The Pre-Flight Safety Briefing: What are the Reasons for some Passengers‟ Lack of

Attentiveness during Pre-Flight Safety Briefing?

Graduate Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master in Aviation Science

Everglades University

by

Nabil S. Diab

July, 2009

Copyright ©2009 by Nabil Diab. All rights reserved.

ii

Thesis Committee Approval

The Pre-Flight Safety Briefing: What are the Reasons for some Passengers‟ Lack of

Attentiveness during Pre-Flight Safety Briefing?

Nabil S. Diab

This Graduate Thesis

was prepared under the direction of the candidate‟s Research Committee Member,

Ron Abukhalaf

and the candidate‟s Research Committee Chair,

Dr. Artemios Maryannakis and has been

approved by the Project Review Committee. It was submitted

to Everglades University in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Aviation Science

_____________________________

Ron Abukhalaf, MAS

Committee Member

_____________________________

Artemios Maryannakis, Ed.D., Ph.D.

Committee Chair

iii

Acknowledgments

This thesis could not have been written without the support and friendship found at

Everglades University and Windsor Flying Club. The love of family and friends

provided my inspiration and was my driving force. It has been a long journey and

completing this work is definitely a high point in my academic career. I could not have

come this far without the assistance of many individuals and I want to express my

deepest appreciation to them. I was fortunate to gain a mentor in Dr. Artemios

Maryannakis. His encouragement and advice led me to fulfill this task and I feel blessed

to have worked with him. Without his belief in me I could not have developed

confidence in my abilities as aviation professional and a researcher and for that I am

truly grateful. I have learned a great deal from him and I will never forget the valuable

lessons he taught me. The faculty and staff at Everglades University are the most

dedicated and generous people that I have ever met and I feel honored to have worked

with them. Their guidance has served me well and I owe them my heartfelt appreciation.

A special “thanks” for Mr. Michael Flynn, the aviation department chairperson at

Everglades University, for his superior help and support. My committee members

deserve a special note of praise, for they have watched over me since my first days as a

graduate student. I wish to thank Dr. Jeff LaPoint, Dr. Bob Baron, and Mr. Ron Abu-

Khalaf for providing numerous hours of advice and critiques. Their examples, as

researchers and as teachers, continue to serve as guidelines for my academic career. I

must also thank the librarians and staff at Everglades University for their great

assistance. Their kindness and assistance will always be remembered. A special

“thanks” to the staff at Windsor Flying Club in Canada, namely, the club president

iv

Captain Perry Burford, CFI Captain Craig Laws, CFI Captain Todd Johnson, my

wonderful flying instructor Captain Adam Crema, and WFC manager Captain Cindy

Kehn, who deserve a special praise, their help and support over me since I started to

learn flying and getting my pilot license was of a great help. Finally, I wish to thank my

lovely family who has always believed in me and helped me reach my goals in spite of

all the difficulties. Their support forged my desire to achieve all that I could in life. I

owe them everything and wish I could show them just how much I love and appreciate

them. My wife, Dr. Mozayan Diab, my daughters Rana, Randa, Razane, Rasha, my

wonderful granddaughters, Shahd and Sarah (My heart is yours forever, God bless you

little angels; you stole my heart away and have made my life complete), and my son-in-

law Moe Ayoub, whose love and encouragement allowed me to finish this journey, they

already have my heart so I will just give them a heartfelt “thanks.” Lastly, I would like

to dedicate this work to my deceased father, may he rest in peace, and to my wonderful

mother, whom support, love, and encouragement have shaped who I am today. I hope

that this work makes you proud.

v

Abstract

Researcher: Nabil S. Diab

Title: The Pre-Flight Safety Briefing: What are the Reasons for some

Passengers‟ Lack of Attentiveness during Pre-Flight Safety Briefing?

Institution: Everglades University, U.S.A

Degree: Master of Aviation Science

Year: 2009

Traveling by air has its own special challenges and hazards. Passengers‟ safety is a

major topic of interest for the airlines since its inception, and the best service an air

carrier can provide is good safety. This thesis examined the behavioral patterns of some

passengers who lack the attentiveness during pre-flight safety briefing. The researcher

compared the behavior of three segments: leisure travelers, frequent fliers, and the

aviation professionals. The main finding of this research was that people crave

acceptance by whatever group they choose to belong to. Based on the conclusions of this

research study, the researcher‟s recommendations are the following: This study provides

evidence that airplane accidents are indeed survivable and passengers can expect to

survive crashes more times than not. In general, human beings crave acceptance by

whatever group they choose to belong to, hence, the airlines key objective should be to

make the passengers feel that they are really part of the “team.” In addition, as group

acceptance is a powerful motivator, any presentation of flight safety should be casted by

role models who can influence the public.

vi

Table of Contents

Page

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

Chapter One - Introduction

Background of Problem 1

Statement of the Problem 3

Definitions of Terms 4

Assumptions and Limitations 8

Chapter Two – Literature Review

Introduction 10

Why Passengers do not Listen? 13

The Importance of Being an Alert Passenger 13

Statistics on Airplane crashes: What Causes the Death of Some Passengers? 15

Results of Similar Research Studies 17

Statement of Hypothesis 27

Chapter Three – Research Methodology

Research Model 29

Study Population 29

Data Sources and Gathering Instruments 31

Distribution Method 32

Treatment of Data and Procedures 33

Validity and Reliability of Data 34

Chapter Four - Results

Data Analysis 39

vii

Chapter Five - Findings

Discussion 49

Conclusions 52

Recommendations 53

Recommendation for Policy Implementation 53

Engaging the Passengers 54

Appendices

Appendix A – Configurations of the Aircraft Types Represented in the

NTSB 2000 Study 56

Appendix B – Excerpts from the Federal Aviation Regulations Pertaining

to Passengers‟ Safety 74

Appendix C – Pre-Flight Safety Briefing Questionnaire 84

Appendix D – Survey Results 89

References 171

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Events that led to the Emergency Evacuations in the NTSB Study Cases 21

Table 2. The Mean Values of the Three Categories of Passengers under Study 41

Table 3. The Study population 41

Table 4. The Means of the Groups 42

Table 5. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances 42

Table 6. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 43

Table 7. Estimated Marginal Means 43

Table 8. Scheffé Results 44

Table 9. Means for Groups in Homogeneous Subsets 44

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1. Accident Summary by Injury and Damage from 1959 to 2007 2

Figure 2. 10-Year Accident Rates by Type of Operation 11

Figure 3. The Distribution of Fatal Accidents and Onboard Fatalities during

the Different Phases of a Flight 12

Figure 4. Shows the frequency distribution and the mean values obtained by

each group of participants 45

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Background of the Problem

Traveling by air has its own special challenges and hazards. Passengers‟ safety is

a major topic of interest for the airlines since its inception. Although the information

seems repetitious to some passengers and staff alike, the crucial fact remains that the

information varies from one aircraft to another (i.e., proper exit procedures, location of

safety devices, etc.). Accident investigations carried out by National Transportation

Safety Board (e.g., NTSB, 2008) and studies (e.g., Boeing, 2008) have shown that the

survival prospects of passengers have been jeopardized because of deficiencies and

inaccuracies with safety information briefings (Civil Aviation Advisory Publication,

2004).

In addition, various studies (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration, 2003; Flight

Safety Foundation, 2000; NTSB, 1985) provided insight into specific factors, such as

crewmember training and passenger behavior that affect the overall safety issues;

however, these studies had several limitations. Firstly, in many of these studies,

researchers did not examine why passengers behaved in certain manners or researched

the factors that influenced passengers‟ behaviors during an emergency. Secondly, only

safety issues were studied following serious accidents and not safety issues arising from

the daily incidents, which may happen on daily basis in many commercial airplanes.

Accident experience has also demonstrated that apparent passenger indifference

to safety information has led to improper action by some passengers during

emergencies, that is, inattentiveness during safety briefings affects the ways in which

2

passengers react during emergencies (NTSB, 2000). Unfortunately, most people falsely

assume that the commercial aviation accident survivability rate is zero or very low

(Boeing, 2008). Therefore, due to this rather false assumption, most passengers tend to

underestimate the value of preflight safety briefings and undervalue the significance

such information may serve in time of an accident. According to the Boeing Company‟s

statistics of all accidents for worldwide commercial jet fleets (1959 through 2007), 565

of the 1564 accidents worldwide were fatal; therefore, during these 46 years about 64 %

(Figure 1) of all aircraft accidents were survivable (Boeing, 2008). This statistic

provides evidence that airplane accidents are indeed survivable and passengers can

expect to survive crashes more times than not.

Figure 1. Accident Summary by Injury and Damage from 1959 to 2007:All Accidents – Worldwide commercial Jet

Fleet. From Boeing‟s 2007 Statistical Summary, July 2008, p.15. Copyright 2008 by the Boeing Manufacturing

Corporation.

3

Statement of the Problem

Aviation regulations require passengers to follow all safety-related directions

given by any crew member. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 6

Standards require that oral safety briefings be given to passengers before all flights and

that safety cards be available to all passengers (ICAO, 2006). Videotaped safety briefings

may be used in lieu of oral safety briefings and demonstrations. Standard safety briefings

are provided before and after take-off, when the seat belt sign is turned on due to

turbulence and before landing.

The pre-flight safety briefing serves an important safety purpose for both

passengers and crew. The required standard safety briefing consists of four elements:

prior to takeoff, after takeoff, in-flight resulting from turbulence, and before passenger

deplaning. An individual safety briefing must be provided to any passenger who is unable

to receive information contained within the standard safety briefing. Briefings prepare

passengers for an emergency by providing them with information about the location and

operation of emergency equipment that they may have to operate. However, the problem

is that the vast majority of passengers in commercial flights do not pay close attention to

the pre-flight safety briefing due ambiguities associated with some terminology used by

airlines. Hence, the ambiguity of the information might cause confusion to some

passengers in an emergency during egress procedures, which in some cases (e.g., cabin

fire requires at maximum 90 seconds or less time of evacuation) might considerably

decrease survivability.

This research argues that well-briefed passengers will be better prepared in an

emergency, thereby increasing survivability and lessening dependence on the crew to

4

assist them. When passengers are carried on-board, a crew member must provide an oral

briefing or by audio or audio-visual means. In spite of the fact that aviation safety can

only be predicted, not guaranteed, this research was carried out to find out the best

techniques and procedures which should be deployed by commercial airlines in order to

increase the passengers‟ attentiveness to the pre-flight safety briefing.

Definition of Terms

For purposes of this thesis report, the following terms were clarified and were

operationally defined below:

Accident rates. Accident rate is a measure of accidents per million departures.

Departures (or flight cycles) are used as the basis for calculating rates, since there is a

stronger statistical correlation between accidents and departures than there is between

accidents and flight hours, or between accidents and the number of airplanes in service,

or between accidents and passenger miles or freight miles. Airplane departures data are

continually updated and revised as new information and estimating processes become

available. These form the baseline for the measure of accident rates and, as a

consequence, rates may appear to vary between editions of this publication (the term was

created by Boeing and does not have corresponding equivalence in ICAO, the NTSB,

etc.; Boeing, 2008).

Airplane accident. An airplane accident is an occurrence associated with the

operation of an airplane that takes place between the time any person boards the airplane

with the intention of flight and such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which

death or serious injury results from (a) being in the airplane, or (b) direct contact with the

airplane or anything attached thereto, or (c) direct exposure to jet blast. It excludes (a)

5

fatal and nonfatal injuries from natural causes; (b) fatal and nonfatal self-inflicted injuries

or injuries inflicted by other persons; (c) fatal and nonfatal injuries of stowaways hiding

outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew; (d) nonfatal injuries

resulting from atmospheric turbulence, maneuvering, loose objects, boarding,

disembarking, evacuation, maintenance and servicing; and (e) nonfatal injuries to persons

not aboard the airplane; or (a) the airplane sustains substantial damage; or (b) the airplane

is missing or is completely inaccessible.

Airplane collision. Airplane collisions are events involving two or more airplanes

and are counted as separate events, one for each airplane. For example, destruction of two

airplanes in a collision is considered to be two separate accidents (the term was created

by Boeing and does not have corresponding equivalent in ICAO, NTSB, etc.; Boeing,

2008).

Advisory Circulars. Advisory Circulars (AC) are intended to provide information

and guidance regarding operational matters. An AC may describe an acceptable, but not

the only means of demonstrating compliance with existing regulations. The ACs in and of

themselves do not change, create any additional, authorize changes in, or permit

deviations from regulatory requirements (Boeing, 2008).

Federal Aviation Administration. Federal Aviation Administration is an agency of

the United States Department of Transportation with authority to regulate and oversee all

aspects of civil aviation in the U.S. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 created the group

under the name Federal Aviation Agency, and adopted its current name in 1966 when it

became a part of the United States Department of Transportation (FAA, 2003).

6

Fatal accident. Fatal accident is an accident that results in fatal injury (the term

was created by Boeing and does not have corresponding equivalent in ICAO, the NTSB,

etc.; Boeing, 2008).

Fatal injury. Fatal injury is any injury that results in death within 30 days of the

accident (the term was created by Boeing and does not have corresponding equivalence

in ICAO, the NTSB, etc.; Boeing, 2008).

Flight Safety Foundation. Flight Safety Foundation is an independent, nonprofit,

international organization engaged in research, auditing, education, advocacy and

publishing to improve aviation safety (FSF, 2000).

Hull loss. Hull loss is a status where the airplane is totally destroyed or damaged

beyond economic repair. Hull loss also includes but is not limited to events in which

(a) the airplane is missing; or (b) the search for the wreckage has been terminated without

it being located; or (c) the airplane is completely inaccessible (the term was created by

Boeing and does not have corresponding equivalent in ICAO, the NTSB, etc.; Boeing,

2008).

International Civil Aviation Organization. International Civil Aviation

Organization is a United Nations Specialized Agency, and is the global forum for civil

aviation. The ICAO works to achieve its vision of safe, secure and sustainable

development of civil aviation through cooperation amongst its member States (ICAO,

2006).

Major accident. Major accident is an accident in which any of three conditions is

met: (a) the airplane was destroyed; or (b) there were multiple fatalities; or (c) there was

one fatality and the airplane was substantially damaged. This definition is consistent with

7

the NTSB definition. It is also generally consistent with FSF, except that FSF confines

multiple fatalities to occupants. International Civil Aviation Organization does not

normally define the term major accident (Boeing, 2008).

