Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Canada Jazz - No more life vests.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I think the last major instance of passengers being saved by life jackets was ALM 980 in 1970 which was a DC-9 that ditched after running out of fuel.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Quench
      That was the one I had in mind. I did not realise that everyone that exited the aircraft survived lifejacket or no.

      IIRC a number of passengers drowned because they inflated their lifejackets inside the aircraft and then could not swim down and out

      hmmm
      I was going to make this exact comment.

      By this logic, perhaps removing life jackets will save more lives! hmmm

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm curious and I have absolutely no answer for this....but have life vests on commercial planes actually even saved anybody's life before?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by screaming_emu
          I'm curious and I have absolutely no answer for this....but have life vests on commercial planes actually even saved anybody's life before?
          I believe so. There were several successful ditchings during the good old days when DC7-s and Constellations ("the best three engined prop airliner ever made ... ") were crossing the oceans. As noted above, the ALM DC-9 accident was the last intentional ditching of a large jet airliner (I would not count ethiopian as 'intentional'). However I believe in the past 20 years life-vests killed more people than they saved (emphasis: on large airlirers).

          The chances of ever needing a life-vest is very slim. With all those ETOPS aircraft around, it is amazing that you hardly ever hear of even a divert. For life-vests to be of any use, it needs to be a nice controlled landing on water (very tricky with engines under the wing), with the ability to get out and use them. Even then in cold water and far from rescue, the only thing a life-vest will do is to make it easier for the SAR team to collect the bodies... And those ditchings, where the plane nicely skips on the water, then settles and everyone gets out into the slides coupling as rafts happen only in Hollywood. Look at the last two - both resulted in the partial disintegration of the aircraft.

          It is just one of those holy cows no regulator would be willing to touch - just look at the amazing response to a perfectly rational (and legal) decision by JAZZ.
          another ADC refugee

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by screaming_emu
            I'm curious and I have absolutely no answer for this....but have life vests on commercial planes actually even saved anybody's life before?
            Joe, out of curiosity from a point brought up eariler, approximately how far could a CR7 glide from cruise after a dual engine failure?

            Comment


            • #21
              Just an afterthought to the cost savings aspect:

              From our own experience and anecdotal info from other carriers, in a year about 10-20% of the total onboard life-vest stock get "taken as souvenirs" by passengers. Seat cushions are perhaps less attractive.
              another ADC refugee

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bok269
                Joe, out of curiosity from a point brought up eariler, approximately how far could a CR7 glide from cruise after a dual engine failure?
                Rule of thumb: Altitude in feet times 3 equals distance in nautical miles.
                Form 33000ft that's 99 NM, or 183km, or 114 statue miles.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  This is a RED HERRING, we all fly aircraft that are not equipped with vests.
                  I don't know of any US operator flying domestically that have life vests on their aircraft. Aircraft flying over water are another issue. At one time Alaska considered removing the vests from all their aircraft because even though they were over water between SEA and ANC because they were close enough to the coast to meet the requirement.
                  I don't know if they did or not.
                  Last edited by Dmmoore; 2008-08-26, 22:54.
                  Don
                  Standard practice for managers around the world:
                  Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Huh. No domestic flights have vests?

                    I disagree as I think I've seen several vest demonstrations in recent years for strictly over-land flights and was wondering why they even ranked a briefing?

                    One thing not emphasized (maybe one person mentioned it) here is "in an emergency, your seat cushion can be used as a flotation device".

                    I don't know if that applies to all aircraft, but it by some miracle I survive a ditching, I am perfecly happy to use my seat cushion as opposed to donning the floatie vest with the duck head (some sarcasm at the very end).

                    So save the expense of buying them, the expense of keeping them certified, and the expense of hauling them, as implied above, the number of saves versus the number of drownings makes them super incredibly unlikely to save the day.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Dmmoore
                      I don't know of any US operator flying domestically that have life vests on their aircraft.
                      That's strange. Most I know do.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        For aircraft with engines below the fuselage, such as the Boeing and Airbus medium and long haul aircraft, could the solution be a way of having the engines detach upon impact or before impact so that the aircraft would not be torn apart by the forces? Part of why ET 961 was destroyed is because the engines dragged in the water.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I wouldn't feel safe on any aircraft that had a system to detach the engines. I know that some aircraft are designed that engines will detach in extreme vibrition that could endager the a/c but I'm a firm believer that the engines should remain firmly attached

                          I also think that life jackets on these kinds of flights are a waste of time. The light and whistle might be still a nice thing to keep though

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Gabriel
                            Rule of thumb: Altitude in feet times 3 equals distance in nautical miles.
                            Form 33000ft that's 99 NM, or 183km, or 114 statue miles.
                            I don't know, but I would think 3:1 L/D is a little conservative for any airplane. I would suspect 6 or even 8:1 is more realistic. I'll gladly accept being wrong if someone knows the real figures.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Speaking of which, many drowned because they inflated their vest prior to the ditch. How do you get out of such asituation with a seat cushion under your arm? Okay, your head won't be stuck to the ceiling* but I'm not sure at all you'll get out through whatever opening you find if you carry a seat cushion.

                              (*) water to the cabin's roof, ET 961 crash.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Vincentomoh
                                For aircraft with engines below the fuselage, such as the Boeing and Airbus medium and long haul aircraft, could the solution be a way of having the engines detach upon impact or before impact so that the aircraft would not be torn apart by the forces? Part of why ET 961 was destroyed is because the engines dragged in the water.
                                IIRC the engines on most modern aircraft are designed to detach at impact with water.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X