> and what kind of response the pilot expects from the passengers. and > only made things worse by making everyone underestimate the severity of the situation

> and what kind of response the pilot expects from the passengers. and > only made things worse by making everyone underestimate the severity of the situation. The point is that there is absolutely no action that the passengers can take the influence the result in a good way, and plenty of actions that the passenger can take to influence the result in a bad way. At this point, the pilot is thinking that he's trying to get the airplane working again, and if he doesn't he'll have to ditch somewhere and evacuate the plane. If everybody is calm and follows the orders of the stewardesses, the chances of survival are much higher than if people freak out and try doing actions to maximize their own personal survival. Again, the main point is that your credibility after this accident is of little import. And you want people to underestimate the severity of the situation - since nothing they can do can help the situation. > If one of the engines is spewing smoke and rattling like a broken washing machine, there's probably enough panic already. Everything is obviously not going to be fine! Considering that most two engine planes can land and fly for considerable distances with one engine, everything _is_ going to be fine, and your job is to calm everybody down. A simple statement saying that we're having technical issues with one engine, but we're equipped to make a safe landing with one engine and to expect a lot of turbulence is infinitely better than screaming over the intercom "We're fucked, get your prayer beads out. Only God can save us now"