Originally posted by Evan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Are carry-on bags a safety issue?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by elaw View PostKeep in mind that long before people started grabbing their belongings during evacuations, they were getting killed or injured in air crashes.
Is people stopping to grab belongings going to contribute to deaths and injuries in an evacuation? Possibly, depending on circumstances.
Will people continue dying and getting injured in air crashes, even if nobody stops to grab belongings? Definitely.
That says nothing about people dying due to stall accidents, CFIT accidents, or pilots locking themselves in the cockpit and crashing against the Alps or the South Indian Ocean.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostSo TWA 800 came out of the sky because of a center tank explosion, in your opinion?
(Start the Twilight Zone Theme)
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Aircraft hits the ground/another aircraft. Everybody dies (usually). Cabin baggage doing 500 knots causes a lot of the deaths by taking heads off. End of story.....
.....as against....
Aircraft suffers some sort of crash landing, crew and passengers are still alive but there is fire. An orderly evacuation with no pauses for grabbing cabin bags results in as many people as possible surviving with some maybe getting their tail feathers singed !
A disorderly evacuation with people stopping to grab their cabin bags and thereby delaying the evacuation COULD cause unnecessary deaths. I personally believe it HAS happened in the particular case of the British Airtours fire at Manchester. Post fire investigative photographs showed that some deceased passengers had bags in their arms although there was no proof that they had stopped to retrieve them.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
As long as we are deeply in the realm of how to handle tiny risk factors...
How do you like the US regulation that infants can ride on folks laps...
Someone ran the numbers...FORCE them to buy a seat, then more folks will drive and have crashes and we'll have more dead babies. (A very rough estimate, but the regulators felt the conclusion was, nevertheless, valid.)
That vs. the risk of a certain group of crashes where lap riding = death, whereas seatbelted in a car seat = life.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostAs long as we are deeply in the realm of how to handle tiny risk factors...
How do you like the US regulation that infants can ride on folks laps...
Someone ran the numbers...FORCE them to buy a seat, then more folks will drive and have crashes and we'll have more dead babies. (A very rough estimate, but the regulators felt the conclusion was, nevertheless, valid.)
That vs. the risk of a certain group of crashes where lap riding = death, whereas seatbelted in a car seat = life.
But the FAA charter is to advance aviation safety, not highway safety. There are good reasons why aviation safety improved so much and reached so amazingly high levels, and one of them is that they don't compete fro resources with safety in other areas. If it did, we should shut down any project dedicated to aviation safety and fully use their human, infrastructure, technological and economic resources in areas with greater opportunities of improvement and that cause more deaths, like driving, stairways, bathtubs, walking and breathing (less than perfectly pure air).
If only the world at great used the resources tied to killing people, there would be more than enough money for all the safety improvement projects in all categories.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostThat was the NTSB's opinion, which is what matters.
How about finding or conclusion of a fact-based analysis?
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostDeep.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI don't think that we can credit Evan with that opinion, and there were precedents of CWT explosions, except the previous ones were easier to investigate because they happened with the plane still on the ground, where a bomb or missile was absolutely ruled out.
I understand that you are an old man, but you should know that we replaced that with the X-files theme decades ago.
I like the Twilight Zone one better!
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostThat was the NTSB's opinion, which is what matters.
Comment
Comment