As previously noted, cabin crew are an integral part of the safety chain, and their role in communicating with the flight crew is paramount. As the flight crew’s eyes, ears, and nose in the cabin, the cabin crew should always inform the flight crew of anything unusual or worrisome, as this reporter did.

All large aircraft must be designed and certified to withstand lightning strikes without sustaining significant damage to their structure or effects on their systems that would adversely affect safety for the remainder of the flight. When lightning strikes an aircraft, a specific process must be applied to detect any damage caused by the strike, evaluate the damage, and perform the necessary repair before returning the aircraft back into service.

There are several types of post lightning strike inspection depending on the severity and evidence of a lightning strike. This enables flexibility depending on airline operations, time constraints, human resources, availability of ground support equipment, etc. Two and a half hours may be sufficient to carry out the inspection, although even the preliminary inspections still would likely have required a “Cherry Picker”. For more information on lightning strikes and aircraft, click on this link Lightning Strikes | Safety First

The reporter describes a ‘sudden strong acrid smell’ – Ozone and nitrogen oxides created by ionized air produce a piercing odour. Lightning’s odour can be noticed immediately after a strike occurs and resembles the scent of burning electrical equipment. Lighting Has a Smell, And The Science Behind It Is Beautiful : ScienceAlert

A similar report to this was received in 2022 and can be reviewed here CC5862 – CHIRP

Operators are continuously seeking ways to improve efficiency and improve the onboard product/service for their customers but please do not allow yourself to be pressurised into not completing your safety checks properly.

The briefing is an opportunity to address expectations to crew, explain that although there are 5 minutes less on this route, continue to be thorough but expeditious with onboard checks and that safety must come first if there is not time to complete service elements.

‘Pressure’ is one of the most frequently reported key-issue safety concerns to CHIRP. Be it commercial pressure, time pressure and/or peer pressure whether the pressure is real or perceived, the results are frequently the same, in this reporter’s case it may have caused anxiety, a fear of something being missed and poor CRM.

As part of a ‘Just Culture’ crew must feel empowered to  communicate back to their operator if something isn’t working without the fear of being penalised as reports play a vital role in highlighting challenges allowing changes to be made if required. The company must believe that this reduction in time is achievable, and without crew reporting back to their operator that it isn’t (or even that it is, positive reporting is also encouraged) then the operator will not have the data to conclude that in fact the reduction in time is not achievable.

It is for the SCCM and their crew to make their best efforts to meet sales targets however, if there is a safety reason that the SCCM has assessed on the day that means that these targets cannot be achieved regardless of service requirements, cabin crew must prioritise safety over service and ensure that any deviations from the operator’s service expectations are documented and reported back to the operator.

All cabin crew should feel empowered to report to their operators, reporting is not just down to the SCCM. Reporting that a service element has not been achieved and explaining why helps the operator build a picture of what’s actually happening online.

Manual handling techniques must be adhered to, they have been designed to minimise the risk of injury to crew.

If there is a delay to departure (pax/checks/baggage/PRM/catering etc) then it is important to document exactly why and ensure that effective communication is set up between the flight crew, cabin crew and the ground crew. Crew can feel under pressure especially at busy times such as boarding, but, as this reporter did, it is important to remember that safety must remain the number one priority.

There are numerous issues that could have resulted as a consequence of the crew member closing the door when instructed to do so by the ground staff. Most staff have KPIs to meet and it’s not unusual that they too can feel pressurised on a busy flight.

If you experience behaviours such as those reported here, please ensure that you report these concerns back to your operator, this will give your operator the oversight required to be able to follow up a concern and monitor whether this is a regular occurrence at a specific outstation or base.

CHIRP Cabin Crew Comment

Good communication between cabin crew and flight crew isn’t just a nice-to-have — it’s a safety essential. Cabin crew are an integral part of the safety chain, and their role in communicating with the flight crew is paramount. Whether it’s a passenger who has drunk too much, ice on the wing or as in this situation, a problem with the rear steps, anything that happens out of the norm, no matter how small, must be communicated to the flight crew as soon as possible. The flight crew expect the cabin crew to communicate any concerns to them.

Unfortunately, the incident described in this report highlights a significant lapse in that communication and despite the potential for structural damage (any impact to the aircraft structure needs immediate attention), the initial cabin crew member didn’t escalate the issue to the SSCM or the flight crew. What’s further alarming is that the SCCM when advised by the passenger also didn’t report these concerns to the flight crew which should have happened immediately. Assuming “it’s fine” is a risk no one should take.

CHIRP Flight Crew Comment

It’s really disappointing that an important safety message didn’t reach the flight crew until after the flight, especially when it was communicated clearly by someone who identified themselves as a credible witness. The reporter identifies the importance of effective communication between all crew, including ground handlers. The captain and first officer are unlikely to know directly of such incidents owing to the location of the rear steps and the busy cockpit work activities that are needed before push back and departure. Therefore, it is at times like these that teamwork is vital, and it is the eyes and ears of the cabin crew and ground handling teams that the flight deck relies upon. In a situation like this, cabin crew are also strongly encouraged to tell ground handlers and their supervisors, as well as communicating with the flight deck.

As Lieutenant General David Lindsay Morrison, AO, who served as Chief of Army in the Australian Army famously said: “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept”. In other words, if you allow something unacceptable to occur, you’re essentially setting a precedent for it to happen again. All credit to the reporter who was ‘off duty’ but still took the time to raise a valid safety concern, repeatedly and tenaciously, and then report it afterwards for the benefit of all.

For this incident, it was an observant passenger, who happened to be an aviation professional, that raised the alarm. The ground handling team in this circumstance were ultimately responsible for the safe positioning of the steps and consequently duty bound to report the incident to the captain as soon as it occurred. There is some doubt as to whether it had been wind that had caused the steps to contact the door, as commented by the reporter, but it may also have been a result of the aircraft settling after being loaded with fuel, passengers and bags. Irrespective of cause, the incident should have been reported immediately to the captain so that they could arrange for a qualified engineer’s inspection to be carried out.

The reporter suggests that the ground handling team witnessed the incident, but they don’t appear to have reported it to cabin crew or flight deck. The ground handlers are a critical part of the safety team and they have a vital responsibility. It is never acceptable to just ‘assume it will be ok’, whatever the pressure to get the aircraft off on time.

The cabin crew were also made aware of the incident, but did not pass on the information provided by the concerned passenger to the flight deck. The reason for this isn’t apparent on this occasion. It is appreciated that if every safety concern made by every passenger was passed unfiltered to the flight deck, then not many flights would take off on time. However, cabin crew are encouraged not to dismiss passengers concerns out of hand, rather to use best judgement in deciding what information to onwards transmit, based on what happened and the qualification and understanding of the person making the raising the alarm. It’s always worth putting yourselves in the shoes of the captain and considering ‘given the source, would I want to know this information?’; if there’s doubt, there’s no doubt and the information can always be discounted if necessary. Potentially it was a lack of confidence or sense of perceived pressure to achieve an on-time departure by cabin crew or ground handlers; this is covered by our CHIRP Comment above.

Finally, on learning of the incident after the flight, as well as arranging for the door to be checked for damage, it is hoped that the captain of the aircraft submitted an internal ASR highlighting the breaks in the chain on this occasion that led to safety critical information not being onwards communicated.