

Southwest, the largest U.S. low-fare airline, wants to keep its jets’ average stay at gates between flights at 25 minutes, a key to the company’s profit. Losing the appeal would have lengthened ground times, raised costs and required higher fares, the Dallas-based carrier said.

Two attendants would be able to leave the plane while passengers exit, and one could be away during boarding, under the FAA decision posted July 6 in Washington.

Bad idea. What if something necessitates an evacuation while at the gate?

 

[orangeman]

Bad idea. What if something necessitates an evacuation while at the gate?

The only required exit while at the gate is the FWD entry door. If two get off, a pilot (duties permitting), deadheader, J/S riding F/A, inflight sup et al can replace the A F/A position in the FWD part of the A/C. You still have another AFT and any thru pax at the exit row have already been briefed from the previous flight. During boarding the same is true for the FWD entry "standins", but B and C boarding positions must be F/A's. I know this is confusing but I just got home from recurrent training today and this is from the instructor and in our manual. :huh: :blink:

 

[jimntx]

The only required exit while at the gate is the FWD entry door. If two get off, a pilot (duties permitting), deadheader, J/S riding F/A, inflight sup et al can replace the A F/A position in the FWD part of the A/C. You still have another AFT and any thru pax at the exit row have already been briefed from the previous flight. During boarding the same is true for the FWD entry "standins", but B and C boarding positions must be F/A's. I know this is confusing but I just got home from recurrent training today and this is from the instructor and in our manual. :huh: :blink:

Correction, if a f/a is non-revving/commuting they may NOT "stand in stead" for a working crewmember. It must be someone who is jumpseat qualified AND "on the clock." AMR got reprimanded (or fined, I don't remember which) for using commuting f/as as part of minimum crew for boarding.

Also, the mighty FAA may not allow a briefing for a previous flight to count for the current flight. There is an FAR that even for the same flight if any passenger boards or leaves the a/c after the safety demo has been done, the demo must be repeated in full.

 

[LCC_#1]

In the 20 years, I have never had to evacuate an airplane at the gate. The FAA is a strange group. They will tell you that they will not require infants to be in a seat because the % of casulties are low, yet the same standard is overlooked with regards to at the gate evacuations. Typical!

I applaud the SWA ruling. I can not tell you how many flts are delayed because the f/a can't leave the ac. It is safe to say it would only take one f/a to get on the PA and say..leave your belonging, come this way and exit the ac.

 

[citrus jock]

At AirTran, we are currently allowed to have no F/As on the aircraft with pax on board, as long as no enplaning or deplaning takes place, and as long as one pilot is at the main cabin door. While boarding/deplaning, all required F/As must be onboard. It seems the only difference the new rule would make is that one (or more?) F/As could be off the plane while deplaning (or boarding?).

I understand the necessity for the current rule (it allows the F/As to get something to eat/get off the aircraft once in a 12 hr. shift) and the new rule (expedited deplaning and getting UMs and wheelchair types off the aircraft quicker). What I don't like with either rule is the lack of a trained crew member at an aft emergency exit, that is not armed, and therfore not ready to use. That rear exit could be the only way out for those sitting aft of the wings if something happend while refueling (the tanks in the wings). One poster asked, in essence, "What are the chances of that unusable exit being needed?" "What are the chances...?" is not a good attitude to have in this business.

 

[JS]

... One poster asked, in essence, "What are the chances of that unusable exit being needed?" "What are the chances...?" is not a good attitude to have in this business.

You would never be able to take off if you insist on a zero-risk flight.

 

[orangeman]

Correction, if a f/a is non-revving/commuting they may NOT "stand in stead" for a working crewmember. It must be someone who is jumpseat qualified AND "on the clock." AMR got reprimanded (or fined, I don't remember which) for using commuting f/as as part of minimum crew for boarding.

I wasn't aware of that. I have boarded many planes while commuting. Perhaps we were lucky, but I'm just as qualified even if I am doing it for free.

Also, the mighty FAA may not allow a briefing for a previous flight to count for the current flight. There is an FAR that even for the same flight if any passenger boards or leaves the a/c after the safety demo has been done, the demo must be repeated in full.

I was not refering to another exit row briefing prior to departure. Only to the "safety" question in the previous post, as those "thru" pax would be just as prepared as they were on the previous flight. With most of our turn times they would not have exited the plane between legs.

 

[LCC_#1]

One poster asked, in essence, "What are the chances of that unusable exit being needed?" "What are the chances...?" is not a good attitude to have in this business.

This is the way the FAA does biz. I believe the point being made was that the FAA has no problem telling you the consumer that you can place your 1 year old child on your lap at 175 mph on take off and landings just because the chances of an airline accident are low...YET they require set amt of f/a to stay on an airplane with the same (if not lower) % of incidents.

 

[mrman]

This is the way the FAA does biz. I believe the point being made was that the FAA has no problem telling you the consumer that you can place your 1 year old child on your lap at 175 mph on take off and landings just because the chances of an airline accident are low...YET they require set amt of f/a to stay on an airplane with the same (if not lower) % of incidents.

I believe the conclusion was if the infant had to have it's own seat, families would end up driving. An infant in a mothers arms on a plane is less risk to the infant than said infant in a car seat in an auto

 

[citrus jock]

You would never be able to take off if you insist on a zero-risk flight.

You sure wouldn't, and I don't (insist on a zero-risk flt.). There's no such thing. All of that has nothing to do with my point, which is that it's not a good idea to unnecessarily put youself in a situation where you can't evacuate.

This is the way the FAA does biz. I believe the point being made was that the FAA has no problem telling you the consumer that you can place your 1 year old child on your lap at 175 mph on take off and landings just because the chances of an airline accident are low...YET they require set amt of f/a to stay on an airplane with the same (if not lower) % of incidents.

I understood your point, but I don't believe that just because the FAA allows one stupid thing (lap dancing children at 175 mph) is reason to allow another.

 

[LCC_#1]

You sure wouldn't, and I don't (insist on a zero-risk flt.). There's no such thing. All of that has nothing to do with my point, which is that it's not a good idea to unnecessarily put youself in a situation where you can't evacuate.
I understood your point, but I don't believe that just because the FAA allows one stupid thing (lap dancing children at 175 mph) is reason to allow another.

I think as long as there are f/a's located at the door exits, the third should be able to leave. You may think of it as a stupid ruling. Sorry, I don't.

 

[citrus jock]

I think as long as there are f/a's located at the door exits, the third should be able to leave. You may think of it as a stupid ruling. Sorry, I don't.

That's been my point all along. There needs to be a F/A (or other trained crewmember) at the rear door exit.

 

[LCC_#1]

That's been my point all along. There needs to be a F/A (or other trained crewmember) at the rear door exit.

We agree. I just think it would speed up many things that cause delays to have at least one f/a able to leave the aircraft.

 

[Flying Photog]

That's been my point all along. There needs to be a F/A (or other trained crewmember) at the rear door exit.

Who says there's not one there? In my hundreds of Southwest flights I have never seen a situation without a FA in the rear galley or at least at the over-wing exit row. In which case he/she could reach the rear exit door in a matter of 5 seconds.

This calls another question to mind. The evac slides are not engaged while sitting at the gate with engines off, so wouldn't the 2 preferred exits be the forward, and over-wing exits?