Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are carry-on bags a safety issue?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    A lot of people (myself included) travel without checked baggage to avoid the clusterf*ck known as baggage handling and the tedious ass-scratching wait for their bags to (hopefully) show up. I don't think we should punish passengers en masse for the infractions of a few idiots. But I don't hate the idea either. This is how the fatcats in the BBJ's travel, with all that extra sense of space in leiu of overhead compartments. So great, let's do that! All we have to do is either convince the airlines to give up a treasured stream of revenue or convince passengers to pay more for checking that once-free little bag... in a race-to-the-bottom economy.
    Actually, I would not only not charge for a checked bag, but offer a discount (even if only a symbolic one) for it. It would be well worth just on the time saving. I can easily see it netting at least 20 minutes per turn (very conservatively). I've maintained for years that the industry has the whole bag thing completely backwards. Passengers should be encouraged (including financially) to keep the cabin clear.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      Aren't we forgetting another little thing somehow important that goes up there? Man I can't remember what it was, but it had an O and a 2.


      That's a point. For existing airplanes, removing the bins would be much more expensive than adding a locking system. For new airplanes, though, not putting the bins would be much cheaper than leaving them with or without locking systems (and much lighter too).
      For existing airplanes they can just seal the bins permanently.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
        For existing airplanes they can just seal the bins permanently.
        It might be easier just to not let people carry on bags, don't you think?. It's not the bins that cause the problem, it's what goes into them.

        But then you no longer have self-loading/self-unloading cargo and many more bags to handle, lose, locate, and deliver.

        Comment


        • #34
          My cabin baggage almost always carries expensive camera equipment along with the items previously mentioned. There is no way on Gods earth that I would entrust that to baggage handlers having seen how they throw bags around. Then of course we also have to remember the thefts that happen on some routes which both my wife and I have experienced on more than one occasion.
          No, cabin carry-ons are here to stay. We just have to find a way of making the sheeple obey the rules.
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
            My cabin baggage almost always carries expensive camera equipment along with the items previously mentioned. There is no way on Gods earth that I would entrust that to baggage handlers having seen how they throw bags around. Then of course we also have to remember the thefts that happen on some routes which both my wife and I have experienced on more than one occasion.
            No, cabin carry-ons are here to stay. We just have to find a way of making the sheeple obey the rules.
            Well I guess we will just have to leave the damn overheads alone then. They seem to be doing a pretty good job most of the time. From a very famous philosopher, "If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !" I think it might have been Plato, I'm not sure.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              Well I guess we will just have to leave the damn overheads alone then. They seem to be doing a pretty good job most of the time. From a very famous philosopher, "If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !" I think it might have been Plato, I'm not sure.
              Oh, it's broken.

              Comment


              • #37
                Swiss cheese has been playing on our side:

                - Emergency situatio (infrequent)...
                - ... that requires an emergency evacuation (infrequent) ...
                - ... in such condition that people will die if they don't get out really quick (infrequent)

                That's infrequent cubed.

                Combine the sequence above with:
                - ... and there are delays due to people grabbing personal items from the overhead bins (100% of the latest emergency evacuations)

                And the minute the three holes in the first three layers line up, there will be dead people.

                --- 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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Oh, it's broken.
                  Life is messy. Take a bike ride. You may did died, but likely_not.
                  Les rčgles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Swiss cheese has been playing on our side:

                    - Emergency situatio (infrequent)...
                    - ... that requires an emergency evacuation (infrequent) ...
                    - ... in such condition that people will die if they don't get out really quick (infrequent)

                    That's infrequent cubed.

                    Combine the sequence above with:
                    - ... and there are delays due to people grabbing personal items from the overhead bins (100% of the latest emergency evacuations)

                    And the minute the three holes in the first three layers line up, there will be dead people.
                    Bang on Gabriel. Many people take the view "We don't need to control this. It hasn't happened yet" when they should be saying "We need to control this. It will happen sometime"

                    .....and as you say, there WILL be dead people. And there is no scenario whereby you can practice the evacuation with a real emergency situation.
                    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                      ***"We don't need to control this. It hasn't happened yet"***

                      ***"We need to control this. It will happen sometime"***

                      ***"there WILL be dead people.***
                      Going 500 MPH in a 787...it's possible it might hit something (maybe the ground). It hasn't happened yet...It may happen sometime...there will be dead people...but it is a small risk.

                      Is it really all that different than the risk of someone clogging the asile grabbing the laptop?

