UKC

Lots of comment this morning about the cool evacuation of the BA 777 in the runway in Las Vegas. However also some criticism that passengers were stopping to collect their luggage from overhead lockers, including (my pet hate) large wheelie cases that could easily rip the inflatable escape chutes. Photos of the evacuation clearly show people carrying hand luggage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34194906

There were also some scary descriptions of just how quickly the fire spread and smoke entered the cabin. I can just imagine trying to control the rising panic while some idiot blocks the exit while they struggle to get their over-size baggage. The emergency instructions clearly state that you must leave all your belongings in the event of an evacuation but then I guess there would be a pretty close correlation between the people who never listen to the instructions (or anything else) and those who ended up walking across the tarmac with their bags having endangered a whole plane load of fellow passengers.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Unreal,especially with the size of some of those carrying in the states

In reply to Dave Garnett:

The rules are pretty clear and exist for good reasons (if the fire had spread faster it obviously could have cost oives). I'd like to see some of them fined, with plenty of publicity.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Just a thought, but I wonder whether whether it was really a concious decision on their part. It is fairly well known that people fall back on learned behaviour in times of severe stress. For example, I've heard that passengers in air emergencies often struggle to release their seat belts because they are so used to pushing the release button in their cars. Given that every time they have left an aeroplane in the past, they have stopped to pick up their luggage, some may have responded by doing the same without thinking?

In reply to MarkJH:


Also there is probably the thought that it's not *really* happening. This sort of belief is common in car accidents too apparently when emergency braking is left until it is too late. Perhaps an automated locking system for the overhead bins when an emergency is declared - more cost and weight though for perhaps limited benefit.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

You're too charitable. It's just the arrogance of people who think they know better.

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree. Some publicity and shaming of individuals concerned might help ram the message home for any future evacuations.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
The solution is easy, an automatica locking system. Once passengers are all seated, all overhead storage is locked for the flight. No risk of opening in turbulence and no extra obstacles on emergency exits. Anything you might need has to be under the seat before you clip in. Solved.

EDIT - MG, sorry just seen you've said the same thing. I don't think some magnet system would be that expensive in terms of cost or weight. Although there could be instrument issue with magnets, but I doubt it as they would be pretty small.

In reply to summo:
And while we're at it, let's ban winter climbing as it's dangerous. Solved.

In reply to thomm:


have you ever done either, flown or winter climbed? you'd know they aren't comparable if you have.

Winter climbing endangers only you, unless you knock stuff down on others.

Some weak limbed women dragging her 20kg trolley dolley out of an overhead, then deciding it's too heavy and abandoning it in the aisle, is a flight safety hazard for all passengers behind her.

In reply to thomm:

I've liked your comment, I don't want the moronic to miss out on likes.

In reply to MG:


Well, if having massive engine fire visible and a strong smell of smoke doesn't get their attention how about a recorded evacuation announcement saying "GET OFF NOW, IF YOU WISH TO LIVE, LEAVE YOUR F*CKING BAGS BEHIND!"

Sorry, that probably doesn't fit with the orderly, calm approach required but if I had someone rummaging in the overhead locker in front of me I suspect I might speak sharply to them.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
no words needed...physically direct them towards the exit. talking takes too long.

In reply to Offwidth:

If it was me in charge I'd wait till they'd got off the plane then tell them to go and put their bags back. Seems a fitting punishment

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I must admit when I saw the pictures on the news it was the first thing that came into my head, just people being selfish, if I was trying to get off a burning plane and someone was trying to get luggage out an overhead locker they would find themselves at the bottom of that chute with a size 10 foot print on their arse.

In reply to summo:


Actually, part of the solution is easier. We should just reduce the maximum size of cabin luggage and enforce the restriction. The current cases specifically designed to be the largest that can possibly fit into an overhead locker (as long as nobody else wants to put anything in) are ridiculous. The absolute maximum size should be such that every passenger would be able to get one (soft) bag into the overhead locker, with a 5kg weight limit.

No exceptions (not even rabbis!). Everything else gets checked.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

It's the same mentality that makes people try to "rescue" their dogs from the middle of a frozen lake. I wonder how many it will be this winter

In reply to summo:



and what happend when I've got my books out but left my glasses in the overhead. Or I've just tucked into a lovely Easy Jet quick meal and my wallet is in my bag in the overhead?

And what do I keep all the bits I want to use during my flight in? Do I bring another bag or just let them spill around the floor.

Magnets??? Really?

