How representative of the average passenger are the 20 students of a class of aviation safety/airmanship and cockpit procedures?

Your question is irrelevant. The students are bona fide human beings with their own likes and dislikes etc. It doesn't take much intelligence to categorise the videos.

Bear in mind that the information in these videos is potentially life saving. So if it is presented "in the wrong way" a first time flyer for example would miss key information.

The BA video was chosen because of its simplicity. It sticks to the facts and uses good "instructional" clear English. Also the simplistic cartoon and subtitles were thought to be of benefit to non English speakers.

 

The CEBU Pacific video and South West airlines were regarded as mere entertainment. The first of these in fact the music is quite loud and frequently obscures the safety information. The Rap video would be totally unintelligable to those who don't appreciate rap. And again, key information is totally lost.

 

Both Air New Zealand videos were again regarded as entertainment. The Bear Grylls one being regarded as a totally not serious attempt in the giving of life saving instructions.

 

The Thomson video whilst well presented carried little authority. Delta and American came second and third with Virgin America being the best of the worst.

 

Non of my students are "mother tongue" English speakers so their choice is particularly relevant in my view as there are quite a few passengers out there who don't speak English or speak only a little.

I decided to put the videos to the ultimate test. I have around 20 students on an aviation safety/airmanship and cockpit procedures course. All them speak English to ICAO level 5-6. So their understanding is perfect. Each video was presented and they were asked to note the pros and cons. Also from the point of view of a first time flier and frequent flier.

 

The unanimous decision was for the BA video. Their reasoning was that the information being given is potentially life saving and that that video was done in the correct manner by keeping people's attention with the use of language, simple cartoon and subtitles for those passengers who speak little or no English. They also pointed out that such important information does not need "dressing up". Because by doing just that the message becomes less clear. They did like the American Airways approach but felt it was disjointed.

Did they view the American Airlines video? I find that one to be straightforward but not as dull as the BA video.

Your question is irrelevant. The students are bona fide human beings with their own likes and dislikes etc. It doesn't take much intelligence to categorise the videos.

 

By using a sample population composed entirely of people with a similar special interest, the resulting likes and dislikes displayed will be skewed compared to those you may obtain from a truly random sampling of people.

By using a sample population composed entirely of people with a similar special interest, the resulting likes and dislikes displayed will be skewed compared to those you may obtain from a truly random sampling of people.

So who's interests are skewed the most? These videos were produced by/for the representative airlines. Now, if I'm not mistaken (you can correct me if I'm wrong) airlines I believe have something of a vested interest in aviation. qed.

Did they view the American Airlines video? I find that one to be straightforward but not as dull as the BA video.

Yes they did. And they thought it a good idea to show different "trades". But the feeling was it made the video disjointed.

This is why in the end that for some "the most boring" video was regarded as the best. Not every passenger is a mother tongue speaker either English/American or Antipodean. Therefore the potential life saving information has to be kept simple and clear.

So who's interests are skewed the most? These videos were produced by/for the representative airlines. Now, if I'm not mistaken (you can correct me if I'm wrong) airlines I believe have something of a vested interest in aviation. qed.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. My last post was to point out that polling the opinions of only aviation people will give results that are probably going to be different from the results of a group of people with random backgrounds.

 

The interest of the airline should be that of getting people to understand the message they intend. Which is the hardest part of communicating. Communicating depends on what you say as much as what the other person hears and understands. Unfortunately, what people hear and understand is going to be influenced by background, experiences, and expectations. The resulting understanding may be completing different than what the speaker intended because of that. So if you ask a group of people with similar background, experiences and expectations about a presentation, you are probably going to get one type of answer. If you asked a truly random set of people what they got out of that presentation, the answers you get may be entirely different than what you expect and what you got from your class of aviation students.

 

The interest of the airline should be that of getting people to understand the message they intend. Which is the hardest part of communicating. Communicating depends on what you say as much as what the other person hears and understands. Unfortunately, what people hear and understand is going to be influenced by background, experiences, and expectations. The resulting understanding may be completing different than what the speaker intended because of that. So if you ask a group of people with similar background, experiences and expectations about a presentation, you are probably going to get one type of answer. If you asked a truly random set of people what they got out of that presentation, the answers you get may be entirely different than what you expect and what you got from your class of aviation students.

 

Well, I'm meeting the big boss of Michelin on Friday. Let's see what he has to say.

Have you asked a totally "random" group of people? What do they say? If you do make sure not all of them are English mother tongue speakers.

Well, I'm meeting the big boss of Michelin on Friday. Let's see what he has to say.

Have you asked a totally "random" group of people? What do they say? If you do make sure not all of them are English mother tongue speakers.

Yes, you can certainly ask the CEO of a major corporation how they garner feedback on their messaging. You can ask whether they prefer to ask car aficionados how their advertising rings or would they rather ask consumers of varied backgrounds.

 

Well, I do step out of the flightdeck before each of my flights to make the welcome speech in front of the 100 or so random people sitting in the cabin. And each passenger does get an email survey after the flight, with some of the questions on how the pilots made them feel, so yes, there is actually somewhere a statistical analysis on how I get my welcome message across. I haven't seen it and I haven't asked for it yet. The only feedback I've gotten so far are smiles, nods, and blank stares.

 

 

Both Air New Zealand videos were again regarded as entertainment. The Bear Grylls one being regarded as a totally not serious attempt in the giving of life saving instructions.

 

I agree.....ANZ certainly seems to be using these important messages as part of their marketing campaigns instead of a flight safety video. For a first time flyer I am certain they wouldn't be able to follow them properly, especially the Bear Grylls one.

I got mix feelings about this one :lol:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtyfiPIHsIg

You know with the FAA loosing up restrictions on use of electronic devices in flight, this safety video is already obsolete :LOL: