I believe the point made was that it wasn't baggage issues that caused problems with the exits. One was jammed and two were never opened.

Of course exits should be kept clear and open. I don't see anyone disagreeing on that.

Yes they did.

"Despite no direct evidence that the use of mobile phones or other electronic devices would interfere with the plane�s systems, the ban continued � even after the FAA hired an outside safety agency to find if anything could go wrong. They didn�t." - wired magazine

Cell Phones Interfere with Plane Instruments... Myth busted! (From the website... When you make a call at 10,000 feet, the signal bounces off multiple available cell towers, rather than one at a time. That means too many phone-happy jetsetters might clog up the networks on the ground, which is why the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) � not the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) � banned cell use on planes.) - MythBusters

But you believe what you want!

And to quote every airline, "you are now free to use your cellphone."


Be nice! I have well over 2 million miles and counting. (I am also a private pilot who does a safety briefing before every flight with passengers. Shocking, I know!)

Not to my satisfaction, just a question that wanted an answer. But, I do believe in challenging people to defend their position, even if their defense is "experts say to do it this way and so that is what I choose to do". (Which is good enough for me as an answer.) However, when someone says 'look at Manchester, it is the same', I did look at the facts, and offered my counter position. And good for the poster to provide a counter position, even if I disagree. It improves the knowledge base.

Established procedures are a good thing... until they are not. American Airlines Flight 587 crashed because the pilot followed the 'established procedure' at the time. Had someone questioned the 'established procedure' before that, maybe the rules would have changed or another better procedure developed.

Why push this or be 'argumentative'? For the comment above yours! People believe the lies they are told without demanding proof. Fiction becomes fact. Why are more people not questioning the unsubstantiated statements made here or by politicians or teachers or anyone who steps up and says it is a fact!

You want evacuations to be safer? Push for what I proposed above - independent testing based on real world loads and passenger types.

You want to make planes safer? Question everything you think you know about safety and rules. Challenge the 'experts' to defend their position.

Could you accept - with testing and study - it is shown that people grabbing bags at their feet does not slow the exiting of the plane? (And don't be surprised that with testing, other long held beliefs and procedures are discarded and new better ones are created.)

We have discussed this at length and pushed people to think. That cannot be a bad thing. Truthfully, I tend to be a rule follower. But, I do not believe it is black and white. What would people grab...

Asiana in SFO - massive cartwheel and split plane
JetBlue at LAX - plane is fine, just some sparks.
Southwest at Denver - slide off in the snow
USAIR on the hudson - in the water
BA in LAS - engine failure

What would you (anyone here) do in these situations? Are you sure?

I know it is PC to say "Of course I would leave everything", but, I tend to be honest about these things. (And I accept the heat for it.)

Unfortunately there are several examples of current practice that would fall into this category, yet airlines and regulators appear willing to wait until an accident to change their position.

Off the top of my head - gate to gate IFE (issues with passengers not hearing instant crew commands in the event of an unplanned emergency, and tangled head-sets in the event of an evacuation), 20kg+ cabin bags, high density seating (pitch, width of aisles, number of rows), allowing airlines to have more than 7 rows between some passengers and an exit (which IIRC is potentially outside the reasonable 'survival window' in the actual event of thick smoke and/or fire).

Again, I'm starting to think that mixed messaging around safety is part of the problem. If everything is labelled as a 'safety issue' even when it's not, or some safety issues appear to be overlooked in the interests of commercial considerations, it probably leads to some passengers making their own determination about what they think is and isn't important (rather than accepting everything is important).

Three of six blocked! One of three delayed by a crucial minute. Yes, the exits should be clear.

Actually, safety is 100% about statistics - what is the greatest chance of survival. Safety concerns are always a compromise and not black and white as you suggest. Example - not allowing the affirmed on a plane would enhance safety, would it not? Everyone could get out quicker.

THAT is exactly why testing IS needed. Maybe all bags should be banned from the upper deck. Maybe not. If a bag tears the slide, what will those people do?

The cost of extensive testing - x millions - is worth it to save lives.

These are all variables that can be tested. Run 100 evacuations drills... run 200... 500. (You can even account for people becoming familiar with the drill!) Even doing this on single plane type will yield far reaching information. Over time, patterns will develop and real safety enhancements will happen.

