While he specifically calls out the disembodied voice that says:

he fails to call out the in-your-face yelling of screeners warning you to take stuff out of your bag.

Still, a good, rational argument against more and more words/warnings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

This is a pet peeve of mine.

I'd like someone to explain why, when I'm a train-ride away from a checkpoint, at the gate, I still hear the 'no liquids/gels/aersols..blabla' message booming out every ten minutes, competing with gate announcements and CNN blasts.

This is after approaching the checkpoint and listening to repeated 'welcome messages' from the airport director - again, booming out and competing with barking TSOs.

Completely pointless noise pollution that is no good for pax or employees.

I can only assume that someone is making big $$ for supplying this pointless noise. Add in the airports (only some, thankfully) whose cart drivers keep a high-pitched beep running all the time - and TSA wonders why folks approach the checkpoint without having 'heard' the messages or 'read' the plethora of signs, accurate or not (and now, big screen TVs, clearly a sign of an organization with more money than sense).

The thing that goes through my mind is "Would you pleeeeese shut up!!!!" Yes, it gets nerve wracking.

And then while I'm stripping, and placing everything on the x-ray belt, the person in front of me starts asking, "Do I have to take off my shoes?" "Do I have to take off my coat?"

People trying to take 16oz bottles of Shampoo, Waiting for the woman in front of me digging in her bag for her ID for 5 minutes.

As I see it, it's a losing battle either way.

One of many experiments I wish someone in authority had the guts to try: shut off *all* audible announcements at an airport, perhaps even including gate changes and paging of late passengers by name, though I might give those a pass. I almost guarantee there would be no appreciable increase in all the things these announcements are supposed to prevent: smoking, unattended bags, use of unauthorized cab services (ORD announcement), passengers attempting to get evil water through the checkpoint, etc.

Another one to think about if you want to get annoyed. On a US domestic flight, count the number of times the term "seat belt" is spouted over the PA system. It's absurd, and can easily reach into the dozens. But since seat belts are the only real aspect of safety that passengers have "control" over, they feel compelled to mention them over and over and over in every phase of flight.

There should also be a common-sense time limit on how long an individual incident can continue to be reflected in repeated announcements. Air Canada 797 was 28 years ago, but we still get warned about "tampering with, disabling, or destroying lavatory smoke detectors" (and why do all three actions have to be listed?). Smoking has been entirely banned on US domestic flights for 13 years and banned on nearly all domestic flights (those under 6 hours) for 21 years, yet we still get hit with smoking announcements. And don't even get me started on 9/11 which was a one time event 10 years ago which the entire aviation and security industry treats as if that sort of thing were a monthly occurrence.

Meanwhile, over 10,000 people per year are killed per year in the US due to drunk driving.

You bring up a good point. The smoking ban has been around for years, slowly spreading to more and more areas.

Can anyone think of any other place where the smoking ban is accompanied by constant verbal reminders? Government buildings? Restaurants? Other (non-airport) public areas? Military ammo dumps? Gas stations?

I love the eighth amendment argument against the TSA.

Mike

Just a quick correction. AC797 wasn't actually caused by careless smoking or problems with the lavatory smoke detectors. The accident is thought to have started in a toilet pump motor (or its wiring) in the lavatory then spread to insulation and paneling nearby. It was found to be an electrical issue and not the fault of any of the passengers or crew on the flight. In fact, the aircraft involved in AC797 did not even have smoke detectors installed in its lavatories.

The ferocity of the fire increased markedly on the ground due to flashover - which caused all of the fatalities. Many changes were made as a result of this accident (both to prevent ignition, combat fires and aid evacuation), but those all had to do with the physical characteristics of the aircraft (flammability standards, firefighting equipment, training, smoke detectors, emergency lighting, etc.). The no smoking ban (and no tampering announcements) were not a direct result of that incident.

I was under the impression that AC797 directly led to the installation of the smoke detectors (as you said) and was also used as ammunition to justify the later smoking bans even though there never was any evidence of tobacco having anything to do with the incident. If I remember right (I was a kid living in Dayton, OH not far from Cincinnati), there was rampant media speculation that a cigarette in the trash bin was the cause even though that was not the conclusion of the investigation. I'm not aware of any particular incident that led to the no tampering/disabling/destroying announcements other than a general history of (non-fatal) lav trash bin fires from smokers, but it seems a natural extension of installing smoke detectors to become concerned they aren't tampered with.

If there was a specific tampering incident that led to those announcements, I'd be interested to learn about it.

Either way, we should cleanse ourselves of no-longer-relevant intellectual junk such as these announcements that clutter our lives. I'm highly confident that attempted cabin smoking in 2011 could be adequately addressed by crew (and pax) admonitions to anyone who tries to light up and the quite tamper-resistant detectors that are installed in the lavs.

Marvelous post! ^^^

Bruce

Thanks for the link - I was wondering who was going to take over for Andy Rooney!

I read Mr. Will's rant and thought: Get an iPod, Grandpa!

Male announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
Female announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
Male announcer: [later] The red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the white zone.
Female announcer: No, the white zone is for loading of passengers and there is no stopping in a RED zone.
Male announcer: The red zone has always been for loading and unloading of passengers. There's never stopping in a white zone.
Female announcer: Don't you tell me which zone is for loading, and which zone is for stopping!
Male announcer: Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone sh*t again.

Appreciate your point - some stuff should just be common sense by now. Sadly is sometimes isn't. My main concern was making sure that folks out there on the intertubes didn't think that at least one of the folks that were involved or perished were somehow responsible for starting the fire through careless smoking.

The possibility of a bin fire did play a bit of a role in AC797.The report states that the crew initially thought it was a bin fire that had been addressed (lav bins were designed to contain fires) - that delayed the emergency descent by a few minutes. So it is possible that this was used later as an argument within the FAA when smoking was banned (eliminate the bin fire as a possible smoke source). The report makes a note that the FAA required the addition of lavatory smoke detectors - the relevant FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 84-5. A quick look at the reg doesn't show any required announcements - I may have missed them or it may be that those are a result of later tampering incidents.

NTSB report is here if you want details.

On a few flights on WestJet from LAS to YVR, no announcements regarding toilet smoke detectors, non-smoking warnings or "Were At War With TERRORISTS" crap. It was refreshing including that the flight attendants were pleasant, non threatening and just seemed quite happy.

Domestic flights in the U.S. suck unless you fly Net Jets.

Last week at MCO, a pair of WN GA's (male and female) were bantering over the PA; I was ignoring the whole thing, reading my book, till the woman said, "Thanks, Wendel," and the man said, "You're welcome. My name's not Wendel." The entire gate area snickered at that.

I walked up and said, "If you guys are willing to take requests, I'd like to hear the White Zone-Red Zone routine from Airplane."

The woman looked at me quizzically and asked, "What's that?" The man, on the other hand (not on the PA this time, more's the pity), said, "The white zone is for the immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone." As I walked away, he was explaining the movie to the woman.