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). National Transportation Safety

Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every

civil aviation accident in the United States. National Transportation Safety Board opened

its doors on April 1, 1967. Although independent, it relied on the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) for funding and administrative support. In 1975, under the

Independent Safety Board Act, all organizational ties to DOT were severed. National

Transportation Safety Board is not part of DOT, or affiliated with any of its modal

agencies (NTSB, 1985).

Serious injury. According to Boeing (2008), serious injury is an injury which is

sustained by a person in an accident and which (a) requires hospitalization for more than

48 hours, commencing within seven days from the date the injury was received; or

(b) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes or nose); or

(c) involves lacerations which cause severe hemorrhage, nerve, muscle or tendon

damage; or (d) involves injury to any internal organ; or (e) involves second or third

degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5% of the body surface; or (f) involves

verified exposure to infectious substances or injurious radiation. This is consistent with

the ICAO definition. It is also consistent with NTSB‟s definition except for the last

bullet, which is not included in NTSB definition (Boeing, 2008).

Substantial damage. Substantial damage or failure is the damage which adversely

affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the airplane, and

8

which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

Substantial damage is not considered to be (a) engine failure or damage limited to an

engine, (b) damage to wheels if only one engine fails or is damaged, (c) damage to tires

(d) bent fairings or cowlings, (e) damage to flaps, (f) dents in the skin, (g) damage to

engine accessories, (h) small puncture holes in the skin, (i) damage to brakes, and (j)

damage to wingtips (Boeing, 2008).

Assumptions and Limitations

This study was carried out without involving the airlines, which could have

enabled to know more about their safety culture, staff risks perception of aviation safety

hazards, willingness of staff to report safety hazards, action taken on identified safety

hazards, and staff comments about safety management within the airline. In addition, this

study was dependent on collaboration from some commercial airlines in the form of

sending the questionnaires to their frequent fliers or providing the researcher the lists. E-

mails were sent to their commercial departments in order to seek their assistance in

recruiting the participants for this study, that is, their customers and frequent fliers.

Due to the fact that this was a student-conducted research, recruiting participants

certainly posed difficulties. The collaboration with commercial airlines was not granted,

and hence, the researcher resorted to using a sample of colleagues, relatives and

neighbors as participants for this study. This study was limited to self-collected data by

participants as well as by facts gathered through research means. No commercial airlines

or their representatives contributed first-hand to any data collected in this research. By

having commercial airlines collaborate, future researchers would have the advantage of

attaining crucial information such as safety culture.

9

Participants were fully briefed in advance via e-mails, that they were being

interviewed as passengers who, based on their own feedback and experience contributed

to the creation of safety knowledge in the aviation industry. Consequently, participants

might have acted differently (i.e., the Hawthorn Effect). Another limitation was that the

accuracy of the data collected was highly dependent on participants‟ viewpoints and

degree of truth given in their responses.

10

Chapter Two

Literature Review

Introduction

Studies about aircraft accidents have demonstrated for the most part that

passengers‟ lack of knowledge of safety information has led some passengers to take

improper and incorrect actions during emergencies (Figure 2). It is from such studies that

the scope of this research was inspired, bringing to the forefront the crucial and often

underestimated issue of safety briefings given on aircraft. National Transportation Safety

Board has always focused on maladaptive passenger behavior in emergencies as a result

of (a) inappropriate or inaccurate information having been given to passengers,

(b) passenger indifference to safety information, (c) the apparent belief by some

passengers that they are somehow immune to injury, and (d) the rather universally held

fatalistic belief that airplane accidents are not survivable and that passengers have no

influence on whether they will survive an accident (NTSB, 1985).

11

Figure 2. Ten-year Accident Rates by Type of Operation. The X-axis indicates the total number of departures by

millions while the Y-axis shows the 10-year accident rates/million departures. From Boeing‟s 2007 Statistical

Summary, July 2008, p.18. Copyright 2008 by the Boeing Manufacturing Corporation.

The same report indicated that in an airplane environment (Figure 3) passengers

were passive participants who, for the most part, were unaware of, why the safety

information they were given was important (FSF, 2000). As accident investigations have

pointed out, the pre takeoff briefing is often the only safety information air travelers will

receive in the event of an accident.

12

Figure 3. Fatal Accidents and Onboard Fatalities by Phase of Flight: Worldwide Commercial Jet Fleet (1998-2007).

The figure shows the distribution of fatal accidents and onboard fatalities during the different phases of a flight; X axis

representing the different phases of a flight and Y1andY2 axes representing the fatal accidents and the onboard

fatalities. It is noticeable that the most fatal accidents with onboard fatalities occur during climb and descent. From

Boeing‟s 2007 Statistical Summary, July 2008, p.20. Copyright 2008 by the Boeing Manufacturing Corporation.

13

Why Passengers do not Listen?

Some reasons that may aid in explaining passengers‟ lack of attentiveness to

safety briefings may be due to the ambiguities associated with some terminology used by

airlines. Some phrases used to instruct passengers on how to use certain devices may be

too complicated for some passengers to understand. Hence, the ambiguity of the

information may cause confusion to some passengers as to which exit they are to take in

case of an emergency, given that the normal safety briefing protocol merely informs

passengers as to the number of exits on the plane and which direction they should head to

in case of an emergency. Passengers‟ confusion to some of the instructions given perhaps

elevates their chances of not paying close attention to safety procedures.

The Importance of Being an Alert Passenger

Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular (AC) 121- 24C, Passenger

Safety Information Briefing and Briefing Cards states

An alert, knowledgeable person has a much better chance of surviving any life-or

injury-threatening situation that could occur during passenger-carrying operations

in civil aviation. Therefore, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires a

passenger information system for U.S. air carriers and commercial operators that

includes both oral briefings and briefing cards. Every airline passenger should be

motivated to focus on the safety information in the passenger briefing; however,

motivating people, even when their own personal safety is involved, is not easy.

One way to increase passenger motivation is to make the safety information

briefings and cards as interesting and attractive as possible. (FAA, 2003)

14

A common finding of studies about passenger-education methods (FAA, 2003;

FSF, 2000; NTSB, 1985) revealed that the results of passengers‟ lack of knowledge of

operating certain in-flight equipment; for example, oxygen masks or passengers‟ lack of

knowledge about which exit doors to take could result in an overwhelming workload for

the cabin crew in the case of an emergency (FSF, 2000). Because it seems almost

impossible to predict passengers‟ behaviors during an emergency, it is both vital and

ethical for airlines to take measures in order to provide the best possible pre-departure

safety briefings for their passengers.

While the literature on airline safety is broad, a major contribution to airline

safety research includes the work of NTSB (NTSB, 2000). National Transportation

Safety Board has been concerned about the safety of commercial airplanes in the event of

an emergency. Several accidents investigated by NTSB in the last decade that involved

emergency evacuations, prompted NTSB to conduct a study on the evacuation of

commercial airplanes. The study described in this report was the first prospective study of

emergency evacuation of commercial airplanes. For this study, NTSB investigated 46

evacuations that occurred between September 1997 and June 1999 and involved 2,651

passengers. Eighteen different aircraft types were represented in the study. Based on

information collected from the passengers, the flight attendants, the flight crews, the air

carriers, and the aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) units, NTSB examined the

following safety issues in the study: (a) certification issues related to airplane evacuation,

(b) the effectiveness of evacuation equipment, (c) the adequacy of air carrier and ARFF

guidance and procedures related to evacuations, and (d) communication issues related to

evacuations.

15

The study also compiled some general statistics on evacuations, including the

number of evacuations and the types and number of passenger injuries incurred during

evacuations. As a result of the study, NTSB issued 20 safety recommendations and

reiterated three safety recommendations to FAA.

Past research and studies on airplane evacuations have provided insight to specific

factors, such as crewmember training and passenger behavior that affect the outcome of

evacuations; however, these studies had several limitations. Firstly, in many of these

studies, researchers did not examine successful evacuations; therefore, they were not

always able to discuss what equipment and procedures worked well during evacuations.

Secondly, only evacuations following serious accidents were examined and not

evacuations arising from minor incidents. As a result, little is known about incident-

related evacuations, which can provide insight into how successful evacuations can be

performed and which can also identify safety deficiencies before serious accidents occur.

Thirdly, each study was a retrospective analysis of accident evacuations. This approach

limited the researchers to information collected during the original investigation rather

than collecting consistent information on a set of evacuations. Fourthly, previous research

on evacuations has not examined some of the most basic questions about how often

commercial airplanes are evacuated, how many people are injured during evacuations,

and how these injuries occur.

Statistics on Airplane Crashes: What Causes the Death of Some Passengers?

On February 1, 1991, a USAir Boeing 737 and a Skywest Metroliner collided on

the runway at Los Angeles International Airport. All passengers on the Skywest plane

died on impact. None of the passengers on the 737 died on impact, but 19 passengers died

16

from smoke inhalation and one died from thermal injuries. Of the 19 smoke-inhalation

fatalities, 10 died in a queue to use the right overwing exit. National Transportation

Safety Board discovered that two factors caused exit delays by several seconds were

passengers‟ delay in opening the exit and a scuffle between two passengers (NTSB,

2000).

On November 19, 1996, United Express flight 5925, a Beechcraft 1900C, collided

with a King Air at the airport in Quincy, Illinois, seconds after landing. All 12 persons

aboard the United Express flight and the two pilots on the King Air died from the effects

of smoke and fumes from the post-crash fire even though they survived the impact. A

pilot employed by the airport‟s fixed-base operator and a Beech 1900C-qualified United

Express pilot who have been waiting for the flight to arrive were the first persons to reach

the accident scene. These persons ran to the forward left side of the commuter‟s fuselage

where the captain was asking them to get the door open. Both pilots attempted to open

the forward airstair door but were unsuccessful. National Transportation Safety Board

determined that the instructions for operating the door were inadequate for an emergency

situation (NTSB, 2000).

The two accidents described above highlight just a few of the safety issues related

to aircraft passengers‟ safety. In addition to accident investigations, studies conducted by

NTSB, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB), FAA, and independent

researchers have examined specific factors that affect the successful evacuation of

commercial airplanes.

17

Results of Similar Research Studies

National Transportation Safety Board completed a special investigation report on

flight attendant training in 1992. That investigation found that there was a lack of

guidance to FAA inspectors regarding oversight of training, particularly flight attendant

recurrent training. Some flight attendants were not proficient in their knowledge of

emergency equipment and procedures, a situation compounded by a fact that most air

carriers did not have standard locations for emergency equipment and most carriers did

not limit the number of airplane types for which flight attendants were qualified. Another

finding from the 1992 report that is particularly relevant to the current study was that

many air carriers did not perform evacuation drills during recurrent training, and they

were not required to conduct such training. As a result of that special investigation,

several recommendations were issued to the FAA that were intended to improve flight

attendant training and performance during emergency situations.

In 1995, TSB of Canada issued a study of air carrier evacuations that involved

Canadian-registered airplanes or evacuations of foreign registered airplanes that occurred

in Canada. The TSB conducted a post accident examination of 21 evacuation events that

had occurred between 1978 and 1991. As a result of the study, the TSB recommended

protective breathing equipment for cabin crews, a reevaluation of escape slides, a review

of the adequacy of public address systems, implementation of joint crew training, and

detailed briefings to prepare passengers for unplanned emergencies (TSB, 1995).

Beginning in 1987, as a result of a 737 fire in Manchester, England, the Civil

Aviation Authority (CAA) of the United Kingdom commissioned Cranfield University to

conduct a number of experimental research studies on issues of cabin safety.

18

In 1989, a study of passenger behavior in airplane emergencies examined the

influences of cabin configuration on the rate at which passengers could evacuate the

airplane. Questionnaires were developed and mailed by NTSB to flight crews, flight

attendants, ARFF units, and passengers who were involved in the 30 evacuations that

received a detailed investigation. The crewmembers and passengers were asked what

suggestions they would make to improve evacuations.

Questionnaires sent to flight crews consisted of questions regarding general

information about the evacuation, communication, procedures, environment, and

equipment. Of 61 questionnaires mailed to flight crewmembers, 33 were returned to

NTSB. The 33 responses were from pilots who represented 20 of the 30 evacuations in

the study that received detailed investigations. Fifteen of the 20 respondents were the

pilots-in-command at the time of the evacuation. For all but one of the respondents, this

was their first evacuation of a commercial passenger aircraft.

Questionnaires sent to flight attendants consisted of questions regarding general

information about the evacuation, personal injuries sustained, preflight safety briefing,

communication, emergency exits, environment, passenger behavior, and training. Of 64

surveys mailed to flight attendants, 36 were returned to NTSB. This sample represented

18 of the 30 evacuations that received detailed investigations. Two of the 36 respondents

reported being in a prior evacuation incidents.

Questionnaires sent to passengers consisted of questions regarding the preflight

safety briefing, emergency exits, carry-on baggage, evacuation slides, passenger

behavior, seat belts, communication, injury, postevacuation events, and personal

information. Of 1,043 questionnaires mailed to passengers, 457 (44 %) were returned to

19

NTSB. These passengers were from 18 of the 30 evacuations that received detailed

investigations. Only 17 of the 457 passenger respondents indicated being involved in a

prior evacuation. The average age of passengers who responded to NTSB‟s questionnaire

was 43 years old. Forty-five percent of these passengers were female. The passengers

averaged 5 feet and 7.5 inches in height and weighed an average of 165 pounds.

Passengers reported on the injuries they sustained during their evacuations. No attempt

was made to confirm each passenger‟s self-assessment. There appeared to be no

relationship between age and the injury incurred since 34% of the respondents older than

the median age of 43 reported injuries whereas 35% younger than the median reported

injuries. Reports of injuries were similar (39%) for passengers older than 60 years.

Despite the lack of differences with regard to injury, passengers who were older

than 43 had different perceptions of how their physical abilities affected their evacuation.

Older passengers were more likely to disagree with statements that their physical size or

condition assisted their evacuation. Further, they tended to disagree with statements that

indicated their age assisted them.

Overall, older passengers were no more likely to sustain an injury, but they

perceived their condition and age to hinder their evacuation. Although age apparently had

no effect on injuries, the injury rate for females was greater than the injury rate for males.

Thirty-eight percent (64) of the female respondents reported injuries whereas 27% (54) of

the male respondents reported injuries. Yet, perceptions of how physical size, condition,

and age affected their evacuation were the same for males and females.

National Transportation Safety Board surveyed passengers involved in the study

evacuations on the competitive behaviors they exhibited or observed during evacuations

20

to gain insight on how often passengers exhibit these behaviors. Passengers were asked to

rate how much they agreed with the statement that passengers were cooperative during

the evacuation. Seventy-five percent (331) of the passengers who responded to the

statement agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, 13% (56) disagreed or strongly

disagreed, and 12% (53) were neutral. The majority (62%, or 33) of the 56 passengers

who indicated uncooperative behavior were involved in 3 evacuations cases. These cases

included evacuations involving an auxiliary power unit (APU) torching, an engine fire,

and an airplane that overran the runway and impacted a grass embankment (Table 1).

21

Table 1. Events that led to the emergency evacuations in the 46 NTSB study cases. The

most frequent event leading to an evacuation was an engine fire, accounting for 18 (39%)

of the 46 evacuations included in the study cases; 15 involved an actual engine fire, and 3

involved a suspected but not actual fire. Eight of the 46 evacuations resulted from

indications of fire in the cargo hold; none of these eight events, which occurred on

regional airplanes, involved the presence of an actual fire. Gear failure and smoke in the

cabin led to 4 evacuations each (NTSB, 2000).

Event Number of cases

Engine fire/suspected engine fire 18

Cargo smoke/cargo fire indication 8

Smoke in cabin 4

Gear failure 4

Smoke in cockpit 3

Overran runway 3

Bomb threat 2

Landed short of runway 1

Lavatory smoke warning 1

Baggage cart collision 1

APU torch 1

Note: As described in Boeing‟s Airliner magazine (April/June 1992), The APU provides both electrical

power and bleed air for the air conditioning system and main engine starting. A torching start may result

from excess fuel accumulation in the APU combustor assembly and exhaust duct. The torching start has a

characteristic „orange flash‟. Copyrights 2000 by National Transportation Safety Board.

Although these three cases included flames or substantial airplane damage, the

severity of an event is not necessarily indicative of uncooperative behaviors. In the most

serious accident in the study, only 6% of the passengers indicated disagreement with the

statement that passengers were cooperative.

The competitive behaviors passengers reported seeing included pushing, climbing

seats, and disputes among passengers. These behaviors were reported in many of the

study cases, but not all. Overall, 12.1% (53) of the responding passengers reported that

they climbed over seats whereas 20.4% (90) observed someone climbing seats. Many

(80%, or 42) of the passengers who indicated that they climbed over seats, the most

22

serious accident in the study and which involved several broken seats. Of all the

passengers who responded to the questionnaire, 29% (129) reported seeing passengers

pushing, 18.7% (83) indicated actually being pushed, and 5.6% (25) indicated pushing

another passenger. Slightly more than 10% (46) of the responding passengers reported

seeing passengers in disputes with other passengers.

National Transportation Safety Board asked passengers and flight attendants in

the 30 cases receiving detailed investigations to indicate from a list what hindered the

evacuation. Five passengers and one flight attendant mentioned bulkheads, 39 passengers

and one flight attendant mentioned broken interiors, 16 passengers mentioned overhead

bins, and 16 passengers mentioned the seatback in front of them. In the 28 other cases for

which questionnaires were distributed, one flight attendant mentioned that her seat

obstructed the evacuation, and two other flight attendants reported galley items

obstructing passenger evacuation. Eleven passengers indicated that the seatback in front

of them slowed their movement, six passengers mentioned overhead bins, five passengers

mentioned the bulkhead, and one passenger mentioned the aisle width.

In general, passengers in NTSB‟s study cases were able to access airplane exits

without difficulty, except for the Little Rock, Arkansas, accident that occurred on June 1,

1999, in which interior cabin furnishings became dislodged and were obstacles to some

passengers‟ access to exits.

National Transportation Safety Board also assessed the effectiveness of the

emergency lighting systems in the study cases by reviewing crew statements from

returned questionnaires. Of the 36 flight attendants who responded, there were only two

reports of failed lights, both from flight attendants in the Little Rock accident. Further,

23

5 flight crew members and 10 flight attendants reported that emergency lighting systems

assisted evacuations in which visibility was restricted. All of these crewmembers were

involved in five night evacuations. National Transportation Safety Board concluded that

emergency lighting systems functioned as intended in the 30 evacuations cases

investigated in detail. The major findings of NTSB study were the following:

1. In the 46 study cases, 92% (2,614) of the 2,846 occupants on board were

uninjured, 6% (170) sustained minor injuries, and 2% (62) sustained serious injuries.

2. Federal Aviation Administration does not evaluate the emergency evacuation

capabilities of transport-category airplanes with fewer than 44 passenger seats or the

emergency evacuation capabilities of air carriers operating commuter-category and

transport-category airplanes with fewer than 44 passenger seats. In the interest of

providing one level of safety, all passenger-carrying commercial airplanes and air carriers

should be required to demonstrate emergency evacuation capabilities.

3. Adequate research has not been conducted to determine the appropriate exit

row width on commercial airplanes.

4. In general, passengers in NTSB‟s study cases were able to access airplane exits

without difficulty, except for the Little Rock, Arkansas, accident that occurred on June 1,

1999, in which interior cabin furnishings became dislodged and were obstacles to some

passengers‟ access to exits.

5. Emergency lighting systems functioned as intended in the 30 evacuation cases

investigated in detail.

6. In 43 of the 46 evacuation cases in NTSB‟s study, floor level exit doors were

opened without difficulty.

24

7. Passengers continue to have problems opening overwing exits and stowing the

hatch. The manner in which the exit is opened and the hatch is stowed is not intuitively

obvious to passengers nor is it easily depicted graphically.

8. Most passengers seated in exit rows do not read the safety information provided

to assist them in understanding the tasks they may need to perform in the event of an

emergency evacuation, and they do not receive personal briefings from flight attendants

even though personal briefings can aid passengers in their understanding of the tasks that

they may be called upon to perform.

9. On some Fokker airplanes, the aft flight attendant is seated too far from the

overwing exits, the assigned primary exits, to provide immediate assistance to passengers

who attempt to evacuate through the exits.

10. Overall, in 37% (7 of 19) of the evacuations with slide deployments in

National Transportation Safety Board‟s study cases, there were problems with at least

one slide.

A slide problem in 37% of the evacuations in which slides were deployed is

unacceptable for a safety system.

11. The majority of serious evacuation-related injuries in National Transportation

Safety Board‟s study cases, excluding the Little Rock, Arkansas, accident of June 1, 1999

occurred at airplane door and overwing exits without slides.

12. Pilots are not receiving consistent guidance, particularly in flight operations

and safety manuals, on when to evacuate an airplane.

13. Passengers benefited from precautionary safety briefings just prior to

emergency occurrences.

25

14. Limiting exit use during evacuations in National Transportation Safety

Board‟s study was not in accordance with the respective air carrier‟s existing evacuation

procedures. At a minimum, all available floor level exits that are not blocked by a hazard

should be used during an evacuation.

15. Evacuations involving slide use could be delayed if passengers sit at exits

before boarding a slide or if crew commands do not direct passengers how to get onto a

slide.

16. Without hands-on training specific to the airplane types that frequent their

airports, aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel may be hindered in their ability to

quickly and efficiently assist during evacuations.

17. Communication and coordination problems continue to exist between flight

crews and flight attendants during airplane evacuations. Joint exercises for flight crews

and flight attendants on evacuation have proven effective in resolving these problems.

18. Despite efforts and various techniques over the years to improve passenger

attention to safety briefings, a large percentage of passengers continue to ignore preflight

safety briefings. In addition, despite guidance in the form of Federal Aviation

Administration advisory circulars, many air carrier safety briefing cards do not clearly

communicate safety information to passengers.

19. Passengers‟ efforts to evacuate an airplane with their carry-on baggage

continue to pose a problem for flight attendants and are a serious risk to a successful

evacuation of an airplane. Techniques on how to handle passengers who do not listen to

flight attendants‟ instructions need to be addressed.

26

20. Unwarranted evacuations following Boeing 727 auxiliary power unit (APU)

torching continue to exist despite past efforts by FAA to address this issue.

21. Evacuations continue to occur that are hampered by inefficient

communication.

Current evacuation communication would be significantly enhanced by the

installation of independently powered evacuation alarms on all newly manufactured

transport-category airplanes. As a result of this safety study, NTSB made the following

major safety recommendations to FAA:

1. Require air carriers to provide all passengers seated in exit rows in which a

qualified crewmember is not seated a preflight personal briefing on what to do in the

event the exit may be needed.

2. Require the aft flight attendants on Fokker 28 and Fokker 100 airplanes to be

seated adjacent to the overwing exits, their assigned primary exits.

3. Require flight operations manuals and safety manuals to include on abnormal

and emergency procedures checklists, a checklist item that directs flight crews to initiate

or consider emergency evacuation in all emergencies that could reasonably require an

airplane evacuation (e.g., a cabin fire or an engine fire).

4. Review air carriers‟ procedures to ensure that for those situations in which

crews anticipate an eventual evacuation, adequate guidance is given both to pilots and

flight attendants on providing passengers with precautionary safety briefings.

5. Conduct research and explore creative and effective methods that use state-of-

the-art technology to convey safety information to passengers. The presented information

27

should include a demonstration of all emergency evacuation procedures, such as how to

open the emergency exits and exit the aircraft, including how to use the slides.

6. Require minimum comprehension testing for safety briefing cards.

7. Develop advisory material to address ways to minimize the problems

associated with carry-on luggage during evacuations.

8. Require air carriers that operate Boeing 727s to include in the auxiliary power

unit (APU) procedures instructions that when passengers are on board, the flight crew

will make a public address announcement about APU starts immediately prior to starting

the APU.

Statement of the Hypothesis

Since most studies (FAA, 2003; FSF, 2000; NTSB, 2000; NTSB, 1985) showed

that most passengers lack attentiveness to pre-flight safety briefings, airlines must

consider more innovative ways to motivate their passengers to pay attention to such

briefings. Many studies (FAA, 2003; FSF, 2000; NTSB, 2000; NTSB, 1985) have shown

that the overall effectiveness of the current flight safety techniques could use much

improvement.

In addition, individual passengers have a large (typically negative) impact on the

conduct of emergency evacuations, resulting from their general naiveté regarding aircraft

emergencies and ignorance of proper procedures needed to cope with such circumstances

(CAAP, 2004). Hence, the perceived relevance of safety information is a major key to

passenger attitudes. Based on the premise that passengers‟ safety is the key goal of all

airlines alike, it is vital that safety briefings be delivered in the most effective modes. The

fact that some passengers are unaware of the procedures to follow in case of an

28

emergency, the following hypothesis is generated in effort to understand why some

passengers lack attentiveness to information that can save their lives: There will be a

significant difference in the level of understanding of pre-flight safety briefing between

frequent fliers, leisure travelers, and aviation professionals.

29

Chapter Three

Research Methodology

Research Model

This study was implemented through means of a questionnaire survey designed

by referencing FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 121.24C Passenger Safety Information

Briefing and Briefing Cards (FAA, 2003). The questionnaire was divided into three parts:

(a) passenger perceptions of the pre-flight safety briefings and Briefing Cards, (b)

passenger opinions of the pre-flight safety briefing and Briefing Cards, and (c)

demographic data for those who responded to the questionnaire. The survey instrument

contained seven statements with five Likert-scaled scores (from 5 = strongly agree to 1 =

strongly disagree), which match the respondents‟ perceptions about the pre -flight safety

procedures and briefing cards. Passenger opinions on the pre-flight safety and briefing

cards used Likert-scaled scores (from 5 = totally helpful to 1 = completely useless). In

both cases, respondents were asked to choose the answer that best corresponded with

their level of agreement or disagreement.

Study Population

Sometimes people grant interviews because they want to be helpful in solving a

problem. For example, people are willing to talk in great detail about what they saw in

plane crashes because they wanted to make air traffic safer.

In this study, three sub-groups were solicited for participation. The first group

represented frequent fliers who have more exposure to the travel industry. Participants in

this group have traveled at least four times a year. In the second group, the majority of

participants were expected to be leisure travelers who traveled at least once a year.

30

The third group was solicited from flying clubs and aviation colleges. The majority of

participants from this group were expected to be pilots, flight attendants, and student

pilots.

A minimum of 250 participants were solicited as a sample size as such size

provided a basis for the estimation of sampling error (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black,

1995). A sample size of at least 100 is recommended (Hair et al., 1995) to conduct a

confirmatory factor analysis because a sample less than 100 may not provide enough

statistical power to reject the null hypothesis. A small sample could lead to acceptance of

a model which is not necessarily a good fit, simply because there was not enough

statistical power to reject the model. Conversely, if the sample is too large, the model

may be rejected due to sensitivity in detecting small differences; the larger the sample,

the more sensitive the test is to detecting differences. The recommended sample size

should be between 100 and 200 (Hair et al., 1995).

In order to achieve the minimum participant requirement for each group,

involvement from at least one flying club, an Aviation College, and other

organizations/companies was necessary. For instance, the organizations/companies

represented group one and two (although it would have been much simpler if the

researcher was able to gain assistance from commercial airlines in order to recruit

participants). Due to the fact that collaboration with commercial airlines was not possible,

a request was sent to Windsor International Airport (CYQG) management in Canada, in

order to seek their help and permission to allow distributing the proposed questionnaire to

their travelers. Windsor International Airport was an ideal choice because of its strategic

location and because it is a popular point of entry into Canada for private and business

31

aircraft with no curfews, slot, or noise restrictions. The Windsor Flying Club and aviation

colleges represented the third group. Furthermore, for those solicited to participate,

participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Data Sources and Gathering Instruments

The primary data and information were mainly acquired by conducting personal

interviews, e-mails, and publishing the questionnaire on the Internet as an IP based

survey, that is, anyone with the Web address (URL) of the survey was able to respond to

it. Once a respondent had answered the survey, that IP could not be used again. While

working with interviews as information gathering method, three aspects were considered

more important than the rest: selection/availability of the interviewees, standardization of

the interview process across them, which also means the control over design and order of

the questions asked, and limitations and context of their responses. These interviews were

more on the qualitative side and characterized by the researcher and respondent having a

discussion where the researcher controlled the topic discussed but respondents also had

the opportunity and freedom to shape their responses and influence the direction.

In order to be able to collect as many and as detailed answers as possible, it is

believed that participants were motivated and prepared. This was achieved by explaining

the purpose and scope of the study and by sending potential participants some

information in advance. It was further explained that the study may or may not present

the individual respondent‟s exact answers and in some instances only presented the

researcher‟s interpretation of the answers and other material received. It was also

clarified that, if necessary, participants would be quoted in their personal capacity for a

particular opinion or information.

32

During the actual interviews, the researcher avoided leading questions at the

beginning and started off with rather general questions to set the tone of the interview.

During the interviews notes about key points were taken by hand. To cross-check the

veracity of information and clarity of opinion and ideas, relevant part of the thesis report

was sent to participants for perusal and removal of possible inaccuracies. This was

believed to help reduce any possible misunderstanding, misinterpretation and enhanced

the validity and reliability of this research.

Questionnaires (Appendix C) were also e-mailed to participants consisting of

questions regarding general information about the safety procedures followed by the

commercial airlines, the cabin environment, and the cabin crew attitude towards the

passengers.

Distribution Method

There are numerous approaches to gathering data needed for the examination of a

particular problem. The most common distinction is primary data collected through direct

and first hand examination and secondary data that include earlier examinations, existing

statistics, literature and articles. It is never possible in any research endeavor to solely

rely on one type and discard the other source. The researcher‟s reliance on both was,

therefore, inevitable.

Questionnaires were sent by e-mail to participants consisting of questions

regarding general information about the safety procedures followed by the commercial

airlines, the cabin environment, and the cabin crew attitude towards the passengers. The

e-mails to participants included the URL through which the questionnaire was accessible.

33

Treatment of Data and Procedures

Not all data that came to the researcher‟s attention were acceptable for use in a

research project. Data can be defective and may affect the validity of the researcher‟s

conclusions. The imperfections in the data stem from the imperfections and irregularities

of nature (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Therefore, the researcher excluded any responses

from the same IP address and kept only one response from each IP address.

Collecting data and processing it into information can be done in two ways, either

by the quantitative or by the qualitative method. Through the former, the data is collected

in numbers from which statistical calculations and inferences can be drawn. This method

is mostly used when working with and researching large populations. In layman‟s terms,

it is used to answer questions about relationships among measured variables with the

purpose of explaining, predicting, and controlling phenomena (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).

Conversely, the qualitative method deals with observations, interpretation of

inferences in their specific contextual backgrounds, focusing variables, and relationship

matrices amongst them (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). This method is often used in researches

that do not depend much on classification or statistics, but rather this method relies on

participants‟ viewpoints and is usually in narrative form; as opposed to numeric. This

approach seems to be too advanced to a more profound degree of knowledge. In layman‟s

terms, it is typically used to answer questions about the complex nature of phenomena,

often with the purpose of describing and understanding the phenomena from the

participants‟ point of view (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).

The treatment in this thesis was both qualitative and quantitative in nature. The

researcher‟s task in this project was one that ferrets out the requisite components and

34

pieces of information/ knowledge to get to the desired or rather required solution with a

professional objectivity. The study ended with tentative answers or hypotheses about

what was observed. These tentative hypotheses formed the basis of future studies

designed to test the hypothesis. On the opinion side, especially regarding the safety

variables, it was hard to quantify the subjective image of the interviewees. Furthermore,

in doing this exercise the plan of study was flexible to the situation at hand and to the

interviewees, never letting the aim of this study elude the researcher, which also implied

that the researcher was searching for both qualitative and quantitative information.

The study discounted the chosen participants‟ subjective image of the

situation/idea that the researcher was interested in. Participants were fully briefed in

advance that they were being interviewed as passengers who, based on their own

feedback and experience, contributed to the creation of safety knowledge in the aviation

industry. Consequently, study participants might have acted differently (due to the

Hawthorn Effect, which is a term referring to the tendency of some people to work harder

and perform better when they are participants in an experiment. Individuals may change

their behavior due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because

of any manipulation of the independent variables).

Validity and Reliability of Data

The validity of a measurement instrument is, “the extent to which the instrument

measures what it is supposed to measure” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 29). Moreover,

Gay (1996) stated that validity can be evaluated only in 33 terms of purpose and there are

several different types of validity including content, construct, concurrent and predictive

validity. Validity and reliability are assessed differently in quantitative research than in

35

qualitative research. Qualitative research is based on narrative rather than numbers,

which requires a different approach. Validity and reliability of qualitative research are

being addressed repeatedly in the literature including the work of Creswell (2003), Gay

(1996), and Leedy and Ormrod (2005). Recently, some qualitative researchers have

begun to question their relevance to qualitative design (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).

Stenbacka (2001) maintained that, “reliability concerns measurement and has no

relevance in qualitative research” (p. 138). Lincoln and Guba (1985) supported that,

“demonstration of validity is sufficient to establish reliability” (p. 316). Gay (1996)

describes qualitative validity as the, “degree to which observations accurately reflect

what was observed and interviews accurately reflect feelings, opinions, and so forth, of

those interviewed” (p. 242).

Rubin and Rubin (1995) believed that, “trying to apply 34 terms of purpose in

validity and reliability to qualitative work distracts more than it clarifies” (p. 87). In

addition, Rubin and Rubin judge the credibility of qualitative work by transparency and

conscientiousness of the interviewer, consistency-coherence based on reexamination and

explanation of why inconsistencies occurred; as well as communicability or richness of

detail.

Regardless of the viewpoint expressed by different authors related to reliability, it

is believed that validity was established in this study by an accurate reflection of the

interview data. That accuracy was clearly based on the transparency, skill, and

knowledge of the person conducting the interview. Qualitative validity can be further

established by use of multiple methods, sources, or data collection strategies including

36

researcher notes, recordings, and questioning strategies. Validity was established in this

study by a combination of methods.

Triangulation of data was accomplished by conducting a pilot study to determine

the validity of the interview questions, to establish the issues to be addressed in a large-

scale in the survey questionnaire, and to develop and test adequacy of the research

instrument using in-depth interviews or focus groups. The pilot study questionnaires was

distributed for pretest for reliability evaluation using Cronbach‟s coefficient alpha, one of

the most widely used reliability measures to determine scale reliability (Koufteros, 1999).

The reliability value was >0.7, which was considered satisfactory for basic research

(Churchill, 1991; Litwin, 1995; Nunnally, 1978).

The development and validation of the survey consisted of several steps. The first

step was to identify objectives and the set of criteria that was needed to accomplish the

survey objectives. A formative committee was formed to determine the objectives and

criteria utilized for the development of a set of the research criteria. The group consisted

of two aviation specialists from Windsor Flying Club as well as one aviation quality

control specialist from an airline. The formative committee members were chosen based

on their aviation experience and research. To add balance to the committee, Windsor

Flying Club involved student pilots in the research.

The formative committee examined the survey materials utilizing a Delphi

method process to develop a specific set of criteria necessary for the successful inclusion

of usability techniques (Roth & Wood, 1990). The Delphi method process required the

members of the formative committee to provide feedback to a set of questions based upon

the review of the literature. The feedback was assessed and scored according to

37

importance and the results were included in a second questionnaire that was

administrated to the formative committee. This process continued until the formative

committee had reached consensus regarding the set of criteria. The outcome of the

formative committee, which was the criteria list, was given to a summative committee,

which was an expert panel consisting of professors in the aviation industry Everglades

University. The summative committee rated each criterion on a Likert-scale with the five

categories listed below:

1. Not of any concern: should not be addressed in the research.

2. Of minimal concern: could be included, but would not really enhance the

research.

3. Of moderate concern: should be included in the research.

4. Of great concern: needs to be included or the research would not be valuable.

5. Of critical concern: must be included or the research would be of no use.

The objectives and the survey were validated by the summative committee, and

the survey was piloted. Fifteen participants from Windsor Flying Club and other airlines

who utilize aviation on a daily basis were randomly selected. After the pilot study was

completed, the researcher collected and analyzed the data. All unanswered questions and

comments were examined and addressed appropriately in the survey. After all corrections

have been made, the survey was distributed online, via e-mails and direct interviews, to

250 participants. The online survey was self-reported and took approximately 10 minutes

to complete.

By deploying such a topology, the reliability value have been measured ensuring

that it was somewhere between (-0.70 to +0.70), which was considered a satisfactory

38

value for a basic research (Churchill, 1991; Litwin, 1995; Nunnally, 1978). Therefore, it

could be assured that the study questionnaire was tested for validity and reliability.

Interview questions were frequently rephrased and asked in different ways to probe for

consistency or possible misinterpretation of previous phrasing.

39

Chapter Four

Results

Data Analysis

In addition to the deployed online survey technique, each face-to-face interview

was recorded with a digital audio recording device. These audio recordings were

transcribed verbatim and themes were generated for coding purposes. The researcher

used extensive notes and written observations taken during each interview as additional

sources of data used to answer questions within the study.

Data from each interview were coded, compared, and synthesized for placement

into specific groups or categories for the purpose of answering questions related to the

purpose of the study. Coded information were placed into categories specific to gender,

age, position, educational level, frequency of travel, and safety concerns. Coded

information was compared across categories to determine relationships between sets of

data. Interview data were further examined for inconsistencies and for determining if and

why contradictions occurred. The data were analyzed to determine what the perceptions

of the respondents were by utilizing the tigersurvey.com engine (Appendix D).

In addition to qualitative data derived from the face-to-face interviews, there was

quantitative data collected through a survey questionnaire. Specifically, the quantitative

data derived from the Likert type questions 7-12 of the questionnaire.

In this study, the choice of the appropriate statistical treatment was closely tied to

the statement of the research questions and its respective hypothesis. The research

question that provided direction in this study was the following: What effect the pre-

40

flight briefing has on the level of understanding between frequent fliers, leisure travelers,

and aviation professionals?

The following, non-directional (i.e., did not state “significantly higher” or

“significantly lower”), research hypothesis was tested for investigating the research

question in this study: There will be a statistically significant difference, at the .05 level,

in the level of understanding of pre-flight safety briefing between frequent flyers, leisure

travelers, and aviation professionals, based on the Pre-Flight Safety Briefing

Questionnaire Inventory.

The null hypothesis for this study was: There will be no statistically significant

difference, at the .05 level, in the level of understanding of pre-flight safety briefing

between frequent flyers, leisure travelers, and aviation professionals, based on the Pre-

Flight Safety Briefing Questionnaire Inventory.

The independent variable (the "cause") in this research study was the "passenger

pre-flight briefing." The dependent variable (the "effect") was "level of understanding." It

was assumed that the level of understanding referred to the ability to put information

together in order to form a new whole. This may involve the production of a unique

communication (theme or speech), a plan of operations, or a set of abstract relations. In

addition, the Likert type (with probes 1-5) survey questionnaire questions 7-12 were

designed to collect interval data. Since the data was "interval" in nature and there was one

independent variable (passenger pre-flight briefing) with three different levels (i.e.,

passenger pre-flight briefing attended to frequent flyer, passenger pre-flight briefing

attended to leisure travelers, and passenger pre-flight briefing attended to aviation

professionals) the Analysis of the Variance (ANOVA) statistical test was used.

41

Specifically, the one-way ANOVA (one-way simply means that there is only one

independent variable) was used. Table 2 below indicates the mean of the data that was

collected from the three different groups of passengers:

Table 2. The Mean values for each of the three categories of participants

Item category Mean

________________________________________________________________________

Frequent flyers 3.794545455

Leisure travelers 3.571

Aviation professionals 4.439807692

________________________________________________________________________

When the researcher used Table 2 that was created as input to the ANOVA

function of the statistical package (SPSS), the results are in the following tables:

Table 3. Between-Subjects Factors

Description Group n

________________________________________________________________________

Frequent flyers 1.00 55

Leisure travelers 2.00 50

Aviation professionals 3.00 52

________________________________________________________________________

Note. n = number of participants in each group. From SPSS statistical output.

42

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable

Group Mean SD

n

________________________________________________________________________

1.00 3.7935 .96498 55

2.00 3.5710 1.16844 50

3.00 4.4398 .67823 52

Total 3.9367 1.01785 157

________________________________________________________________________

Note. n = number of participants in each group; SD = standard deviation. From SPSS statistical output.

Table 5. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances (a): Tests the null hypothesis that

the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a Design: Intercept

+Group

F df1 df2 Sig.

________________________________________________________________________

5.329 2 154 .006

_______________________________________________________________________

Note. df = degrees of freedom; Sig. = p (probability) value (i.e., degree of significance). From SPSS

statistical output.

43

Table 6. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects; a R Squared = .130 (Adjusted R Squared =

.118)

Source Type III df Mean Square F Sig.

Sum of Squares

__________________________________________________________________

Corrected Model 20.977(a) 2 10.489 11.485 .000

Intercept 2427.004 1 2427.004 2657.522 .000

Group 20.977 2 10.489 11.485 .000

Error 140.642 154 .913

Total 2594.729 157

Corrected Total 161.619 156

_______________________________________________________________________

Note. df = degrees of freedom; Sig. = p (probability) value (i.e., degree of significance). From SPSS

statistical output.

Table 7. Estimated Marginal Means

95% Confidence

of the Difference

Group Mean Std. Error Lower Upper

1.00

3.793

.129

3.539

4.048

2.00

3.00

3.571

4.440

.135

.133

3.304

4.178

3.838

4.702

Note. From SPSS statistical output.

44

Table 8. Post Hoc Tests: Scheffé Results

95% Confidence

of the Difference

(I) Group (J) Group Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error

Sig 2-tail Lower Upper

1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

.2225

-.6464(*)

-.2225

-.8688(*)

.6464(*)

.8688(*)

.18673

.18484

.18673

.18928

.18484

.18928

.493

.003

.493

.000

.003

.000

-.2391

-1.1032

-.6840

-1.3367

.1895

.4009

.6840

-.1895

.239-

.4009

1.1032

1.3367 Note. Sig. = p (probability) value (i.e., degree of significance). From SPSS statistical output. Based on

observed means. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Table 9. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Homogeneous Subsets

(Scheffé).