In reply to Dave Garnett:
With laptops etc, 5kg is not realistic. Reducing the size would work, though, as would maybe 10kg. However, it would have to come with a return to free hold luggage or it just turns into a hidden tax like it does on Wizz where there is a fee for larger hand luggage.

But however small the hand luggage it won't stop people grabbing it and delaying an evacuation.

In reply to MarkJH:


Of course, the safety briefing and the written information does cover this, but at least if they can't get out of their seats that aren't obstructing the aisle with their luggage. I'm comfortable that, even from a window seat, I can clear anyone too dim to undo their seat belt while they figure it out.

In reply to Trangia:
>I agree. Some publicity and shaming of individuals concerned might help ram the message home for any future evacuations.

I think they will all be getting publicists and writing books and / or appearing on talk shows. Its only a disaster if no one profits from it.

There was a case where some Syrian musicians were on a plane. A journalist got flustered, thinking they were on a 'dry run' bomb plot. She raised a fuss. Published articles and went on talk shows, generally cashing in on her ignorance and prejudice. All the men were found innocent, but the story remains. Wiki flight 327, for more info.

In reply to Dave Garnett:



That would impact us climbers though, trying to get max weight overseas, but we are also capable of lifting the bag out of the locker and not squashing granny below.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Or you could be a little more human, and release it for them, which would probably take about the same amount of time.

In reply to krikoman:


Tough, you can have a big sign on the back of the seat in front reminding you of that fact too.


Just how many bits do you need that won't fit under a seat. What is more important, you bits, or flight safety?

Magnetic locks, pretty easily retro fitted, operated by the crew from the front.

In reply to Dave Garnett: Very good point as always, Dave. Talk of locking overhead lockers during flights will almost certainly not happen. However, I think we can expect new procedures to be introduced across decent airlines that will change what happens when this sort of thing happens next time which can only be a good thing.

In reply to Neil Williams:


You've got me. I probably would, in reality. It would be context-dependent!

In reply to Dave Garnett:


These aren't dim people; they are perfectly intelligent rational people who are more than capable of taking off their seat belt. The point is that everyone loses some capacity for cognition during extreme stress and to compensate, people fall back on the familiar.

I don't know if you have ever been in an emergency evacuation of an aircraft, but I'm sure that you can think of some example of yourself doing similar things under extreme stress.

Ultimately if you want to be able to rely on an appropriate response under stress, it needs to be drilled. No amount of safety cards or briefings will change that, and unless airlines want to make evacuation drills compulsory for passengers (unlikely), they will have to compensate for predictable group behaviours as best they can.

In reply to Neil Williams:

the thing is, the reason cabin bags are allowed to be the size and weight they are is driven by cheaper tickets, meaning quicker turn a rounds at the airport, if you don't have hold luggage you can flip the plane quicker and cheaper... even one bit of hold luggage and then you need check in staff to take the bags, handling agents to load and unload the bags... that guy who picks a bag at random from every thousand or so bags and puts it on the wrong plane... all these people cost money so our ticket price goes up. (or you pay for hold bags)

in the old days the airlines would sell any free capacity to parcel / freight services, but i think from a security point of view this is no longer done (plus a lighter take of weight means less fuel... and unless the freight is paying more than the cost of the extra fuel it's not earning it's keep)

i think I'm right in saying that modern short haul aircraft like the a320 series, b737, embraer etc are specifically designed with more overhead locker space exactly so the passengers can carry more inside so the airlines don't need to take hold luggage.

anyway

yes, people evacuating with their bags is just stupid. maybe the aviation governing bodies should set an example and agree a "no fly for 5 years" punishment for passengers guilty of failing to follow the correct procedure during an evac? (i'm not sure if i'm being entirely serious on this lol)

In reply to MarkJH:


You're right, certainly they don't seem to have any difficulty undoing their seat belts the second the plane touches down, usually during the announcement telling them not to do so until the seatbelt light is switched off.

It's part of the same problem. Some people simply don't listen and seem incapable of understanding that any instruction actually applies to them.

In reply to summo:


Magentic locks, are you and engineer?

I think you mean solenoid locks or shot bolts, maglocks are heavy, bulky bits of kit which would probably add considerable to the cost of a flight. even shot bolts are not insignificant, the need a power supply and they'd need fitting. Are you willing to pay for this?

The airlines aren't they are not even willing to supply smokehoods, which would be far easier to fit than locks, be lighter and cheaper, yet this hasn't happened.

If you made the rule that overheads were to be locked then people would stuff as much under their seat as possible and you'd stil have the problem of taking all that shit with them when emergencies happen.

In reply to summo:

"Lockers to manual" Love it

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I'd be too engrossed in the Airline free magazine to notice any of it I expect..lol!

