Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are carry-on bags a safety issue?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    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.
    So TWA 800 came out of the sky because of a center tank explosion, in your opinion? (Start the Twilight Zone Theme)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by elaw View Post
      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.
      Maybe I wasn't completely clear, but I meant that the minute the holes in these three Swiss cheese layers align (emergency ==> requiring an emergency evacuation ==> in such condition that people will die if they don't get out really quick), people will die as a result of that alignment because the 4th hole in the 4th layer (people will delay the evacuation to get their belongings) is a given.

      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


      • #48
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        So TWA 800 came out of the sky because of a center tank explosion, in your opinion?
        I 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.

        (Start the Twilight Zone Theme)
        I understand that you are an old man, but you should know that we replaced that with the X-files theme decades ago.

        --- 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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          I understand that you are an old man, but you should know that we replaced that with the X-files theme decades ago.
          The truth is out there...

          Comment


          • #50
            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


            • #51
              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


              • #52
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                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.
                The FAA applies a very inconsistent logic here. I am sure that if you allowed kids of up to 6 years to fly for free on adults' laps, and allowed standing passengers for 1/4 of the fare, the FAA would be able to run a model that would show that even more people would fly rather than drive and that would result in fewer overall deaths, accompanied by a larger number of deaths in aviation (but not as much as the reduction in driving deaths).

                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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  So TWA 800 came out of the sky because of a center tank explosion, in your opinion? (Start the Twilight Zone Theme)
                  That was the NTSB's opinion, which is what matters.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    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.
                    Deep.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      That was the NTSB's opinion, which is what matters.
                      I don't like the word opinion, it is too ambiguous (it could mean point of view or belief).
                      How about finding or conclusion of a fact-based analysis?

                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      Deep.
                      I don't know if deep, but true.

                      --- 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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        ...fact-based analysis
                        Sorry - facts have been deemed irrelevant, as of January 20, 2017.
                        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                        Eric Law

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          I 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


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                            That was the NTSB's opinion, which is what matters.
                            True that the NTSB and the FBI (which had NEVER been involved with an air disaster before, and had a really neat animated film made up) said so. But I have stood inside the center wing fuel tank of TWA 800. It did not blow up from the inside out.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                              It did not blow up from the inside out.
                              Is there another way that things blow up?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                Is there another way that things blow up?
                                If it did not blow up from the inside out.... Must have been from the outside in don't you think?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X