Group n

Subset

1 2

2.00

50

3.5710

1.00 55 3.7935

3.00 52 4.4398

Sig. .494 1.000 Note. Based on Type III Sum of Squares. n = number of participants in each group; From SPSS statistical

output. The error term is Mean Square(Error) = .913.

a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 52.253.

b The group sizes are unequal.

The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

c Alpha = .05.

45

Figure 4. Shows the frequency distribution and the mean values obtained for each group of participants.

By looking at the means of Table 4 titled "Descriptive," it was observed that the

mean (4.4398) of the Aviation Professionals‟ group (group 3.00) was higher than the

mean (3.7935) of the Frequent Flyers group and the mean (3.5710) of the Leisure

Travelers group. Although the Aviation Professionals‟ group mean was higher, this

research study investigated if this mean was "significantly" higher. On Table 5, the

statistical package automatically conducted the Levene's Test to provide information

about the variances of the three different groups of passengers. The Levene‟s Test value

of .006 is less than the .05 p value that was chosen as the level of significance; therefore,

equal variances was not assumed (there was no homogeneity in the variances).

3.0

02.0

01.0

0

Gro

up

5.004.003.002.001.00

Mean

25

20

15

10

5

0

Fre

qu

en

cy

25

20

15

10

5

0

Fre

qu

en

cy

25

20

15

10

5

0

Fre

qu

en

cy

46

Table 6 titled “Tests of Between-Subjects Effects,” indicates a row entitled (Between)

“Groups" that gives information about the variability of the scores between the subgroups

(i.e., how much do the mean score answers of the Likert scale questionnaire from the

Leisure Travelers group vary as opposed to the mean score answers from the Frequent

Flyers and the Aviation Professionals‟ groups?). The row entitled "Error” (Within

Groups) gives information about the variability that exists within each group (i.e., how

much the mean scores with a given group, Leisure Travelers for instance, vary among

themselves?). The last row gives information about all the mean scores taken together.

The important columns of Table 6 are first the "degrees of freedom" (df). The

number of df for the (Between) “Groups” is simply the number of groups the researcher

was investigating minus one (i.e., 3-1=2). The number of the "Error" (Within Groups)

154 in this case, is the number of total passengers in the three groups (157) minus the

total number of groups (3). Why was there subtraction from the values of the degrees of

freedom? Suffice it to say that there was a tendency in statistical calculations to

underestimate the sample variance (as compared to the variance of the population). To

compensate for underestimating the SPSS makes the df subtractions. The column titled

"Sig." referred to the p value. Obviously, in this case the p value was .000; therefore, the

null hypothesis was rejected (.000 < .05). Consequently, it was established in this study

that there was a significant difference between the groups. However, since there were

more than two groups, it was not obvious where the significant difference lies. Which

scores were significantly different from the other?

In order to find out the significant differences between the three groups, Table 8

titled "Multiple Comparisons" was observed. The multiple comparisons test that the

47

researcher chose was the Scheffé test. The Scheffé is a "post hoc" test that gave the

researcher a conservative estimate of the probability that any two groups were different.

Group 1.00 was the Frequent Flyers group, group 2:00 was the Leisure Travelers group,

and group 3.00 was the Aviation Professionals group. After comparing groups 1.00 and

2.00, the researcher observed a p value of .493, so the null hypothesis could not be

rejected. It appeared that although the means for the two groups were different (3.7935

and 3.5710, respectively); they were not "significantly" different. The second comparison

between groups 1.00 and 3.00 indicated a p value of .003; therefore, the researcher

rejected the null hypothesis and stated that there was a "significant" difference between

the two groups. When the researcher referred back to the original means he was reminded

that group 3.00 (Aviation Professionals) had a mean of 4.4398, which was higher than the

mean of group 1.00 (Frequent Flyers; 3.7935). Obviously, a third comparison between

groups 2.00 and 3.00 indicated a p value of .000; therefore, the researcher rejected the

null hypothesis and stated that there was a "significant" difference between these groups.

When the researcher referred back to the original means he was reminded that the mean

of group 3.00 (i.e., 4.4398) was higher than the mean of group 2.00 (i.e., 3.5710).

Based on the above results, this study statistically established that the Aviation

Professionals group had better understanding of the pre-flight safety briefing than the

Frequent Flyer and Leisure traveler group of passengers. Interestingly, the level of

understanding of frequent flyers appeared to be relatively equal to that of the leisure

travelers in that the passengers in these two groups did not have mean scores in the Likert

scale questions related to the understanding of the preflight safety briefing that were

"significantly" different from each other. Apparently, the Aviation Professionals‟ group

48

was the most educated in aviation safety and took the preflight safety briefing more

seriously than the other groups of passengers; therefore, airlines should find means in

educating and increasing the attention of all passengers before departure safety

procedures.

49

Chapter Five

Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Discussion

Of all the participants who responded to the questionnaire, 31% consisted of

leisure travelers; 36% were frequent fliers; and 33% were aviation professionals. The

average age (mean and median) of the participants who responded to the questionnaire

was between 30-40 years old. Gender was equally represented by the participants. There

appeared to be a relationship between age and the level of being attentive to the pre-flight

safety briefing: 52% of the respondents of the age less than 20 years reported being not

paying attention to the pre-flight safety briefing. Reports from the same group of

participants for the importance of flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to were

similar to the previous percentage; 48% reported that the safety card is completely

useless. The older passengers (30-40 years) had different perception of the pre-flight

safety briefing as 43% reported that they are attentive to the safety briefing.

Overall, the older passengers were more likely to pay more attention to the safety

briefings. Forty percent were male and 65% were female who responded to the question

that they are leisure travelers. The majority were between 20-30 years old. Twenty three

percent of the respondents reported that they did not pay attention to the pre-flight safety

briefing. Thirty one percent of the respondents reported that they were somewhat

attentive to the pre-flight safety briefing. Forty three percent who responded to the

statement that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation of

instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants, agreed with the statement.

Thirteen percent were neutral (neither agree nor disagree), 11% disagreed, and 4%

50

strongly disagreed. Thirty three of the respondents reported that the safety card was

helpful; however, 19% of respondents reported that it was completely useless.

Thirty one percent of the respondents reported that passengers have strong

influence over their own survivability in case of an accident. Thirty eight percent reported

that passengers have some influence over their own survivability in case of an accident.

Fifteen percent of the respondents reported that the passengers have no influence at all

over their own survivability. Forty eight percent of the respondents reported that they

agreed that the pre-flight safety briefing is very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus

it should be allocated more time. Twenty five percent strongly agreed for the same. Forty

six percent agreed that some passengers have the unconscious belief that flight

injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay attention to the

safety briefings, while 29% strongly agreed for the same.

Forty two percent of the respondents agreed that the safety briefing presented by

flight attendants, clarity of the voice, adding interesting dimensions to safety briefings

which draws the passengers‟ attention, and minimizing the cabin distraction were major

factors which would motivate them as passengers to pay attention or stimulate their

interest during the safety briefings.

Twenty nine percent of the respondents believed that the main reason for some

passengers to ignore the safety briefing was that information seemed to be repetitive on

all flights. Thirty five percent of the respondents reported that the cabin distraction was

the main reason for some passengers to ignore the safety briefings.

One of the respondents‟ comments was that the airlines should make it mandatory

for all people who are flying to take some sort of safety test before issuing them a ticket.

51

Thirty eight percent were male and 62% were female who responded to the

question that they were frequent fliers. Sixty four percent were college/university

graduates. Thirty five percent were between 30-40 years old. Forty one percent reported

that they were attentive to the pre-flight safety briefing. Thirty one percent were

somewhat attentive and 17% were not attentive.

Sixty percent reported that some possible language barriers can result in the

misinterpretation of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants.

Thirty one of the respondents reported that minimizing the cabin distraction

would motivate the passengers to pay attention or stimulate their interest during the

safety briefing.

Some of the respondents reported in the comment field that the flight attendants

should interact more with passengers especially the exit seats passengers.

Seventy three percent were male and 27% were female in responding to the

question that they were aviation professional. Seventy eight percent of the respondents

were graduates. Thirty three percent were over 50 years old.

Forty five percent of the respondents to the question of how attentive they were

during the pre-flight safety briefing reported that they were very attentive. Thirty three

reported that they are attentive. Sixty five percent strongly agreed that language barriers

can result in the misinterpretation of instructions given to some passengers by flight

attendants. Sixty three percent of the respondents reported that the flight safety

card/pamphlet available on-board is very helpful. Seventy three percent of the

respondents reported that the passengers have strong influence over their own

survivability in case of an accident.

52

Sixty nine percent reported that they strongly agreed to the statement that the pre -

flight safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be

allocated more time.

Sixty seven percent strongly agreed that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings. Twenty nine percent reported that the reasons they

believed to influence passengers to ignore or not pay much attention to safety briefings is

the cabin distraction. Twenty two percent reported that the clarity of the voice is another

reason.

Sixty one percent of the respondents reported that the cabin distraction is the main

reason to influence passengers to ignore or not pay much attention to safety briefings.

One of the respondents‟ comments stated that the airline should make safety

briefing a mandatory procedure during landing as well.

Conclusions

The following are key points that emerged from this research study:

1. No matter how informative the safety briefing or the safety pamphlet on-board,

too many passengers did not pay attention to the safety demo.

2. Too many passengers believed that the information given during the pre-flight

safety briefing was repetitive in all the flights, and hence, they did not pay attention or

ignored it.

3. A high percentage of passengers were not familiar with the FAA safety

regulations.

53

4. A high percentage of passengers believed that listening to the pre-flight safety

briefing was embarrassing; hence, they were deliberately ignoring it.

5. Many passengers believed that it was useless to the pre-flight safety briefing

due to the fact that the commercial aviation is the safest mode of travel nowadays.

6. It was a remarkable point in this survey that the aviation professionals reported

a very high percentage in the acceptance of the importance of the pre-flight safety

briefing; in addition, their beliefs was too high regarding the influence of the passengers

in their own survivability in case of an accident.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of this research study, the following are evidence-based

recommendations that could potentially aid in providing competent flying practice:

1. The passenger‟s behavior is a very important and a crucial point to the issue of

safety, hence, the airlines should deploy techniques related to the human factors where

the passengers could be motivated to be safe by avoiding threatening them with a fear

they do not have.

2. In general, human beings crave acceptance by whatever group they choose to

belong to, hence, the airlines key objective should be to make the passengers feel that

they are really part of the “team”.

3. As group acceptance is a powerful motivator, any video safety presentation of

flight safety should be casted by role models who can influence the public.

Recommendation for Policy Implementation

The results of this study have yielded many interesting suggestions to future

implementations and policy reforms in the airlines field. For one, the engagement of the

54

passengers on-board a flight must be noted as positively related to passengers‟

attentiveness during safety briefings. The results indicated that most passengers feel as

though they are passive recipients of rather repetitive information. The researcher

proposes a more engaging approach to safety briefings on airlines, one that “hooks” the

passengers to become attentive during briefings. Secondly, passengers must be held

accountable to some degree and be more responsible to being acquainted with safety

procedures while flying.

Engaging the Passengers

The researcher proposes that airlines collaborate with role-model figures in their

regions to act as “ambassadors” of safety to passengers. For example, having American

president Barack Obama endorse safety and perhaps be involved in a short segment about

air safety which would be broadcasted on all North American airplanes, would arguably

gain the interest of a lot of passengers and would capture their interest in safety. The

endorsement of role models to products and services has long been proven to be

successful as evident by the success of multi-million dollar cosmetic, sports and clothing

industries. Using famous actors, models and even politicians, many companies such as

Nike, Hanes, Pepsi, and so forth, have and continue to enjoy success in attracting

consumers by having celebrities brand their products.

Mrs. Michelle Obama, the current First Lady of the White House, had a recent

appearance on the infamous children‟s television show Sesame Street to promote healthy

living for kids. Mrs. Obama and longtime Sesame Street resident Elmo chatted about the

importance of eating right, exercising regularly, and being a healthy and positive role

model for kids. Using the same concept, the researcher recommends that FAA and NTSB

55

should enlist the help of the First Lady or another influential public figure to talk to

children and their parents about the safety issue in the aviation industry. The same

concept could be implemented worldwide, meaning that each region of the world would

enlist the help of their own influential public figure in promoting safety issues on-board a

flight. As the First Lady and Elmo demonstrate, those in a position of influence should

use their power to promote healthy lifestyles, habits, and behaviors (Speers, 2009).

Holding passengers accountable for their own safety is another method that

airlines could use to influence passengers to become more aware of the required safety

procedures. Currently, there are no set rules or obligations which require passengers

boarding commercial flights to be aware of the safety rules.

Having passengers “pass” some sort of examination or brief test/questionnaire

about safety is one suggestion to holding passengers accountable. Other modes of travel,

such as vehicles, require all drivers to pass at least one test before being permitted to

operate alone. Therefore, drivers must be aware of the safety rules of the road or they

cannot legally drive. The same concept could be applied to the airlines field. Since

statistics have shown that most flights are indeed survivable, passengers must be

informed that the airplane crashes are mostly survivable and more importantly, that most

of the time, it is they who have the influence over their own safety. It is by promoting the

idea that well-informed passengers have a better chance of survival in case of a crash that

the airlines can begin to engage more passengers to become more attentive to safety

briefings.

56

Appendix A

Configurations of the Aircraft Types Represented in the NTSB2000 Study

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

Appendix B

Excerpts from the Federal Aviation Regulations Pertaining to Passengers’ Safety

Child Safety on Airplanes

Did you know the safest place for your little one during turbulence or an

emergency is in an approved child restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap?

A CRS is a hard-backed child safety seat that is approved by the government for

use in both motor vehicles and aircraft. FAA has also approved a harness-type restraint

appropriate for children weighing between 22 and 44 pounds. This type of device

provides an alternative to using a hard-backed seat and is approved only for use on

aircraft. It is not approved for use in motor vehicles.

FAA strongly urges parents and guardians to secure children in an appropriate

restraint based on weight and size. Keeping a child in a CRS or device during the flight is

the smart and right thing to do. FAA strongly urges parents and guardians to secure

children in an appropriate restraint based on weight and size. Keeping a child in a CRS or

device during the flight is the smart and right thing to do.