In reply to rallymania:

I'm sure you're right. Although, a lot of flights on smaller planes (and maybe smaller airport where you board up steps on the apron) do now intercept some bags at boarding and stick them in the hold.

Maybe I feel strongly about this because I fly a lot and I see a lot of people flouting even the current rules. I manage perfectly well with a small laptop bag or (if it's not business) a 35L Lowe daysack (which I always worry might be too big). Actually, the bag I check in for a two-week trip to the states (including my boots, harness and chalk bag) is smaller than some of what I see being carried on.

In reply to krikoman:

>. Are you willing to pay for this?
yes, if it makes things safer, why not. If known problem has been identified, why not reduce or remove it?


No pressure from aviation authorities is the problem there.


The space is much more limited between seats and if it's too still much stuff, then it goes overhead. Or just reduce the carry on size significantly.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

or.. possibly.. as 1) the crew initially told everyone to stay in their seats (despite passengers nearest to the engine seeing it on fire!) 2) the plane was stationary and 3) the problem was “outside”, the passengers made the judgement that they had enough time to gather their possessions before getting out?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I suspect if anything is found to be in need of improvement it won't be to baggage size or locker design, it'll be the timing, audibility and nature of commands from the crew.

jk

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


And maybe (1) whether or not taking your case with you causes a delay, taking it down the chute increases the risk of injury and of tearing the chute and endangering other people, and (2) people should pay attention to obviously sensible instructions and follow them unless there's really good reason not to.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Bloody knobbers, a few police cations wouldn't go amiss, (if this was the UK).

In reply to summo:


Nice idea but just an extra thing to go wrong on the plane, scenarios of Diabetics or Babies requiring medicine/nappies but the locking system has malfunctioned would all but kill this idea when (not if) it first occurs. They can barely get the on board entertainment to work sometimes.

Name and shame is the best option IMO

In reply to Jim Hamilton:
I think this is corect but in that they have put their valuable luggage above the safety of others. As someone who works with Psychologists the idea that the panic is so large they forget themselves and open the overhead compartment to get their bag if it was valueless seems ridiculous. Yes we do strange things but I doubt very much that is a typical panic reaction in an evacuation unless possessions take priority over others in which case you have breached regulations in a safety critical way and the most blatant examples should be prosecuted.

As Dave says there is always a large number of morons up and at their bags whilst the selt belt sign is still lit. I've flown hundreds of times on big planes and never on a flight to or from the UK seen everyone stay seated in economy class nor had less than 10 minutes to sort things once the light is out.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

So I'm ok with my "soft" rucksack?! I think if the crew are telling me to stay seated next to an engine which is on fire, with a full load of fuel, I would start making my own decisions about what to do.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

(1) had genuinely never occurred to me, I always thought it was purely that it might get in the way (as the chutes are pretty strong). Perhaps it would make sense to explain *why* for certain things during the safety demo? You get more understanding if people know why a rule is applied.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


If you are getting told to stay in your seat you probably figure the situation is not that urgent and if your passport/credit cards/ phone/medication/coat are in your carry on you are going to think about grabbing it. Taking a big bag down a slide is just stupid but I can see why women would grab their handbag if that's where their stuff is just like men would grab their coat.

In reply to summo:



But smoke-hoods are already available are much lighter than locks and don't need expensive retro fitting so where's your rational in going for the most expensive, heavier least effective measure?

Smoke-hoods would give everybody more time to evacuate a burning plane so you're not just benefiting people on the off chance that there are some f*ckwits who would like to take their bags with them.

In reply to Offwidth:



Nobody has claimed that it is a panic reaction; much evidence suggests that the panic model is not an appropriate description of most emergency situations. It is , however, a form of stress response that has been described in academic literature and in accident reports.

I would suggest that the alternative explanation (i.e. that in a burning aeroplane filling with smoke people place so much value on their cabin baggage that they selfishly delay their exit to pick up their bags) is equally incredible. In either case, personal incredulity is not the most reliable gauge. Most of us will be lucky enough never to have any experience of this type of event.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I'm surprised at you, really. They wouldn't be saying that to put people at risk but until the chutes are down if everyone thinks for themselves instead of acting together following instuctions, the evacuations take longer. If someone tried to favour themselves over others on a plane in such circumstamces or went in to full panic mode I would tackle them off the aisle for the sake of others, even at my own risk.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
The airline industry has a generally outstanding record on safety and risk improvements.I suspect the powers that be are now scratching their heads and thinking, " that was lucky on the suitcases how can we make it idiot proof to avoid a risk of suitcases blocking exits".