Three of six were never opened. Only the two front and one wing were open. (One of the front ones jammed.)

I am quite happy to believe the CAA's research which showed that mobile phones can have an adverse effect on avionics systems. And I am quite happy to believe that the experts took the usual safety approach of recommending that something be prohibited until doing it is shown to be safe, as opposed to the public's normal stance of "I haven't caused a major incident or killed anyone so far so there can't be any risk!"

Neither of those things showed that the experts lied about anything.

And I'll happily believe all of that over some random TV programme or non-aviation popular magazine. If that's where you get your information from, then you really are in no position to accuse the experts of lying. But I refer to my previous post.

Amazing isn't it. A risk to the plane's avionics yet hundreds of people are allowed to carry these devices on board and left to be trusted to turn them off.

A bit like the huge bags being lugged on board, yet are apparently a risk in the event of an emergency evacuation.

So you know admit there is no interference. Your last argument was they did interfere.

In the random "non-aviation popular magazine", did you miss the reference to the FAA conducting a study and NOT being able to show interference?

Where is the reference to the CAA study that showed mobile phones have an adverse effect on commercial aviation systems? I (and everyone else) seemed to miss that one.

Initial ban, sure, no problem. Out of an abundance of caution. But, within a year of cell phone use, they had their answer. They continued the ban out of an abundance of ignorance or airline profit. You pick!

Come on Globaliser, you are better than this! Your arguments have been reasoned and well thought out. Challenge me based on the facts. ^

Well 110pgl, if you really have flown that much I am at a loss to know why you can't see something so obvious, or require it proving to your satisfaction.

No because it clearly would slow things down. Perhaps you should write to the CAA because you don't appear to be convincing anyone on this thread.

I had to google it. But it is there (just 3 seconds to find it)

The link is here: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/capap2003_03.pdf

The report was published in 2003. We have different phones now. Executive summary, page 'v' has the details.

Why would I lie about that?!?! (Given all my controversial positions in this thread, why would I pick my flying to lie about! )

THAT is the problem my friend... even with the facts - if they were the facts - you will stick with your position. That is a problem for everyone. (And ironically, I think that is what you are accusing me of... sticking with a position despite "the facts". How ironic!)

As I have stated before, I would never slow anyone down - emergency or not - but I do believe in the facts and testing. I am not sure what I would do, beyond getting out of the plane and not preventing anyone else from getting out.

And really, it comes back to my original supposition, there is no shown cases that saying those people carrying bags injured anyone.

I also believe I am being more honest than most in saying I would grab a bag if I thought it was safe to do. With this mob mentality, it would be hard for someone to step and say you might. (A few did early on.)


By the way - you guys missed the perfect argument!!!! Had you argued the bag people did kill people... but the dead people can't speak up, it would have been a great argument. Not 100%, but a great argument none the less.

Cheers.

It is not up to you. Follow the order you get from the CC. What other orders do you disregard in an emergency situation because you think you know better?

This isn't some kind of argument game

Thanks. I had read that a long time ago, but it did not show up in my search.

I believe the number one flaw with that study was they could not reproduce the issues on a single commercial jet with actual cellphones. In short, everything was all turned up to the max in the study.

I believe the only known incident on a plane had to do with a laptop turned on before takeoff or landing (can't remember which) that appeared to interfere with the cockpit instruments. Boeing actually bought the guys laptop, but was unable to reproduce the issue. (I apologize for not having the actual reference.)

Actually it is up to me. Your personal safety is your responsibility. You have a moral obligation to not to interfere with anyone else's safety. And a divine soul if you put your life in jeopardy to help save others.

I wasn't trying to be glib with that comment. I was trying to think of the other side of the argument to better understand others point of view. It occurred to me that would have been a reasonable argument to question my argument.

Having a spirited debate is not a bad thing. Thinking that a position is 100% right because other agree... well good for you.

Therein lies the whole problem with your thinking. It isn't up to you in that situation. Everything you do can impact on others. There are several hundered people trying to leave the aircraft all at once and under duress.

Follow the orders and get out. Anything else, including your replaceable bag, is superfluous. Morals and divinity are irrelvant, and if during an evacuation you are thinking about either you are not properly focusing on what should be your only priority.