Air Canada Jazz is removing life vests from their planes. How far are these service declines are reductions going to go? Now they are sacrificing safety. Of course you could argue that these shorter flights that don’t usually go over water don’t need life vests, but to me AC losses more in negative public view, then their little gains in fuel savings. Lets remind ourselves that they will still have “flotation devices.” To me, this is a stupid decision.
It’s not just the weight. If you carry them, that means they have to be inspected and replaced with some regularity.
Many aircraft do not have life vests.
Maybe on regional planes and smaller mainline planes, but don’t you have to be a certain distance from shore if you don’t carry life vests? This would knock out the 767, a330, 777, etc.
Canadian Aviation Regulations
Scroll down to section 602.62, reprinted below:
602.62 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off or a landing on water in an aircraft or operate an aircraft over water beyond a point where the aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless a life preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is carried for each person on board.
(2) No person shall operate a land aeroplane, gyroplane, helicopter or airship at more than 50 nautical miles from shore unless a life preserver is carried for each person on board.
(3) No person shall operate a balloon at more than two nautical miles from shore unless a life preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is carried for each person on board.
(4) For aircraft other than balloons, every life preserver, individual flotation device and personal flotation device referred to in this section shall be stowed in a position that is easily accessible to the person for whose use it is provided, when that person is seated.
Thanks Dave, it looks like it is 50 nm. Still, I am aganist it, but I suppose I am one fish in a big pond.
I actually applaud AC on this one. Carrying absolutely dead weight on an airplane, every day all day makes no sense. If they’re not flying over water, than why would there be any reason to carry 50 or so pounds of life preservers. Airlines have in recent years reduced in flight magazines for the same reason.
SWA could be a good candidate for this too, if there was a way to logistically keep airplanes regionally segregated from the AR and Q routes they use.
Good job Air Canada, keep thinking outside the box!
I am sure Southwest will consider this but I think this could close many doors. Now I don’t see a day where they are flying over the atlantic or pacific but who knows. If they do it, it should be all or none. I don’t think complicating their fleet does any good for them.
Actually they routinely utilize the Atlantic Routes when going from PHL to PBI, etc. and also the Q routes when going from DAL to MCO, etc. Both routing are significantly shorter than going the “overland” routes, but require vests and rafts for the occupants.
How many succesful ladnding have been on water? Life vests always seemed rather redundant since I don’t think the unlucky passengers that will need them will have the chance to use them. But it’s just a feeling, though
I believe there are some testimonials from passengers on the Ethiopian Air flight 961 that went into the water that the people who popped their life vests before the plane hit the water never made it out. Those that waited to inflate until they swam free of the fuselage were primarily the ones that lived.
They are flying over water, on both Canadian coasts and usually at low level- 3000ft or so. Doubt they could successfully glide to safety. They do have seat floatation cushions though so I don’t know that a lifevest would make much difference anyway.