Me on these type of flights I always look round me and think who I do not want to be stuck behind in a rapid exit.Once watched a horizon programme looking at these things, and that was the one bit of advice I picked up.

In reply to Offwidth:

That would seem as stupid as what they were doing, as it risks leaving an unconscious body in the way of people.

In reply to MarkJH:

Link to the research evidence... must be easy since you said many.

In reply to Trangia:


Easy deterrent, take their bags off them and shove them through a garden shredder, see how important they are then.

I can't believe people would be so selfish as to endanger the lives of hundreds of people to save their few bits of crap that can probably be replaced and will likely be covered by insurance.

In reply to summo:


Don't feed the trolls.

In reply to neilh:


Yes, I'm not obsessive about it but I sit next an emergency exit, given the chance. I'm always surprised (and this has happened several times) when, on being briefed by the crew, someone sitting by the exit says they aren't prepared to take responsibility for opening the door and wants to change seats. I wonder whether it's lack of confidence or simply that they can't be arsed to do something they see as the crew's job. You do have to promise that you will do as you're told by the crew; maybe that's the problem.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

People do odd things in stressful situations. They got everyone off in 4 minutes - job well done. This hand-wringing is stupid - how would anyone here know what they would do in this situation unless they've actually been though it?

In reply to cap'nChino:


If passengers can learn to not put critical stuff in the hold, they can re-learn this.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

No, not really. It's tempting and I don't think I'd hold people up much if I had a soft bag under the seat. However, you can't have a rule that says if you are agile and quick-witted, and you have a smallish soft bag that you are confident doesn't have any sharp buckles or corners and isn't too heavy and you are really sure it won't cause a delay and especially if it has something particularly valuable in it then it's OK to take it with you, but in general it's probably better not to take anything else but of course we'll leave this up your judgement, now can we?

And let's not get started on how high your heels need to be before you need to take them off.

In reply to Offwidth:

But by tackling me moving calmly down the aisle (with my small rucksack) you also would be disobeying orders not to leave your seat (not to mention creating pandemonium).

I got the impression that the crew didn't realise the seriousness of the situation until the captain gave the order to abandon.

In reply to Trangia:


Who would do the naming and shaming? BA? The same company who almost killed you on take off? Ouch.

In reply to Offwidth:

Here you go

http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc51384.pdf

In reply to summo:


Easier said than done, but on a long haul flight its a pain in the arse and uncomfortable to have things in the footwell.

In reply to MG:

I'm confused...it doesn't seem to say anything about retrieval of possessions in a fire. People consciously do that in building fires as well; something that as part of my responsiblity as an employee I've had direct experience of in both directions (people I've stopped going back to the office to get things during a fire alarm and an admin manager ... who I would have sacked ... who locked a fire door to protect valuables in a room). So it lacks relevance and if anything supports my view that removal of bags isn't usually a panic reaction its normally a conscious decision.

In reply to Offwidth:


No, it explains that a panic response is not common in emergency situations, particular fires, which is what you are asked for evidence of.

In reply to summo:


They don't need to be locked for the whole flight, they could lock automatically with the seat belt signs. After all when the seat belt signs are on people shouldn't be standing up to access the lockers anyway.

This would have the additional benefit of discouraging arrogant travelers from getting out of their seats before they should on landing as they wouldn't be able to access the overheads anyway.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I remember an interview with a survivor of the 1985 Manchester disaster (I think) describing passengers climbing over seat backs, towards the smoke, trying to get to their hand luggage.

In reply to Chris Harris:

But you see we have been told people do strange things through panic, even though the research doesn't support this (when presented to counter those asking for evidence from those telling us about the strange things). I guess selfish behaviour endangering themselves and others for things of relatively low value in the big scheme of things is a bit strange, but I dont think that is what they meant.

In reply to Offwidth:

I still suspect it is largely a combination of believing it is not that bad really, that they and others will in fact get out, and that they aren't really slowing things down much, while being mindful that not having their luggage and perhaps passport afterwards will be a pain. Yes, in a rational sense very selfish, but perhaps more understandable than assuming it is deliberately about preserving low value items at the expense of other's safety.

As a comparison most people will if there is a fire alarm in a building in winter grab their coat rather than leaving immediately as they assume it is a practice and standing outside will be cold.

In reply to MG:
If it's cold/raining, hypothermia is a risk. And in most building fires of the kind where you're just getting an alarm and not visible smoke/flames, there are not however many gallons of paraffin in thin metal tanks either side of you, and things won't get substantially worse in 30 seconds. So in my book putting your coat on, provided it doesn't cause undue delay, is a sensible move.

As for passports, wallets, phones, keys etc - keep them in your pockets and you will have them if there is an evacuation. Sorted. It always amazes me how so many people risk putting their passport in their bag, it's the most important item you have with you when travelling.

In reply to Neil Williams:
It's not that important though anymore. It's easily replaceable and your ID can be checked without it. I think the UK has a funny cultural fixation on the importance of passports! It's more of a pain to lose a bank card or keys I think!

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I recognise that acerbic tone, you are 'Crimper' and I claim my £5.

In reply to MG:

I'm not talking about grabbing their coat I'm talking about going back to another part of the building during an alarm to get their coat and/or other possessions. If it's that important (like a passport on a plane) why isn't it with them?

Despite being strict on such things, we have managed to keep hypothermia incidents at work to zero in my 30 years, even with regular practices and several real fires.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Much appreciated. My point was of course that you have to consider the costs as well as the benefits when proposing a sweeping 'solution' to some problem. Having luggage bins locked throughout every flight would inconvenience many people who happened to want to retrieve a book / wallet / bag of jelly babies. I'm comfortable that people seem to have disagreed with my sentiment.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
I assume from the universal holier than thour attitude that everyone knows what the evacuation message was. If it#s something along the lines of 'don't panic, evacuate as normal' , then normal means taking your stuff.

Does anyone have a transcript? What on earth is this naming or shaming nonsense?

In reply to Offwidth:
. If it's that important (like a passport on a plane) why isn't it with them?

Because maybe they are less than perfect and sometimes make mistakes, or are forgetful, or prioritise practicality over planning for emergencies. Or, like me, think a passport in a zipped bag in the bin is safer and less likely to get damaged or lost than in their pockets.


You must be very proud.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

While I agree with you, I do wonder about people carrying medication etc.do you think they should be allowed to remove baggage or keep it in a smaller separate pouch or something.

In reply to MG:

How adult. Those ignoring prompt evacuations in a fire put themselves and others potentially at risk and even in drills they risk fines to their organisation and disciplinary action.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

The best suggestion I've seen is that whatever regulations govern access to airports provide that luggage removed from planes by passengers during an emergency evacuation of this kind will be confiscated and destroyed. That would attract the attention of the public and thus hopefully over time eliminate this sort of behaviour. Plus, let's face it, it would be funny.

The trouble with locking the overhead lockers is that people will just stand there trying to break them open.

jcm

In reply to Dave Garnett:

It is pretty mental how people behave in an emergency situation. Today I did my annual fire training and it was pretty incredible how stupid, and I mean really bloody stupid, people can be. It beggars belief. I'd not seen this video but basically it was a corner shop and some kids decided to distract the cashier by setting fire to a news stand just inside the door to the shop. It starts small but gets to the point where the whole stand is alight. A bloke walks in right past it and just looks at it. A woman then comes in and then just stands and points at it. The cashier then notices and goes to looks for the extinguisher. It's obviously in the back of the shop as it takes her some time to find it. All the time the fire then engulfs shelves next to the news stand and yet people just carry on coming into the shop and standing about looking rather than running away or doing something practical like phoning for the fire service. By the time the woman comes with the extinguisher first of all she lets it off in her face and then she blows the fire in the direction of the morons standing right there. It was a blazing fire and people still stood about like moths being attracted to the light and they were very close to being trapped by the fire blocking the door into and out of the shop! It was shocking and hilarious at the same time.

So yeah apply that to a plane! I doubt even if you gave the reasons of why certain things are a matter of safety would make much of a difference because there are people who think that some things don't apply to them or that they are more important than others so can do whatever they like. If I can I like to sit by the fire exits where you have to be told how to release the doors; I don't trust people and I know from experience that I don't flap about in an emergency.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I'm one of those people who is usually or prepares for many eventualities. Aircraft take off/landing, I'll always be awake, shoes on, with wallet, phone, passport in possession. I was advised many years to scan and email myself a copy of my important documents and phone numbers, so you can always retrieve a copy later though if it all goes completely wrong.

In reply to summo:

I do this as well. I also count the rows to the exit I intend on using if there is an emergency, and flick the seat belt buckle a few times to try to remind myself that it isn't a car seat belt. (While I haven't been in an aircraft accident I have, when tired and not really paying attention, tried to open one in the manner of a car seat belt, so I can definitely believe that risk).

I also don't use sleeping tablets nor drink to excess (and think that those sitting in the exit row should also not do so, and that it should be part of the exit row briefing not to do so).