75

Cleared for Take-off

1. Make sure your CRS is government approved and has "This restraint is

certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft" printed on it. Otherwise, you may be

asked to check the CRS as baggage.

2. Make sure a harness-type restraint is approved and has "FAA approved in

Accordance with 14 CFR 21.305(d), Approved for Aircraft Use Only" on it.

3. Measure the width of your CRS. It should fit in most airplane seats if it is no

wider than 16 inches.

4. Ask your airline for a discounted fare. Many airlines now offer discounts of up

to 50 percent for children less than two years old. Buying a ticket for your child is the

only way to guarantee that you will be able to use a CRS.

5. Reserve adjoining seats. A CRS should be placed in a window seat so it will not

block the escape path in an emergency. Do not place a CRS in an exit row.

6. If you do not buy a ticket for your child, ask if your airline will allow you to use

an empty seat. If your airline's policy allows this, avoid the busiest days and times to

increase the likelihood of finding an empty seat next to you.

7. Ask your airline if they can provide a CRS for your child. If so, you may not be

permitted to bring your own CRS on board, and may need to check it as baggage.

8. Arrange for your airline to help you if you need help making a connecting flight.

Carrying a CRS, a child, and luggage through a busy airport can be challenging.

9. Pack a bag of toys and snacks to keep your child occupied during the flight.

76

Keep your Child Safe while you are in Air

While booster seats and harness vests enhance safety in vehicles, FAA prohibits

passengers from bringing these types of restraints on airplanes for use during taxi, take-

off and landing. These restraints should be checked as baggage. Also, supplemental lap

restraints or "belly belts" are not approved for use in both airplanes and vehicles in the

United States.

Passengers Safety Information

Evacuation

1. LEAVE YOUR POSSESSIONS BEHIND.

2. Stay low.

3. Proceed to the nearest front or rear exit - count the rows between your seat and

the exits.

4. Follow floor lighting to exit.

5. Jump feet first onto evacuation slide. Don't sit down to slide. Place arms

across your chest, elbows in, and legs and feet together. Remove high-heeled

shoes.

6. Exit the aircraft and clear the area.

7. Remain alert for emergency vehicles.

8. NEVER RETURN TO A BURNING AIRCRAFT.

Electronics on Board

1. The FCC and FAA ban cell phones for airborne use because its signals could

interfere with critical aircraft instruments. Radios and televisions are also prohibited.

77

2. Laptops and other personal electronic devices (PEDs) such as hand-held

computer games and tape or CD players are also restricted to use above 10,000 feet

owing to concerns they could interfere with aircraft instrumentation

Exit Row Seating

1. You must be physically capable and willing to perform emergency actions

when seated in emergency or exit rows. If you are not, ask for another seat.

2. Thoroughly familiarize yourself with the emergency evacuation techniques

outlined on the written safety instructions. Ask questions if instructions are unclear.

Fire or Smoke

1. Use a wet napkin or handkerchief over nose and mouth.

2. Move away from fire and smoke.

3. Stay low.

Safety Information

1. Review the passenger safety card before takeoff and landing.

2. Listen carefully to the safety briefing.

3. Be able to locate emergency exits both in front and behind you. Count the

rows between you and the nearest front and rear exits.

4. Locate the flotation device.

5. Make a mental plan of action in case of emergency.

Turbulence: Staying Safe (What is Turbulence?)

Turbulence is air movement that normally cannot be seen and often occurs

unexpectedly. It can be created by many different conditions, including atmospheric

78

pressure, jet streams, air around mountains, cold or warm weather fronts or

thunderstorms. Turbulence can even occur when the sky appears to be clear.

While turbulence is normal and happens often, it can be dangerous. Its bumpy ride can

cause passengers who are not wearing their seat belts to be thrown from their seats

without warning. But, by following the guidelines suggested on this site, you can help

keep yourself and your loved ones safe when traveling by air.

To keep you and your family as safe as possible during flight, FAA regulations

require passengers to be seated with their seat belts fastened:

1. When the airplane leaves the gate and as it climbs after take-off.

2. During landing and taxi.

3. Whenever the seat belt sign is illuminated during flight.

Why is it important to follow these safety regulations? Consider this:

1. In nonfatal accidents, in-flight turbulence is the leading cause of injuries to

airline passengers and flight attendants.

2. Each year, approximately 58 people in the United States are injured by

turbulence while not wearing their seat belts.

3. From 1980 through June 2004, U.S. air carriers had 198 turbulence accidents,

resulting in 266 serious injuries and three fatalities.

4. At least two of the three fatalities involved passengers who were not wearing

their seat belts while the seat belt sign was illuminated.

5. Generally, two-thirds of turbulence-related accidents occur at or above 30,000

feet.

79

Passengers with Disabilities

Over 40 million Americans have disabilities. The Air Carrier Access Act and the

DOT rule that implements it set out procedures designed to ensure that these individuals

have the same opportunity as anyone else to enjoy a pleasant flight. Here are some of the

major provisions of the rule.

1. A person may not be refused transportation on the basis of disability or be

required to have an attendant or produce a medical certificate, except in certain limited

circumstances specified in the rule.

2. Airlines must provide enplaning, deplaning and connecting assistance,

including both personnel and equipment. (Some small commuter aircraft may not be

accessible to passengers with severe mobility impairments. When making plans to fly to

small cities, such passengers should check on the aircraft type and its accessibility.)

3. Airport terminals and airline reservations centers must have TDD telephone

devices for persons with hearing or speech impairments.

4. Passengers with vision or hearing impairments must have timely access to the

same information given to other passengers at the airport or on the plane concerning gate

assignments, delayed flights, safety, etc.

5. New widebody aircraft must have a wheelchair- accessible lavatory and an on-

board wheelchair. Airlines must put an on-board wheelchair on most other flights upon a

passenger's request (48 hours notice required).

6. Air carriers must accept wheelchairs as checked baggage, and cannot require

passengers to sign liability waivers for them (except for pre-existing damage).

80

7. Most new airplanes must have movable armrests on half the aisle seats, and on-

board stowage for one folding passenger wheelchair.

8. Carriers must allow service animals to accompany passengers in the cabin, as

long as they don't block the aisle or other emergency evacuation route.

9. FAA safety rules establish standards for passengers allowed to sit in emergency

exit rows; such persons must be able to perform certain evacuation-related functions.

10. FAA rules also prohibit passengers from bringing their own oxygen. Most

airlines will provide aircraft-approved oxygen for a fee, but aren't required to.

11. Airlines may not charge for services that are required by this rule.

12. Airlines must make available a specially-trained Complaints Resolution

Official if a dispute arises. There must be a copy of the DOT rule at every airport.

It's wise to call the airline again before your trip to reconfirm any assistance that

you have requested.

Airline Safety

Air travel is so safe you'll probably never have to use any of the advice we're about

to give you. But if you ever do need it, this information could save your life. Airline

passengers usually take safety for granted when they board an airplane. They tune out the

crew's pre-flight announcements or reach for a magazine instead of the cards that show

how to open the emergency exit and what to do if the oxygen mask drops down. Because

of this, people are needlessly hurt or killed in accidents they could have survived. Every

time you board a plane, here are some things you should do:

1. Be reasonable about the amount of carry-on luggage that you bring. FAA rules

require airlines to limit the amount of carry-on baggage, and if you try to carry too much

81

with you, the crew may insist that you check in some items. (There is no universal limit;

it depends on the aircraft type and the passenger load.) A bag that is not properly stowed

could turn into an unguided missile in an accident or block the aisles during an

evacuation.

2. Be careful about what you put into the storage bins over your seat. Their doors

may pop open during an accident or even a hard landing, spilling their contents. Also,

passengers in aisle seats have been injured by heavy items falling out of these

compartments when people are stowing or retrieving belongings at the beginning or end

of a flight. Please be considerate of others and put hard, heavy items under the seat in

front of you; save the overhead bins for coats, hats, and small, soft bags.

3. As soon as you sit down, fasten and unfasten your seat belt a couple of times.

Watch how it works. There are several kinds of belts, and in an emergency you don't

want to waste time fumbling with the buckle.

4. Before take-off, there will be a briefing about safety procedures, pointing out

emergency exits and explaining seat belts, life vests and oxygen masks. Listen carefully

and if there's anything you don't understand ask the flight attendants for help.

The plastic card in the seat pocket in front of you will review some of the safety

information announced by the flight attendant. Read it. It also tells you about emergency

exits and how to find and use emergency equipment such as oxygen masks. As you are

reading the card look for your closest emergency exit, and count the number of rows

between yourself and this exit. Remember, the closest exit may be behind you. Have a

second escape route planned in case the nearest exit is blocked. This is important because

people sometimes head for the door they used to board the plane, usually in the front of

82

the first class cabin. This wastes time and blocks the aisles. Oxygen masks are not the

same on all planes. Sometimes they drop down in front of you. On some aircraft,

however, you'll have to pull them out of a compartment in front of your seat. In either

case, you must tug the plastic tube slightly to get the oxygen flowing. If you don't

understand the instructions about how the mask works, ask a flight attendant to explain it

to you. When the plane is safely in the air and has reached its cruising level, the pilot

usually turns off the "fasten seat belt" sign. He or she usually suggests that passengers

keep their belts buckled anyway during the flight in case the plane hits rough air. Just as

seat belts should always be worn in cars, they should always be fastened in airplanes.

If you are ever in an air accident, you should remember these things:

1. Stay calm.

2. Listen to the crew members and do what they say. The cabin crew's most

important job is to help you leave safely.

3. Before you try to open any emergency exit yourself, look outside the window. If

you see a fire outside the door, don't open it or the flames may spread into the cabin. Try

to use your alternate escape route.

4. Remember, smoke rises. So try to stay down if there's smoke in the cabin.

Follow the track of emergency lights embedded in the floor; they lead to an exit. If you

have a cloth, put it over your nose and mouth.

After an air accident, the National Transportation Safety Board always talks to

survivors to try to learn why they were able to make it through safely. They have

discovered that, as a rule, it does help to be prepared. Avoiding serious injury or

surviving an air accident is not just a matter of luck; it's also a matter of being informed

83

and thinking ahead. Are you one of those people who jumps up as soon as the plane

lands, gathers up coat, suitcase and briefcase, and gets ready to sprint while the plane is

still moving? If so, resist the urge. Planes sometimes make sudden stops when they are

taxiing to the airport gate, and passengers have been injured when they were thrown onto

a seat back or the edge of a door to an overhead bin. Stay in your seat with your belt

buckled until the plane comes to a complete halt and the 'fasten seat belt' sign is turned

off. Never smoke in airplane restrooms. Smoking was banned in all but the designated

smoking sections after an accident killed 116 people in only 4 minutes, apparently

because a careless smoker left a burning cigarette butt in the trash bin.

84

Appendix C

Pre-Flight Safety Briefing Questionnaire

My name is Nabil Diab and I am a researcher from the University of Everglades in

Florida, USA. In partial fulfillment of my Master‟s degree in aviation science, I am

carrying out a research project entitled “The Pre-Flight Safety Briefing: What are the

Reasons for some Passengers‟ Lack of Attentiveness during Pre-Flight Safety Briefing?”.

In an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of flight safety tools given by the flight

attendants during the different phases of a flight, I ask for your participation in

completing the following questionnaire. Please take the time to answer the questions.

Important changes may result from your input as we strive toward providing passengers

with the most effective and safest briefing possible. This questionnaire is voluntary and

any participant may withdraw without prejudice. In addition, the entire questionnaire‟s

data will be reported as aggregated data and participant identities will be protected.

Thank you in advance for your time and effort.

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male

Female

3. Education Level

High School Diploma

Undergraduate

Graduate

Post-graduate

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20

From 20-30

From 30-40

85

From 40-50

Over 50

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once

Two to Four Times

More than Four Times

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure

Frequent Flier

Aviation Professional

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive

I am attentive

I am somewhat attentive

I am somewhat not attentive

I am not attentive

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

86

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful

Helpful

Somewhat Helpful

Not Helpful

Completely Useless

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence

Some influence

Some influence at times or little influence at other times

Little influence

No influence at all

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

87

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants

Clarity of the voice

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention

Minimizing the cabin distraction

All the above

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction

Embarrassing

It is the same at all flights

Language barriers

All of the above

88

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

89

Appendix D

Survey Results

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 50%

Female 50%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 10%

Undergraduate 30%

Graduate 55%

Post-graduate 5%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 13%

From 20-30 25%

From 30-40 25%

From 40-50 21%

Over 50 15%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 17%

Two to Four Times 40%

More than Four Times 43%

90

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 31%

Frequent Flier 36%

Aviation Professional 33%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 24%

I am attentive 33%

I am somewhat attentive 26%

I am somewhat not attentive 4%

I am not attentive 13%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 40%

Agree 46%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 9%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree 1%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 38%

Helpful 30%

Somewhat Helpful 18%

Not Helpful 2%

91

Completely Useless 12%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 46%

Some influence 32%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 8%

Little influence 4%

No influence at all 10%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 42%

Agree 41%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 11%

Disagree 3%

Strongly Disagree 3%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 43%

Agree 38%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 8%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree 7%

92

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 3%

Clarity of the voice 19%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 12%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 29%

All the above 37%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 41%

Embarrassing 5%

It is the same at all flights 19%

Language barriers 4%

All of the above 31%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 11

* (290842) - The airlines should add some kind of new procedures in demonstrating

the safety briefing.

* (289265) - It's the same at all flights.

* (289231) - Safety briefing should be demonstrated by different languages

* (288527) - Safety briefing should be a mandatory procedure during landing too

* (288024) - The airlines should consider changing the current way of

93

demonstrating the safety briefing.

* (288001) - interacting more with the passengers for example of a passenger is

sitting in an exit row ask them to volunteer to see if they know the precautions needed

if an emergency were to happen.

* (287936) - update the videos and make the safety procedures more interesting

somehow

* (287935) - the safety cards are more confusing than helpful. Too many

distractions on the card. Each card should be personalized in accordance to where

each person is sitting! Flight attendants on flights I have been on usually give the

safety instructions while people are still standing or searching for their seats. How can

we listen with so many distractions/?

