Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Safety or stupidity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Here's the logic behind that: the rules on an airplane are that you must remain seated WHENEVER the seat-belt sign is lighted. I don't know if that is an actual law or just wise policy, but it's there and you are made aware of it before every flight.
    I am breaking the law in almost every multi-hour flight. For some reason the Captains nowadays ALMOST always turn off the seatbelt sign upon reaching cruise altitude, turn it back on at the slightest bump, and then leave it on for the remaining of the uneventful and smoothest flight. And I need to use the toilet once or twice in 12-hours flight. Sometimes I think they are just sloppy and forget. Sometimes I think it is intentional, either in an attempt to keep as many passengers seated as much as possible, or as an "insurance policy" (any passenger that bruises their arse after slipping with a banana that was in the aisle, they were violating a federal regulation by not complying with the seatbelt sign). Of course, when people do get up (we have no other choice) the FAs don't say a thing. This kind of attitude only provokes a diminishing respect for the seatbelt sign first, and then for the rest of sings and instructions. But I am very sorry: If a law says that I have to stop breathing (or to pee in my pants), I WILL disobey the law. I don't know what it is that causes this, only that whatever it is, it is ridiculous.

    --- 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


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      ...turn it back on at the slightest bump, and then leave it on...Sometimes I think they are just sloppy and forget. Sometimes I think it is intentional...Of course, when people do get up (we have no other choice) the FAs don't say a thing. This kind of attitude only provokes a diminishing respect for the seatbelt sign...
      Not very consistent logic, is it?...nor does it seek the elusive gray middle ground of trying to be safe AND address bladder comfort.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #33
        beg to differ with you given you vast expertise, but being anti-establishment doesn't mean i don't abide by rules. further, these FARS did not come about as a result of lawsuits. rather, the mystery of being inside an aluminum tube that has the potential to be deadly, but very rarely is, especially on the ground!

        you completely ignore the unavoidable truth that the regs are backward from a safety perspective. the rules totally permit the non-use of seatbelts during cruise but mandate them during taxi. we have discussed ad nauseum the failure of pax to use seatbelts during cruise because the light was off. we've debated the propriety of allowing pax to walk around etc etc.

        you can't argue with physics: the chances of being injured in a taxi accident are far less than those brought about as a result of unexpected turbulence.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
          beg to differ with you given you vast expertise, but being anti-establishment doesn't mean i don't abide by rules. further, these FARS did not come about as a result of lawsuits. rather, the mystery of being inside an aluminum tube that has the potential to be deadly, but very rarely is, especially on the ground!

          you completely ignore the unavoidable truth that the regs are backward from a safety perspective. the rules totally permit the non-use of seatbelts during cruise but mandate them during taxi. we have discussed ad nauseum the failure of pax to use seatbelts during cruise because the light was off. we've debated the propriety of allowing pax to walk around etc etc.

          you can't argue with physics: the chances of being injured in a taxi accident are far less than those brought about as a result of unexpected turbulence.
          The difference you aren't seeing is that cruise is a stable phase of flight, wheareas taxi is a dynamic one. Again, Obviously when the aircraft is stationary or moving under 20kts, you are going to survive without a seatbelt, but the entire idea is to have passengers pre-flight ready for takeoff and to keep them that way rather than doing all that while taking up valuable runway time. And after landing I think it is a combination of rather fast taxi speeds and keeping antsy pax in their seats for that last painful five minutes or so.

          Yes, the cabin crews are forced to be inflexible on that. The gods who gave us incredibly safe aviation probably don't trust the cabin crews to improvise on this. And then there's excessive lawyering, which has led us into an age of 'better-safe-than-logical (BSTL)' corporate policies.

          I agree with you on one point: society today is harangued by a mess of broadly-painted and inflexible rules authored by dimwitted bureacratic minions. But in the case of aviation safety, it somehow works.

          Comment

          Working...
          X