Windows need to be open upon takeoff/landing
Aug 31, 2018, 2:28 pm
#2
Moderator: Information Desk, Women Travelers, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Programs: AA Gold
Posts: 15,638
Not all airline FAs are obsessed with it. However, it's a safety precaution -- takeoff and landing are dangerous, and if there is a hazard outside the window, they want passengers to see it and make FAs aware of it if appropriate.
Aug 31, 2018, 2:31 pm
#3
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: トロント
Programs: IHG Gold
Posts: 4,818
For your reading pleasure:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a6899681.html
Aug 31, 2018, 7:24 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,162
Sorry, folks. This is one time where it doesn't have anything to do with the TSA, Trump, or terro-phobia (if I can coin that word). It really is all about safety and increasing the odds that you won't become a crispy critter in the event of a crash at take-off.
Aug 31, 2018, 9:45 pm
#6
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,602
TWA had a company policy of window shades up on take off and landing that was adopted after the aborted take off and crash of flight 843 at JFK in 1992.
In the incident one of the engines caught fire and the flight attendants were not able to see outside to confirm the fire because a number of the window shades were down (the two under-wing engines on the L-1011 could not be seen from the flight deck; the fire was the result of a crack in the fuel line on engine #2 ).
As a result, TWA adopted this policy which I think made a lot of sense from a safety point of view.
P.S.: Despite the aborted take off and fiery crash, the entire plane was evacuated in under two minutes without any loss of life
In the incident one of the engines caught fire and the flight attendants were not able to see outside to confirm the fire because a number of the window shades were down (the two under-wing engines on the L-1011 could not be seen from the flight deck; the fire was the result of a crack in the fuel line on engine #2 ).
As a result, TWA adopted this policy which I think made a lot of sense from a safety point of view.
P.S.: Despite the aborted take off and fiery crash, the entire plane was evacuated in under two minutes without any loss of life
Sep 1, 2018, 6:24 pm
#8
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,007
I just flew today on American out of Dallas Fort Worth. The flight attendant told everyone to keep the shades down, as the aircraft was quite warm inside. Nothing changed at takeoff. No announcements before landing as well.
Sep 1, 2018, 7:46 pm
#9
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,331
https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...m=Terrorphobia
Sep 1, 2018, 7:57 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,162
Nope, that word has been around since at least 2011 and probably longer:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...m=Terrorphobia
https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...m=Terrorphobia
Sep 1, 2018, 8:21 pm
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
"Obsessed" is both a generalization and rubbish.
As an example, in the US some carriers include the requirement in their safety & security policies. Once filed with FAA, the failure to abide by them is actionable against both the carrier and the individual. Put simply, a FA doing his job is not "obsessed".
This is sometimes confused with the request that on very hot days that passengers pull the shades down on arrival and leave them down until the push as a means of keeping the aircraft interior a bit cooler. There is, of course, no safety issue at the gate.
As an example, in the US some carriers include the requirement in their safety & security policies. Once filed with FAA, the failure to abide by them is actionable against both the carrier and the individual. Put simply, a FA doing his job is not "obsessed".
This is sometimes confused with the request that on very hot days that passengers pull the shades down on arrival and leave them down until the push as a means of keeping the aircraft interior a bit cooler. There is, of course, no safety issue at the gate.
Sep 1, 2018, 10:43 pm
#12
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 590
"Obsessed" is both a generalization and rubbish.
As an example, in the US some carriers include the requirement in their safety & security policies. Once filed with FAA, the failure to abide by them is actionable against both the carrier and the individual. Put simply, a FA doing his job is not "obsessed".
This is sometimes confused with the request that on very hot days that passengers pull the shades down on arrival and leave them down until the push as a means of keeping the aircraft interior a bit cooler. There is, of course, no safety issue at the gate.
As an example, in the US some carriers include the requirement in their safety & security policies. Once filed with FAA, the failure to abide by them is actionable against both the carrier and the individual. Put simply, a FA doing his job is not "obsessed".
This is sometimes confused with the request that on very hot days that passengers pull the shades down on arrival and leave them down until the push as a means of keeping the aircraft interior a bit cooler. There is, of course, no safety issue at the gate.
Sep 3, 2018, 9:27 pm
#14
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Frensham, Lincolnshire
Programs: RFC
Posts: 5,078
It's a figure of speech. Lighten up.
And yet some carriers are more diligent about it than others. Most US carriers are quite slack about it. If someone were used to that level of impact then flying on a non-US carrier where it is enforced quite stringently would be quite a contrast.
False. If fueling is still going on while pax are boarding then it is very much a safety issue at the gate. Again, that's why some airlines require, and actually enforce the requirement, to have shades open during that phase of ops too. American carriers are less stringent in that regard. It's all a matter of how the risk assessment is done and how slack the carrier is in their ops.
As an example, in the US some carriers include the requirement in their safety & security policies. Once filed with FAA, the failure to abide by them is actionable against both the carrier and the individual. Put simply, a FA doing his job is not "obsessed".
This is sometimes confused with the request that on very hot days that passengers pull the shades down on arrival and leave them down until the push as a means of keeping the aircraft interior a bit cooler. There is, of course, no safety issue at the gate.
Sep 4, 2018, 9:01 am
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,083
It's a figure of speech. Lighten up.
And yet some carriers are more diligent about it than others. Most US carriers are quite slack about it. If someone were used to that level of impact then flying on a non-US carrier where it is enforced quite stringently would be quite a contrast.
False. If fueling is still going on while pax are boarding then it is very much a safety issue at the gate. Again, that's why some airlines require, and actually enforce the requirement, to have shades open during that phase of ops too. American carriers are less stringent in that regard. It's all a matter of how the risk assessment is done and how slack the carrier is in their ops.
And yet some carriers are more diligent about it than others. Most US carriers are quite slack about it. If someone were used to that level of impact then flying on a non-US carrier where it is enforced quite stringently would be quite a contrast.
False. If fueling is still going on while pax are boarding then it is very much a safety issue at the gate. Again, that's why some airlines require, and actually enforce the requirement, to have shades open during that phase of ops too. American carriers are less stringent in that regard. It's all a matter of how the risk assessment is done and how slack the carrier is in their ops.