* (287933) - all flights I‟ve been on speak English and the native language of

wherever they are traveling to. So language barriers are definitely something to

consider!

* (287932) - make the briefings more interesting! They are often monotonous and

repetitive!

* (287930) - they should make it mandatory for all people who are flying to take

some sort of safety test before issuing them a ticket.

94

Questionnaire Results- Detailed

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Gender: Male

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 100%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 6%

Undergraduate 22%

Graduate 64%

Post-graduate 8%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 10%

From 20-30 17%

From 30-40 26%

From 40-50 22%

Over 50 26%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 12%

Two to Four Times 36%

More than Four Times 53%

95

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 25%

Frequent Flier 27%

Aviation Professional 48%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 29%

I am attentive 35%

I am somewhat attentive 22%

I am somewhat not attentive 4%

I am not attentive 10%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 45%

Agree 46%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 4%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree 1%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 41%

Helpful 35%

Somewhat Helpful 14%

Not Helpful 1%

Completely Useless 9%

96

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 58%

Some influence 26%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 4%

Little influence 5%

No influence at all 8%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 45%

Agree 40%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 8%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree 3%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 50%

Agree 32%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 5%

Disagree 5%

Strongly Disagree 8%

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

97

Briefing presented by flight attendants 1%

Clarity of the voice 22%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 10%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 30%

All the above 36%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 45%

Embarrassing 5%

It is the same at all flights 13%

Language barriers 4%

All of the above 32%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 5

* (290842) - The airlines should add some kind of new procedures in

demonstrating the safety briefing.

* (289265) - It's the same at all flights.

* (289231) - Safety briefing should be demonstrated by different languages

* (288527) - Safety briefing should be a mandatory procedure during landing

too

* (287933) - all flights I‟ve been on speak English and the native language of

wherever they are traveling to. So language barriers are definitely something to

98

consider!

99

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Gender: Female

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Female 100%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 12%

Undergraduate 38%

Graduate 47%

Post-graduate 3%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 16%

From 20-30 34%

From 30-40 25%

From 40-50 20%

Over 50 5%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 22%

Two to Four Times 44%

More than Four Times 34%

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

100

Leisure 38%

Frequent Flier 44%

Aviation Professional 18%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 20%

I am attentive 30%

I am somewhat attentive 30%

I am somewhat not attentive 4%

I am not attentive 16%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 36%

Agree 45%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 14%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree 1%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 35%

Helpful 25%

Somewhat Helpful 23%

Not Helpful 3%

Completely Useless 14%

101

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 35%

Some influence 38%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 11%

Little influence 4%

No influence at all 12%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 38%

Agree 42%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 15%

Disagree 1%

Strongly Disagree 4%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 37%

Agree 44%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 10%

Disagree 3%

Strongly Disagree 6%

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

102

Briefing presented by flight attendants 5%

Clarity of the voice 16%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 13%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 28%

All the above 38%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 37%

Embarrassing 5%

It is the same at all flights 24%

Language barriers 4%

All of the above 30%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 6

* (288024) - The airlines should consider changing the current way of

demonstrating the safety briefing.

* (288001) - interacting more with the passengers for example of a passenger is

sitting in an exit row ask them to volunteer to see if they know the precautions needed

if an emergency were to happen.

* (287936) - update the videos and make the safety procedures more interesting

somehow

* (287935) - the safety cards are more confusing than helpful. Too many

103

distractions on the card. Each card should be personalized in accordance to where

each person is sitting! Flight attendants on flights I have been on usually give the

safety instructions while people are still standing or searching for their seats. How can

we listen with so many distractions/?

* (287932) - make the briefings more interesting! They are often monotonous and

repetitive!

* (287930) - they should make it mandatory for all people who are flying to take

some sort of safety test before issuing them a ticket.

104

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Education Level: High School Diploma

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 33%

Female 67%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 100%

Undergraduate 0%

Graduate 0%

Post-graduate 0%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 93%

From 20-30 0%

From 30-40 7%

From 40-50 0%

Over 50 0%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 67%

Two to Four Times 33%

More than Four Times 0%

105

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 87%

Frequent Flier 13%

Aviation Professional 0%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 13%

I am attentive 7%

I am somewhat attentive 33%

I am somewhat not attentive 7%

I am not attentive 40%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 20%

Agree 40%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 20%

Disagree 20%

Strongly Disagree 0%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 20%

Helpful 7%

Somewhat Helpful 20%

Not Helpful 13%

106

Completely Useless 40%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 20%

Some influence 27%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 13%

Little influence 7%

No influence at all 33%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 20%

Agree 33%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 20%

Disagree 7%

Strongly Disagree 20%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 27%

Agree 27%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 20%

Disagree 7%

Strongly Disagree 20%

107

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 0%

Clarity of the voice 7%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 20%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 20%

All the above 53%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 40%

Embarrassing 7%

It is the same at all flights 27%

Language barriers 0%

All of the above 27%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 1

* (287935) - the safety cards are more confusing than helpful. Too many

distractions on the card. Each card should be personalized in accordance to where

each person is sitting! Flight attendants on flights I have been on usually give the

safety instructions while people are still standing or searching for their seats. How

can we listen with so many distractions?

108

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Education Level: Undergraduate

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 36%

Female 64%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 0%

Undergraduate 100%

Graduate 0%

Post-graduate 0%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 15%

From 20-30 64%

From 30-40 15%

From 40-50 4%

Over 50 2%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 28%

Two to Four Times 53%

More than Four Times 19%

109

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 52%

Frequent Flier 30%

Aviation Professional 17%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 19%

I am attentive 21%

I am somewhat attentive 36%

I am somewhat not attentive 6%

I am not attentive 17%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 26%

Agree 48%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 17%

Disagree 7%

Strongly Disagree 2%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 26%

Helpful 28%

Somewhat Helpful 34%

Not Helpful 0%

110

Completely Useless 13%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 34%

Some influence 38%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 13%

Little influence 4%

No influence at all 11%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 30%

Agree 47%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 19%

Disagree 2%

Strongly Disagree 2%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 28%

Agree 47%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 13%

Disagree 6%

Strongly Disagree 6%

111

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 6%

Clarity of the voice 17%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 11%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 28%

All the above 38%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 32%

Embarrassing 13%

It is the same at all flights 21%

Language barriers 2%

All of the above 32%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments : 3

* (288001) - interacting more with the passengers for example of a passenger is

sitting in an exit row ask them to volunteer to see if they know the precautions

needed if an emergency were to happen.

* (287936) - update the videos and make the safety procedures more interesting

somehow

* (287933) - all flights I‟ve been on speak English and the native language of

112

wherever they are traveling to. So language barriers are definitely something to

consider!

113

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Education Level: Graduate

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 57%

Female 43%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 0%

Undergraduate 0%

Graduate 100%

Post-graduate 0%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 0%

From 20-30 11%

From 30-40 36%

From 40-50 35%

Over 50 18%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 3%

Two to Four Times 34%

More than Four Times 62%

114

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 12%

Frequent Flier 41%

Aviation Professional 47%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 26%

I am attentive 44%

I am somewhat attentive 21%

I am somewhat not attentive 1%

I am not attentive 8%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 52%

Agree 44%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 3%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 1%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 48%

Helpful 33%

Somewhat Helpful 11%

Not Helpful 1%

115

Completely Useless 6%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 57%

Some influence 31%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 5%

Little influence 2%

No influence at all 5%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 52%

Agree 41%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 5%

Disagree 1%

Strongly Disagree 1%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 54%

Agree 38%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 3%

Disagree 1%

Strongly Disagree 3%

116

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 2%

Clarity of the voice 22%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 11%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 31%

All the above 33%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 46%

Embarrassing 1%

It is the same at all flights 16%

Language barriers 6%

All of the above 31%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 6

* (290842) - The airlines should add some kind of new procedures in

demonstrating the safety briefing.

* (289265) - It's the same at all flights.

* (289231) - Safety briefing should be demonstrated by different languages

* (288527) - Safety briefing should be a mandatory procedure during landing

too

117

* (288024) - The airlines should consider changing the current way of

demonstrating the safety briefing.

* (287930) - they should make it mandatory for all people who are flying to

take some sort of safety test before issuing them a ticket.

118

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Education Level: Post-graduate

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 75%

Female 25%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 0%

Undergraduate 0%

Graduate 0%

Post-graduate 100%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 0%

From 20-30 0%

From 30-40 13%

From 40-50 13%

Over 50 74%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 0%

Two to Four Times 38%

More than Four Times 62%

119

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 12%

Frequent Flier 50%

Aviation Professional 38%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 43%

I am attentive 29%

I am somewhat attentive 14%

I am somewhat not attentive 14%

I am not attentive 0%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 38%

Agree 63%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 0%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 0%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 38%

Helpful 50%

Somewhat Helpful 0%

Not Helpful 0%

Completely Useless 13%

120

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 50%

Some influence 13%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 0%

Little influence 25%

No influence at all 13%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 50%

Agree 13%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 25%

Disagree 13%

Strongly Disagree 0%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 50%

Agree 13%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 0%

Disagree 13%

Strongly Disagree 25%

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

121

Briefing presented by flight attendants 0%

Clarity of the voice 29%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 0%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 29%

All the above 43%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 43%

Embarrassing 0%

It is the same at all flights 14%

Language barriers 0%

All of the above 43%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 1

* (287932) - make the briefings more interesting! They are often monotonous and

repetitive!

122

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Please indicate the age group that you belong to: Less Than 20

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 38%

Female 62%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 67%

Undergraduate 33%

Graduate 0%

Post-graduate 0%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 100%

From 20-30 0%

From 30-40 0%

From 40-50 0%

Over 50 0%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 62%

Two to Four Times 38%

More than Four Times 0%

123

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 85%

Frequent Flier 15%

Aviation Professional 0%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 10%

I am attentive 10%

I am somewhat attentive 19%

I am somewhat not attentive 10%

I am not attentive 52%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 14%

Agree 38%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 24%

Disagree 19%

Strongly Disagree 5%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 14%

Helpful 10%

Somewhat Helpful 24%

Not Helpful 5%

Completely Useless 48%

124

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 19%

Some influence 24%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 14%

Little influence 5%

No influence at all 38%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 14%

Agree 33%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 24%

Disagree 10%

Strongly Disagree 19%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 19%

Agree 33%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 14%

Disagree 14%

Strongly Disagree 19%

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

125

Briefing presented by flight attendants 5%

Clarity of the voice 10%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 19%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 14%

All the above 52%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 29%

Embarrassing 19%

It is the same at all flights 24%

Language barriers 0%

All of the above 29%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 1

* (287933) - all flights I‟ve been on speak English and the native language of

wherever they are traveling to. So language barriers are definitely something to

consider!

126

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Please indicate the age group that you belong to: From 20-30

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 33%

Female 68%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 0%

Undergraduate 75%

Graduate 25%

Post-graduate 0%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 0%

From 20-30 100%

From 30-40 0%

From 40-50 0%

Over 50 0%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 28%

Two to Four Times 50%

More than Four Times 23%

127

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 46%

Frequent Flier 28%

Aviation Professional 26%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 33%

I am attentive 25%

I am somewhat attentive 33%

I am somewhat not attentive 5%

I am not attentive 5%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 40%

Agree 40%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 15%

Disagree 5%

Strongly Disagree 0%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 40%

Helpful 23%

Somewhat Helpful 33%

Not Helpful 0%

128

Completely Useless 5%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 45%

Some influence 40%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 8%

Little influence 3%

No influence at all 5%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 43%

Agree 43%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 15%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 0%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 40%

Agree 43%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 5%

Disagree 5%

Strongly Disagree 8%

129

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 5%

Clarity of the voice 18%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 10%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 28%

All the above 40%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 35%

Embarrassing 5%

It is the same at all flights 25%

Language barriers 3%

All of the above 33%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 4

* (288527) - Safety briefing should be a mandatory procedure during landing too

* (288024) - The airlines should consider changing the current way of

demonstrating the safety briefing.

* (288001) - interacting more with the passengers for example of a passenger is

sitting in an exit row ask them to volunteer to see if they know the precautions needed

if an emergency were to happen.

130

* (287930) - they should make it mandatory for all people who are flying to take

some sort of safety test before issuing them a ticket.

131

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Please indicate the age group that you belong to: From 30-40

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 50%

Female 50%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 3%

Undergraduate 18%

Graduate 78%

Post-graduate 3%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 0%

From 20-30 0%

From 30-40 100%

From 40-50 0%

Over 50 0%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 3%

Two to Four Times 50%

More than Four Times 48%

132

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 21%

Frequent Flier 49%

Aviation Professional 31%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 10%

I am attentive 43%

I am somewhat attentive 40%

I am somewhat not attentive 0%

I am not attentive 8%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 35%

Agree 63%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 3%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 0%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 30%

Helpful 50%

Somewhat Helpful 15%

Not Helpful 5%

133

Completely Useless 0%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 35%

Some influence 50%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 10%

Little influence 5%

No influence at all 0%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 33%

Agree 63%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 5%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 0%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 33%

Agree 57%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 5%

Disagree 3%

Strongly Disagree 3%

134

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 3%

Clarity of the voice 28%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 8%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 35%

All the above 28%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 45%

Embarrassing 0%

It is the same at all flights 15%

Language barriers 8%

All of the above 33%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 3

* (290842) - The airlines should add some kind of new procedures in demonstrating

the safety briefing.

* (287935) - the safety cards are more confusing than helpful. Too many

distractions on the card. Each card should be personalized in accordance to where

each person is sitting! Flight attendants on flights I have been on usually give the

safety instructions while people are still standing or searching for their seats. How can

135

we listen with so many distractions/?

* (287932) - make the briefings more interesting! They are often monotonous and

repetitive!