                      Banning aviation would fix both.
                      Les rčgles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Going 500 MPH in a 787...it's possible it might hit something (maybe the ground). It hasn't happened yet...It may happen sometime...there will be dead people...but it is a small risk.

                        Is it really all that different than the risk of someone clogging the asile grabbing the laptop?
                        Not in one important respect. They are both preventable. EGPWS and TAWS weren't cheap fixes, but we did that, thank god.

                        We can't prevent a person from WANTING to grab their luggage. We can prevent them from having the opportunity. When people no longer see opportunity, they will not act on that fleeting desire, mainly because a greater desire—the desire to survive—will quickly replace it.

                        You do this by either banning carry-on bags (regressive) or upgrading the bins with locking technology (progressive).

                        I don't really understand why so many people tend to favor regressive solutions. I think it stems from fear of the unknown and fear of failure. And a good dose of ignorance.

                        Fortunately, aviation is a progressive field, and just as we now have fuel-tank inerting systems and arc-fault circuit breakers, maybe we will also close this layer of cheese with a bit of progressive thinking.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Not in one important respect. They are both preventable. EGPWS and TAWS weren't cheap fixes, but we did that, thank god.

                          We can't prevent a person from WANTING to grab their luggage. We can prevent them from having the opportunity. When people no longer see opportunity, they will not act on that fleeting desire, mainly because a greater desire—the desire to survive—will quickly replace it.

                          You do this by either banning carry-on bags (regressive) or upgrading the bins with locking technology (progressive).

                          I don't really understand why so many people tend to favor regressive solutions. I think it stems from fear of the unknown and fear of failure. And a good dose of ignorance.

                          Fortunately, aviation is a progressive field, and just as we now have fuel-tank inerting systems and arc-fault circuit breakers, maybe we will also close this layer of cheese with a bit of progressive thinking.


                          Statistics! That is what it all comes down to Evan. To this day, the most dangerous part of any airplane ride is the drive to and from the airport. Again I will repeat myself ad nauseam, you can't keep loading up the aircraft with every gadget you come up with. You would not be able to carry enough fuel/passengers to make money. If it is something like Gabe said about the TOPMS that a couple of you want so badly. That only requires a couple of line of code be written and downloaded into the existing FMS and hooked into the master warning system. Other than the STC that still will take lots of time and money, not a big deal weight wise. But if you don't think that a hundred or a couple of hundred electronic solenoid actuated locking mechanisms and their respective wiring don't add up weight wise you are wrong.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            Swiss cheese has been playing on our side:

                            And the minute the three holes in the first three layers line up, there will be dead people.
                            Keep 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.
                            Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                            Eric Law

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Oh, it's broken.
                              Can you name something that, in your opinion, isn't broken?
                              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                              Eric Law

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by BoeingBobby
                                Statistics! That is what it all comes down to Evan. To this day, the most dangerous part of any airplane ride is the drive to and from the airport. Again I will repeat myself ad nauseam, you can't keep loading up the aircraft with every gadget you come up with. You would not be able to carry enough fuel/passengers to make money. If it is something like Gabe said about the TOPMS that a couple of you want so badly. That only requires a couple of line of code be written and downloaded into the existing FMS and hooked into the master warning system. Other than the STC that still will take lots of time and money, not a big deal weight wise. But if you don't think that a hundred or a couple of hundred electronic solenoid actuated locking mechanisms and their respective wiring don't add up weight wise you are wrong.
                                I understand your point. Risk analysis and cost/benefit must all factor into these decisions. But statistics are not necessarily the way to make those decisions.

                                Example: how many center fuel tank explosions have we seen? Far fewer than incidents of delayed and endangered evacuations due to baggage, I can tell you that (and, according to you, even one less than I count). Did that stop the industry from taking action?

                                No. The FAA issued their new requirements in 2008: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...%20120-98A.pdf

                                These are expensive measures. The involve complexity and weight. Boeing included them in the 787.

                                The decision to mandate fuel tank inerting (or at least measures to "greatly reduce the chances of a catastrophic fuel tank explosion") was weighted on the devastation a TWA-800 -esque incident could have over populated areas. I'm not really expecting the FAA to mandate a solution to the baggage evac problem anytime soon, but I think it is foolish not to, because at some point it WILL cost lives.

                                It all comes down to determining the acceptable human cost of not doing anything, because lives are expendable to these people. I'm aware of that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X