Phone numbers are all synced to Google Contacts, and a copy of my passport and EHIC live in my Google drive just in case. Everything else is electronic these days anyway!

In reply to wbo:



Quite right. I'm assuming some people on here were on the flight in question!

In the same situation, I'd like to think I would be very calm and diligently follow instruction - maybe even assist those less able....after all, I've had fire drills at work.

However, there is a strong possibility that, after emptying my bowls on the seat (a biological reaction to make you lighter on your feet, one assumes), I'd be clambering over children and disabled to get to the door, using my 20kg suitcase as a battering ram.

Hopefully I'd be sensible, but given that I've never been in a burning tin can hurtling down a runway en route to certain death who knows how I'd react?

In reply to summo:


Do you mean "electromagnetic locks"? As in something that uses an electromagnet to remain locked? Each lock needs a lot of power then, and you will need a *significant* amount of high power cabling running from the control unit to every lock - so possibly new holes in bulkheads, firewalls etc. Where is the power budget coming from? Where is the power going to come from in an emergency to keep them locked? How much of the aircraft needs to be ripped out to fit it?

If you mean an electromagnetically actuated lock, the power requirements drop significantly except for (un)locking them, but you still have a rats nest of cabling to retrofit to the airframes. The certification process for this change will be neither simple nor cheap, let alone actually making it. Then, every time it goes wrong you can't get into the lockers and you have more problems.

Me, I'd limit passengers to one 5kg item of hand luggage, and I'd hope that other passengers would use a proportionate amount of violence (proportionate to them and others dying from smoke inhalation in 60 seconds time) to deal with anyone who stops, blocking the escape of others, to get their bag out.

I could imagine a system of mechanical locking bars on the lockers, that are operated by the flight attendants at the appropriate times - much simpler to design, certify and install than electrical ones I suspect.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Thank you for that obvious (but un thought of) gem, I keep a copy of my passport separate in case of loss but keeping it on google drive or your own personal cloud is a great idea. Thanks

Toby

In reply to wintertree:

I'd expect this would deal with any actual problems. While the member of crew supervising the slide could, with the assistance of other passengers, take bags off people and simply throw them out of the door if they did have them to prevent them being taken on the slide.

I also don't see the sense in limiting to 5kg, it's more size that is the issue (as the IATA mentioned recently), it would make life needlessly difficult for business travellers with laptops etc. Though I think I would be more firm on "it's not hand luggage if you can't lift it in without dropping it on people or put it under the seat yourself".


I'd think that to be pointless over-engineering.

In reply to wintertree:


Just seen examples of them, ratings of 320ma to 640ma depending on brand, type (Double v/s single), and voltage (12vdc/24vdc), which you can obviously play with up and down, so cabling would be pretty light. It also depend if it operates a solenoid locking bolt, in which the magnetic can be small, but the strength of the lock high.

Structural, could be an issue, but there isn't much substantial with the front end of the lockers, but aircraft will vary. Also you could make it, so that the magnet unlocks them, rather than lock and they only unlock once they have standby power on the ground.

How much ripped out, very little.


Cheap, what about safe?


I would agree, there they'll have a bigger fight, with all those airport shops trying to sell you stuff you don't really need. But, yes, clearly the best and cheapest solution for the airline. Laptop sized bag, small rucksack, capped at 5kg.


but, then you'd need to interconnect them all with a metal bar to the front or rear, a small low volt/amp cable would be easier to retro fit.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Or you could just have the air crew go round with padlocks :p.

In reply to summo:


I don't think you understand how stringent and complex the certification of electronics is for an aircraft compared to a hobby project in your shed... Further, let's say 12V, 500ma, that's 6W. Now we've got maybe 250 storage lockers on an aircraft requiring 1.5KW to operate them all simultaneously. If they're not simultaneous you need a lot more cables as well as a sequencing solenoid control unit. When you consider the voltage drop over a cable the length of an aircraft cabin 0.5A does not seem so small either, let alone 250 of them... !


Or have a locking bar for each one, or one bar for a few units, or even just put manual locks on the handles. As Neil said it's still over-engineering - although I'd welcome it as it'd stop twits and twerps getting their bags out when the seatbelt light is on.

In reply to wintertree:

You could dispense with the locks and just electrify the handles.

In reply to wintertree:


I do understand the testing, it will be slow and costly etc., but 250 lockers, what are you flying? How much power do those ovens pull just for some naff food and hot drink? or all the little TV screens, a few hundred lamps... there are wires with similar low power levels already running through most of that conduit. Plus the 'I want a steward' buttons must all link directly to the front or rear anyway. There is space and power there. I know it won't happen, but it's not because it can't.


clearly the logic is a massive cut down on luggage, but I can't see that happening either. Perhaps if people were advised that even if they arrive at the shute with a bag, it won't be going with them.

