Shifting relationship in a service situation:

1. Shifting relationship in a service situation: Management of an emergency evacuation by cabin crew personnel Stéphane Deharvengt Due to unexpected difficulties, Stéphane Deharvengt was unable to present this material at the Aircraft Fire & Cabin Safety Conference in November 2004.

2. direction générale de l’aviation civile service de la formation aéronautique et du contrôle technique November 2004 Shifting relationshipin a service situation :Management of an emergency evacuationby the Cabin Crew Personnel_____Stéphane Deharvengtstephane.deharvengt@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

3. direction générale de l’aviation civile Service situation : Management of emergency evacuation November 2004 ProblemActivity of cabin crew during emergency evacuation Theoretical approachRelation of service, risk situations Experimental situation Simulations of evacuation carried out at Cranfield ResultsInfluence of context on pax-CC behaviour Follow-up Content

4. Problem statement • Accidents analysis question the handling of emergency evacuation by CC • Operational, technical and social environment are constantly in evolution Research question What are the characteristics that influence the activity of the CC and which determine the outcome of the evacuation

5. Reduction of the problem for this research • Analysis of one type of emergency evacuation, • Focus on the nature, evolution and management of the relation pax-CC in an emergency situation. The work done lays the foundation for future more complete research activity

6. Findings from other research • Sociology : The CC “collective”. • Cranfield-UK/CAMI-US : Assertive/non assertive CC, Competitive/cooperative behaviour of pax.

7. Theory Combining two fields : • Relationship between professionals and general public : relation of service. • Note: crowd behaviour theories are difficult to test with available simulations tools • Management of risk situations.

8. Theory Relation of service • Relevant aspects • Investigation of the public query : construction of the query in situation. • Usage of the representation of the interlocutor • Time in the relation of service. • Role of co-workers to manage operational et organisational constraints. • Discussion • Valid for face to face, with emphasis on language communications • Quel statut pour l’interlocuteur du professionnel ?

9. TheoryManagement of risk situation • Concepts • Stress, emotion, panic • Crowd behaviour, evacuations • Management by professionals • Managing time • Training • Organisational structure • Discussion • Different types of training are possible • Potentialities to develop a « style »

10. Hypothesis • Constraints of the situation will influence evacuation management • Constraints of the situation • Reliance on group resources • Capacities of CC to convey relevant information to Pax • Behaviour of Pax • Management of the evacuation

11. Experimentations • Emergency evacuations with Cranfield simulator • 6 CC from a large European airline • 181 pax volunteers • Trial characteristics • Scenario of unprepared emergency evacuation (e.g. aborted take-off) • CC task : manage the doors and evacuate people and themselves • Variable : 2 doors are available (not known to CC or pax) • 1 cabin scenario is analysed

12. Fermée Fermée puis ouverte Fermée Ouverte puis fermée Fermée Ouverte Cranfield Simulator

13. Analysis technique • Semi-directed interviews with each CC after each evacuation • Questionnaires filled in by each passenger after each evacuation

14. Results • CC interviews

15. Results • Pax questionnaires • Can we identify groups of passengers with similar characteristics ?

16. Questions used to identify groups of pax • Positive or negative perception of the evacuation • Passengers helped or not, impaired or not during the evacuation • Passengers helped or not by CC and guided or not by CC • Number of changes of direction during the evacuation

17. 3 4 2 1 Groups of passengers 1 : Guided, not helped, no change in direction, easy/quick evacuation 2 : Guided, not helped, no change in direction 3 : Not guided, 2 + changes in direction, slow/difficult evacuation, impaired 4 : Slow/difficult evacuation, rather negative, at least 1 change in direction Others : Rather negative, at least 1 change in direction

18. Cross perception(CC as they perceive themselves and passengers perception of CC)

19. Discussion • Experimental biases • Not a life threatening situation • No element of surprise, except door configuration • Limitations of the simulator (no slide) But : • Challenging scenario : boarding, noise,... • Representative environment (cabin and smoke) • Actual airline procedures • No previous evacuation for this batch of passengers

20. Discussion • Sense of time (of the evacuation) • Time is not directly perceived by CC • Using passenger perception allows the reconstitution of the dynamics of the evacuation (by grouping passengers)

21. Discussion • Information on door status • Is crucial for CC • Influences relationship between CC and pax : • CC remain (or lose the status of) a resource in pax representation = dynamic construction of the representation of the other actors in the situation • Visual and audio constraints prevent group strategies • “hear” their counterparts and “see” them

22. DiscussionConclusion • Situation characteristics have an important influence over CC activity, their relationship with pax and potential for developing strategies • Relationship of service for emergency evacuation : • Convey the relevant information (e.g. which exit to use ?) • If not, deterioration of CC representation of the pax and Pax representation of the CC (consequence : more difficulty to manage the evacuation). • Reliance on each other and constraints due to the emergency situation.

23. Future work PhD Title : Managing emergency situations Tools and constraints for evacuating general public • What can be learnt from knowledge of emergency situation management in other fields ? • What are the constraints on the activity for people which cannot develop actual competencies through training or actual practice ? • Which tools respect the ecological way of handling the situation ?

24. MERCI

25. The Fourth Triennial International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference