Globaliser

That's four things - how can that be binary?

Nuster

Ill take that as a witty response in which case ^

(if not let me know and I can spell it out)

T8191

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition

Hodders

Each action may be binary but the overall aim to achieve a safe environment isn’t - there’s no clear cut between being safe and unsafe, rather each action is used to improve the overall level of safety. I’d echo the thoughts of others that if this is your approach, then I’d like to hope you’re not involved in safety management, be it within the aviation industry or elsewhere.

Nuster

I am getting the snide undertone here but not sure why?

Hodders

Aviation has made significant improvements over the last few decades to improve safety, which has been achieved through lots of little changes and steps.

My concern, and this is just opinion so of course you’re justified to you own, is that your previous posts seem to suggest (rightly or wrongly) that you don’t see the point in these procedures as you’ve survived quite happily without them, either through ignoring SOPs in place, or on airlines where they aren’t implemented. Personally I feel this is a rather ignorant approach, which may in the event of an incident or accident lead to injury to yourself, or worse to others.

Nuster

I think you will find upon re-reading that the only SOP that I have willfully ignored has been the seat belt sign which is I think understandable given it takes a couple of hours to cross the bumpy Bay of Bengal, made more tricky with a full bladder. and staff will actively assist when there is a prolonged seat belt on sign on a very long haul flight as most on here know. Iit is also unfair to infer I have done something wrong by being comfortable on airlines with different SOPs.

likewise, I did not say I did not see the point of safety measures.I do. But I would suggest that risks are weighed up and assessedrather than a knee jerk binary response. I find that unquestioning behavior in wider life, not just aviation, to be intellectually lazy.

Globaliser

Unquestioning behaviour was not what Waterhorse was proposing to do, which was a course of action that you appeared to be mocking.

Hodders

That was not my meaning so apologies if you read it that way. What I had been meaning was that I disagree with using the fact that some airlines don’t implement a safety procedure, to question that another airline does - this may not be what you had meant in your earlier post, but this was how it read to me.

I think we may have to disagree on this point. I’m all for questioning a decision/policy if you’re in a suitable position to do so, but I feel that you can only do so if you have a similar level of expertise to those within the aviation authority who have made the decision. To that end if I’m told to keep my belt on when landing (or to not have loose items in an exit row during landing as you admitted to earlier), then I’m happy enough that someone who has more information to hand than I has made that decision for my safety.

'andad

And that is not a silly remark?

Kumulani

This is because they don't want people leaving their windows open, falling asleep while it's still dark, and then having the light shine through later, potentially disturbing other passengers' sleep.

allturnleft

I wish they would turn the lights off completly
done this in private aircraft ; great views and atmosphere