In reply to summo:


Yes and they were designed and certified as part of the original build or major refits. Nevertheless there have been many problems with the electrical systems for in flight entertainment in particular, overheating and fires where big bundles of cables go through bulkheads etc.

It really isn't as simple or cheap as you think to add a major electrical system to a commercial aircraft.

In reply to summo:


You don't seem to have much grasp of electrical engineering, I'm afraid, just because you think you have a good idea doesn't make it practical. The ovens are probably fed from short wires not running the full length of the plane, solenoid produce a very high inrush current which produces heat. the more solenoids the more you have to design to deal with this heat. You probably end up causing more evacuations because of the locking system than there are at present.

You also don't seem to realise that it's not the cost of the design, but the certification process required that incurs the major costs.

I once went to a manufacturer of aircraft engine casings and oil rig bolt manufacturers, they said then that anyone could make the bolts. it's the certification and testing they'd have trouble with, a single bolt 1/2" X 3" was costing around £12 each this was in 1980, The local hardware store would sell the same bolt for around 2p at the time.

On top of all that, the system would require testing and recertification on a regular basis.

Then imagine this, you fit you system to every plane, somewhere down the line it's found that some solenoids could overheat and start a fire. You then ground the whole fleet of aircraft while test are carried out. Meanwhile you don't get to go to Benidorm and you spend your holiday in Stanstead.

On top of all of this shit above, how many people have to evacuate a plane each year?

Of those evacuations how many people are held up evacuating by people trying to get their bags off with them?

In reply to krikoman:


We haven't even established that this one was. Though it clearly could have been; the rule is not there for a laugh.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

You'd be fully justified in moving passengers like that on by force

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think the best idea is that used by Eurowings and GermanWings and I'm sure some others where they just encourage people to hand over bulky luggage as they reach the steps up to the plane. Big items are carried in a hold compartment and then unloaded on to a trolley to be picked up as you come off the steps on exiting the aircraft.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I realise that, what I'm trying to get at is, how often is this a problem?

surely a little education is better than wholesale modifications of the entire worlds airlines.

I also didn't mention it was for a laugh.

There seems to be a lot of outrage against something that may only happen once every five years and then only a minority of the passengers.

In reply to krikoman:


So how often would it need to happen for a bit of public disapproval to be justified?

As it turned out, this flight was apparently just over half full, so there was less of a crush than there would have been on a busier flight. It might be a low probability event but even on the ground aircraft fires have poor record of survivability - only the other week there was a thread on here demanding further apologies for the Manchester disaster. The idea that in such a serious situation people could behave in a way that further increased the risk to themselves and others is almost unbelievable.

In reply to krikoman:

oh spare me, I didn't say wire them up to the ovens!! I was pointing out that there is sufficient power on board already. And the conduit used for other overhead wiring, could house this too. With some though they could be wired in sections, to crew could do a partial unlock mid flight for medical emergency stuff, when someone leaves their heart tablets in their etc.

heat, it would depend on how you designed a switch if it would need to be constantly active, or just at the point of un/lock. Also with some thought, a Z shaped bolt on central, it could be possible to lock lockers on either side, if one switch.

yes certification would be painful, perhaps even a decades worth of pain. But in 10 years if new and in use aircraft could safer it's worth it? Survival speed water impacts are very rare, but there are measures in place for these still?

Plus, with some airlines moving towards less hold, heavy hand, this is likely to more be of a future problem not less. Personally I think alcohol should be banned, imagine if this evacuation had happened on a Friday night flight to the Med or Dublin ???

In reply to Dave Garnett:


or you could, I dunno, take 0.5 seconds to help them?

In reply to anonymouse:

It's not about being dim anyway. In emergencies people do what they are trained to do. Every other seatbelt they use opens when they press it.

In reply to anonymouse:


Yes, I did recant, if you read the thread. Of course, in practice, I would help. However I suspect there must be some limit to the extent I would put my own life in danger to try to help someone who had not only made so little effort to help themselves, but had actively endangered others. Until it happens, it don't know what that limit would be.

In reply to davidbeynon:


In a panic, people forget they are belted into cars, and how to get out. Panic can get you all the way down to an animal level pretty quickly.

In reply to summo:


And I was pointing out that the ovens would be as close to the power source as possible to prevent long cable runs or heavy cable.