136

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Please indicate the age group that you belong to: From 40-50

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 52%

Female 48%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 0%

Undergraduate 6%

Graduate 91%

Post-graduate 3%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 0%

From 20-30 0%

From 30-40 0%

From 40-50 100%

Over 50 0%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 3%

Two to Four Times 33%

More than Four Times 64%

137

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 12%

Frequent Flier 52%

Aviation Professional 36%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 25%

I am attentive 50%

I am somewhat attentive 19%

I am somewhat not attentive 0%

I am not attentive 6%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 53%

Agree 47%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 0%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 0%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 52%

Helpful 33%

Somewhat Helpful 9%

Not Helpful 0%

138

Completely Useless 6%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 64%

Some influence 21%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 6%

Little influence 0%

No influence at all 9%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 61%

Agree 30%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 6%

Disagree 3%

Strongly Disagree 0%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 64%

Agree 24%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 9%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 3%

139

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 3%

Clarity of the voice 13%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 16%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 38%

All the above 31%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 50%

Embarrassing 3%

It is the same at all flights 19%

Language barriers 3%

All of the above 25%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 2

* (289231) - Safety briefing should be demonstrated by different languages

* (287936) - update the videos and make the safety procedures more interesting

somehow

140

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

Please indicate the age group that you belong to: Over 50

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 87%

Female 13%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 0%

Undergraduate 4%

Graduate 70%

Post-graduate 26%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 0%

From 20-30 0%

From 30-40 0%

From 40-50 0%

Over 50 100%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 0%

Two to Four Times 17%

More than Four Times 83%

141

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 4%

Frequent Flier 22%

Aviation Professional 74%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 43%

I am attentive 26%

I am somewhat attentive 9%

I am somewhat not attentive 9%

I am not attentive 13%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 57%

Agree 30%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 9%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 4%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 52%

Helpful 22%

Somewhat Helpful 9%

Not Helpful 0%

142

Completely Useless 17%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 70%

Some influence 9%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 0%

Little influence 13%

No influence at all 9%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 57%

Agree 22%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 13%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree 4%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 61%

Agree 22%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 9%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 9%

143

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 0%

Clarity of the voice 26%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 9%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 22%

All the above 43%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 43%

Embarrassing 4%

It is the same at all flights 9%

Language barriers 4%

All of the above 39%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 1

* (289265) - It's the same at all flights.

144

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

How many times do you travel per year? Once

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 35%

Female 65%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 38%

Undergraduate 50%

Graduate 12%

Post-graduate 0%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 50%

From 20-30 42%

From 30-40 4%

From 40-50 4%

Over 50 0%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 100%

Two to Four Times 0%

More than Four Times 0%

145

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 100%

Frequent Flier 0%

Aviation Professional 0%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 31%

I am attentive 12%

I am somewhat attentive 15%

I am somewhat not attentive 8%

I am not attentive 35%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 31%

Agree 27%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 19%

Disagree 19%

Strongly Disagree 4%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 31%

Helpful 19%

Somewhat Helpful 12%

Not Helpful 8%

146

Completely Useless 31%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 35%

Some influence 23%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 15%

Little influence 4%

No influence at all 23%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 31%

Agree 31%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 23%

Disagree 8%

Strongly Disagree 8%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 31%

Agree 35%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 15%

Disagree 8%

Strongly Disagree 12%

147

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 4%

Clarity of the voice 15%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 15%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 4%

All the above 62%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 19%

Embarrassing 4%

It is the same at all flights 38%

Language barriers 0%

All of the above 38%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 4

* (288024) - The airlines should consider changing the current way of demonstrating

the safety briefing.

* (287935) - the safety cards are more confusing than helpful. Too many

distractions on the card. Each card should be personalized in accordance to where

each person is sitting! Flight attendants on flights I have been on usually give the

safety instructions while people are still standing or searching for their seats. How can

148

we listen with so many distractions/?

* (287933) - all flights I‟ve been on speak English and the native language of

wherever they are traveling to. So language barriers are definitely something to

consider!

* (287930) - they should make it mandatory for all people who are flying to take

some sort of safety test before issuing them a ticket.

149

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

How many times do you travel per year? Two to Four Times

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 44%

Female 56%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 7%

Undergraduate 40%

Graduate 48%

Post-graduate 5%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 13%

From 20-30 32%

From 30-40 32%

From 40-50 17%

Over 50 6%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 0%

Two to Four Times 100%

More than Four Times 0%

150

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 37%

Frequent Flier 61%

Aviation Professional 2%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 6%

I am attentive 33%

I am somewhat attentive 41%

I am somewhat not attentive 3%

I am not attentive 16%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 19%

Agree 66%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 11%

Disagree 2%

Strongly Disagree 2%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 16%

Helpful 40%

Somewhat Helpful 30%

Not Helpful 2%

151

Completely Useless 13%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 25%

Some influence 48%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 10%

Little influence 6%

No influence at all 11%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 21%

Agree 60%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 11%

Disagree 3%

Strongly Disagree 5%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 24%

Agree 56%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 10%

Disagree 3%

Strongly Disagree 8%

152

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 3%

Clarity of the voice 21%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 10%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 33%

All the above 33%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 33%

Embarrassing 11%

It is the same at all flights 21%

Language barriers 5%

All of the above 30%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 5

* (290842) - The airlines should add some kind of new procedures in demonstrating

the safety briefing.

* (289265) - It's the same at all flights.

* (288001) - interacting more with the passengers for example of a passenger is

sitting in an exit row ask them to volunteer to see if they know the precautions needed

if an emergency were to happen.

153

* (287936) - update the videos and make the safety procedures more interesting

somehow

* (287932) - make the briefings more interesting! They are often monotonous and

repetitive!

154

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

How many times do you travel per year? More than Four Times

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 60%

Female 40%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 0%

Undergraduate 13%

Graduate 79%

Post-graduate 7%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 0%

From 20-30 13%

From 30-40 28%

From 40-50 31%

Over 50 28%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 0%

Two to Four Times 0%

More than Four Times 100%

155

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 0%

Frequent Flier 25%

Aviation Professional 75%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 37%

I am attentive 40%

I am somewhat attentive 16%

I am somewhat not attentive 3%

I am not attentive 3%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 63%

Agree 34%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 3%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 0%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 62%

Helpful 25%

Somewhat Helpful 10%

Not Helpful 0%

156

Completely Useless 3%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 71%

Some influence 21%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 3%

Little influence 3%

No influence at all 3%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 66%

Agree 26%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 7%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 0%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 66%

Agree 24%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 3%

Disagree 3%

Strongly Disagree 4%

157

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 3%

Clarity of the voice 19%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 12%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 34%

All the above 31%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 57%

Embarrassing 0%

It is the same at all flights 9%

Language barriers 4%

All of the above 30%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 2

* (289231) - Safety briefing should be demonstrated by different languages

* (288527) - Safety briefing should be a mandatory procedure during landing too

158

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

What category most represents you as an air traveler? Leisure

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 40%

Female 60%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 27%

Undergraduate 50%

Graduate 21%

Post-graduate 2%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 35%

From 20-30 38%

From 30-40 17%

From 40-50 8%

Over 50 2%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 52%

Two to Four Times 48%

More than Four Times 0%

159

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 100%

Frequent Flier 0%

Aviation Professional 0%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 19%

I am attentive 23%

I am somewhat attentive 31%

I am somewhat not attentive 4%

I am not attentive 23%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 30%

Agree 43%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 13%

Disagree 11%

Strongly Disagree 4%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 25%

Helpful 33%

Somewhat Helpful 19%

Not Helpful 4%

160

Completely Useless 19%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 31%

Some influence 38%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 10%

Little influence 6%

No influence at all 15%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 25%

Agree 48%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 17%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree 6%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 29%

Agree 46%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 13%

Disagree 6%

Strongly Disagree 6%

161

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 6%

Clarity of the voice 15%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 13%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 25%

All the above 42%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 35%

Embarrassing 2%

It is the same at all flights 29%

Language barriers 0%

All of the above 33%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 7

* (290842) - The airlines should add some kind of new procedures in

demonstrating the safety briefing.

* (289265) - It's the same at all flights.

* (287936) - update the videos and make the safety procedures more

interesting somehow

* (287935) - the safety cards are more confusing than helpful. Too many

162

distractions on the card. Each card should be personalized in accordance to

where each person is sitting! Flight attendants on flights I have been on usually

give the safety instructions while people are still standing or searching for their

seats. How can we listen with so many distractions/?

* (287933) - all flights I‟ve been on speak English and the native language of

wherever they are traveling to. So language barriers are definitely something to

consider!

* (287932) - make the briefings more interesting! They are often monotonous

and repetitive!

* (287930) - they should make it mandatory for all people who are flying to

take some sort of safety test before issuing them a ticket.

163

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

What category most represents you as an air traveler? Frequent Flier

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 38%

Female 62%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 4%

Undergraduate 25%

Graduate 64%

Post-graduate 7%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 5%

From 20-30 20%

From 30-40 35%

From 40-50 31%

Over 50 9%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 0%

Two to Four Times 69%

More than Four Times 31%

164

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 0%

Frequent Flier 100%

Aviation Professional 0%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 7%

I am attentive 41%

I am somewhat attentive 31%

I am somewhat not attentive 4%

I am not attentive 17%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 27%

Agree 60%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 11%

Disagree 2%

Strongly Disagree 0%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 27%

Helpful 33%

Somewhat Helpful 25%

Not Helpful 2%

165

Completely Useless 13%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 38%

Some influence 36%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 9%

Little influence 4%

No influence at all 13%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 33%

Agree 49%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 11%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree 4%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 36%

Agree 45%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 9%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 9%

166

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 0%

Clarity of the voice 22%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 11%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 31%

All the above 35%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 30%

Embarrassing 11%

It is the same at all flights 26%

Language barriers 6%

All of the above 28%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 1

* (288001) - interacting more with the passengers for example if a passenger is

sitting in an exit row ask them to volunteer to see if they know the precautions

needed if an emergency were to happen.

167

People who responded to the following question and answer - answered the rest of the

questions in the following manner

What category most represents you as an air traveler? Aviation Professional

1. Name (optional)

2. Gender

Male 73%

Female 27%

3. Education Level

High School Diploma 0%

Undergraduate 16%

Graduate 78%

Post-graduate 6%

4. Please indicate the age group that you belong to:

Less Than 20 0%

From 20-30 20%

From 30-40 24%

From 40-50 24%

Over 50 33%

5. How many times do you travel per year?

Once 0%

Two to Four Times 2%

More than Four Times 98%

168

6. What category most represents you as an air traveler?

Leisure 0%

Frequent Flier 0%

Aviation Professional 100

%

7. How attentive do you believe you are during the pre-flight safety briefing?

I am very attentive 45%

I am attentive 33%

I am somewhat attentive 18%

I am somewhat not attentive 4%

I am not attentive 0%

8. Do you believe that some possible language barriers can result in the misinterpretation

of instructions given to some passengers by flight attendants?

Strongly agree 65%

Agree 33%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 2%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 0%

9. How helpful do you believe the flight safety card/pamphlet available on-board to be?

Very Helpful 63%

Helpful 24%

Somewhat Helpful 12%

169

Not Helpful 0%

Completely Useless 2%

10. If passengers ever encounter an accident during a flight, how much influence do you

believe that they have over their own survivability?

A lot of influence 73%

Some influence 20%

Some influence at times or little influence at other times 4%

Little influence 4%

No influence at all 0%

11. How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statement: "The pre -flight

safety briefing is a very crucial for the safety of all on-board, thus it should be allocated

more time."

Strongly Agree 69%

Agree 25%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 6%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree 0%

12. How strongly do you agree/disagree that some passengers have the unconscious

belief that flight injury/accidents can never happen to them, thus they do not need to pay

attention to the safety briefings?

Strongly Agree 67%

Agree 24%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 2%

Disagree 4%

170

Strongly Disagree 4%

13. What factors would personally motivate you to pay attention or stimulate your

interest during the safety briefing?

Briefing presented by flight attendants 4%

Clarity of the voice 22%

Adding something to the briefing which draws my attention 10%

Minimizing the cabin distraction 29%

All the above 35%

14. What are some of the reasons that you believe influence passengers to ignore or not

pay much attention to safety briefings?

Cabin distraction 61%

Embarrassing 0%

It is the same at all flights 2%

Language barriers 4%

All of the above 33%

15. Do you have any other suggestions or comments related to improving the efficiency

of delivering safety procedures?

Total Number of Comments 2

* (289231) - Safety briefing should be demonstrated by different languages

* (288527) - Safety briefing should be a mandatory procedure during landing

too

171

References

Betancourt, J. (2008). Helping children develop healthy habits through fun and play.

Retrieved May 22, 2009, from

http://www.sesameworkshop.org/initiatives/health/healthyhabits/

Boeing. (2008, July). Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accident.

World operations, 1959–2007. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from

http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

Churchill, G. A. (1991). Marketing research: Methodological foundation (5th ed.). New

York: The Dryden Press.

Civil Aviation Advisory Publication. (2004). Passenger safety information:

Guidelines on content and standard of safety information to be provided to

passengers by aircraft operators. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from

http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/253_2.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2003). Passenger safety information briefing and

briefing cards. Advisory circular (AC) 121-24C. Retrieved Nov 29, 2008, from

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/%200

/2026259a7a7247f986256d7a00508ba7/$FILE/AC121-24C.pdf

Flight Safety Foundation. (2000, July-August). Cabin crew must capture passengers’

attention in predeparture safety briefings, 35(4).

Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application

(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

172

Hair, T. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data

analysis: With readings (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

International Civil Aviation Organization. (2006). Safety management manual. Retrieved

March 13, 2009, from http://www.icao.int/fsix/_Library/SMM-9859_1ed_en.pdf

Koufteros, X. A. (1999). Testing a model of pull production: A paradigm for

manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Operations

Management, 17, 467–488.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. London: Sage

Publications.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1985). Airline passenger safety education:

A review of methods used to present safety information. Retrieved November 6,

2008, from http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1985/A85_105_107A.pdf

National Transportation Safety Board. (2000). Safety study: Emergency evacuation of

commercial airplanes. Retrieved June 11, 2009, from

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/SS0001.pdf

National Transportation Safety Board. (2008). Aviation accident database & synopses.

Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

173

Speers, S. (2009). Michelle Obama teams up with Elmo for healthy lifestyle PSA. Retrieved

May 22, 2009, from

http://ruddsoundbites.typepad.com/rudd_sound_bites/2009/05/michelle-obama-

teams-up-with-elmo-for-healthy-lifestyle-psa.html

Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own

Management Decision. Journal of Management History, 39(7), 551-556.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada. (1995). A safety study of evacuations of large,

passenger-carrying aircraft, (Report SA9501). Quebec, Canada.