Again you lack of electrical engineering knowledge lets you down, conduit has a finite volume, the more cables you put in the more heat is generated, to combat this your choice is larger conduit and larger cables or less load. So it's not just a matter of shoving a few cables in. Besides that you need two cables for every locker or if you us your "Z" method of closing 2 cables for every 2 lockers; this is still a massive number of cables!!

It doesn't depend on the switch it depends on the load, with solonoids on long lengths of cable you need bigger cables to deal with inrush currents (when they are first energised).


But you still don't seem to understand or have any data to show, that the few people who decide to take their bag, have ANY effect on passenger safety. Obviously if everyone thought it was a good idea, but the odd couple might not make any difference at all, your just surmising it does.


That just sounds miserable. You seem intent on everyone having to do what you think, when in reality there hasn't been any problem, OK some people broke the rules, but what were the consequences of that action.

Evacuations are so rare that you seem to disregard any cost / benefit analysis because you think you know better and it ALL so easy.

In reply to summo:


Of all the water impacts that occur, most of them are survivable (most air accidents generally are survivable). They tend to be things like going off the end of runways into rivers. But the measures are passive, anyway.


As it occurred on take-off alcohol consumed on board would be of little consequence. You could breathalyse all passengers on boarding, I suppose. Personally, I won't get ratted or use sleeping tablets on a plane as I would like to be self-aware if something happens, though. If someone gets ratted and as a result fails to get themselves off an aircraft, though, is that not their own problem? Others will soon trample or manhandle them out of the way.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I just think sober passengers removes a risk , would make life more pleasant for other passengers and crew, plus result in less diversions due to drunk folk.

I see no negatives, other than less profit for one or two airport retailers

In reply to summo:


What risk??? First of all you have to have an emergency, secondly they have to be drunk enough to impair the evacuation should it be required.

If you're concerned about this level of risk I'm surprised you dare type anything on ou keyboard, never mind leave the house.

Some people like to have a drink, it's part of their holiday are you seriously suggesting stopping peoples pleasure on the off chance something bad might happen.

You'd be one of those complaining about the nanny state too.

In reply to summo:


True , but methinks you will just get just as delayed by people struggling to open them despite them being locked. The types that go to retrieve luggage in an emergency are not by nature logical or clear thinkers.

In reply to summo:

So how would this be carried out - breathalysers on boarding?

In reply to Jim C:

Or possibly they *are* logical thinkers (let's say there is a delay caused by something else so they're standing there doing nothing, and their small rucksack is unlikely to damage a slide) but are not blind followers of a procedure (which is what is required in this scenario for everyone's good).

In reply to Neil Williams:


Stop sale of alcohol in airports and on flights, for most people, that's at least 2 hours drying out before take off.

In reply to krikoman:

Nope to everything you said. It's also passenger comfort, a drunk hen or stag party is more annoying than the crying baby.

In reply to summo:

Why should the majority of sensible drinkers be penalized because of the inability of the few to control themselves. A small tipple before and during flying is all part of the experience for many people. Don't let the Yahoos spoil it for every one.

In reply to summo:

Very adult, you sound like the latter.

People can have a drink without getting drunk.

You seem to be a person of extremes, good luck to you.

In reply to summo:

If they are *drunk*, 2 hours won't make a blind bit of difference to whether they are a danger or not on take-off.

If they are *slightly under the influence* they aren't drunk enough for there to be a problem.

Are there recorded incidents of alcohol delaying evacuations? Safety rules should always be made supported by a body of evidence, not simply on principle.

In reply to summo:

Is it? A crying baby is more annoying because we are conditioned to have a strong desire to solve whatever is making it cry.

In reply to Neil Williams:

It would seem some airlines have already banned it's sale on certain flights. UK to Ibiza seems a popular one for that.

Sobering up in 2 hrs, yeah of course if people get hammered on their courtesy bus to airport, they might not sober up, but at least things will be improving, not simply topping it up. The sensible solution would be no booze sold in airport, but airlines provide 1 drink per passenger on board. At the moment most of the drinking is done pre-flight anyway where it's cheaper.

I think yours and kriko's opinion demonstrates that you seem to think it's right to have alcohol 24/7? Why? Can't people simply live without it, for a few hours. The problem is a cultural obsession with getting hammered.

In reply to summo:


I'm always sober getting on and I try to be when I get off but I have to say that a few glasses of something can help a flight to California or New Zealand* pass a bit less tediously.

I figure if anything really bad happens at 40,000ft over the Pacific, the less I know about it the better.

(I especially recommend Air New Zealand's generous measures of very passable 'Sav')