Cabin Baggage in an Evacuation
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabin Baggage in an Evacuation
The UK CAA has recently produced an information Notice that attempts to address the problem of the morons who try to take their cabin baggage with them in an emergency evacuation.
It amounts to little more than trying to make people more aware of the consequences of doing that, in the vain hope that this awareness will affect their behaviour. Most will continue not to listen to any safety briefing at all.
The IN does obliquely suggest that people who try to take their cabin baggage should be punished in some way, perhaps by being sent to the back of the queue to leave, by cabin staff at the exit. But at this point such actions would only delay the evacuation. Here is the paragraph;
Unfortunately, cabin crew intervention at the point of exit will unavoidably hinder evacuation, as each stroppy idiot argues the toss.
Arresting and charging anyone who emerges with cabin baggage would be good, but only if passengers are aware that this will happen. But in the circumstances of most evacuations it is unlikely that there will be people on the ground to do that.
For my money, small locking devices should be fitted to overhead bins, that are locked when the doors close by a single switch on the cabin staff panel, and opened when at the gate after arrival. If during a long-haul flight a passenger needs access, this could be managed safely.
It amounts to little more than trying to make people more aware of the consequences of doing that, in the vain hope that this awareness will affect their behaviour. Most will continue not to listen to any safety briefing at all.
The IN does obliquely suggest that people who try to take their cabin baggage should be punished in some way, perhaps by being sent to the back of the queue to leave, by cabin staff at the exit. But at this point such actions would only delay the evacuation. Here is the paragraph;
Operators should also review their procedures and training for passenger management during an evacuation; including verbal instructions to leave hand baggage behind and actions to be taken by cabin crew should passengers attempt to remove hand baggage. This should include management of passengers with hand baggage at exits in order to maintain expediency of egress, ensuring cabin crew intervention does not hinder evacuation.
Arresting and charging anyone who emerges with cabin baggage would be good, but only if passengers are aware that this will happen. But in the circumstances of most evacuations it is unlikely that there will be people on the ground to do that.
For my money, small locking devices should be fitted to overhead bins, that are locked when the doors close by a single switch on the cabin staff panel, and opened when at the gate after arrival. If during a long-haul flight a passenger needs access, this could be managed safely.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree that a locking mechanism will work. You'll just get lots of morons frantically trying to open the lockers to get their stuff even if it's locked.
I think a simply reminder just before every take off and then once again just before landing. Perhaps making it an offence would work.
Something needs to be done otherwise we might as well ignore everything we learned post British Airtours in Manchester. We might as well narrow the aisles, cram more in, deactivate doors and make partitions and door areas smaller if we are just going to allow people to haul their tonne weight hold-alls out in an emergency without any consequences.
Another Manchester will occur at this rate. Let's not let those lost die in vain or all the improvements go to waste.
Those who claim to need to take their bags for medication should place their medication on their person. This argument doesn't wash with me. After all, no airline guarantees your cabin bag will be stored in the cabin. There's a risk it will be offloaded. If so, what would you do then for medication?
I think a simply reminder just before every take off and then once again just before landing. Perhaps making it an offence would work.
Something needs to be done otherwise we might as well ignore everything we learned post British Airtours in Manchester. We might as well narrow the aisles, cram more in, deactivate doors and make partitions and door areas smaller if we are just going to allow people to haul their tonne weight hold-alls out in an emergency without any consequences.
Another Manchester will occur at this rate. Let's not let those lost die in vain or all the improvements go to waste.
Those who claim to need to take their bags for medication should place their medication on their person. This argument doesn't wash with me. After all, no airline guarantees your cabin bag will be stored in the cabin. There's a risk it will be offloaded. If so, what would you do then for medication?
Paxing All Over The World
Unfortunately, all carriers have been (and are) loathe to mention problems of any kind. Saying what can happen in an emergency is full of difficulty. Since the type of emergency cannot be known, briefing for multiple options would bring further confusion. Whilst flight deck and cabin crew are trained to hold multiple options in mind at all times - pax cannot.
Following the 'Tombstone Imperative' (book by Andrew Weir) nothing will change unless people die. That is, if lots of people die and it can be attributed to hand luggage being the cause. Otherwise: Nothing.
The UK CAA is, understandably, covering their backsides against the next prang and photos of pax holding luggage on the chute.
Following the 'Tombstone Imperative' (book by Andrew Weir) nothing will change unless people die. That is, if lots of people die and it can be attributed to hand luggage being the cause. Otherwise: Nothing.
The UK CAA is, understandably, covering their backsides against the next prang and photos of pax holding luggage on the chute.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that disobeying instructions and endangering others is already several offences; all that is needed is robust identification of the offender together with proof of guilt. Quite a tall order, in practice.
I remember a number of issues that adversely affected the cabin evacuation in the BA Manchester disaster so that all those people died; one event I attended at that time was a course on mass casualty event management that highlighted many of the lessons from Manchester with graphic presentations of what went wrong, why it went wrong, and the result.
Toxic smoke, its rapid expansion in the cabin, and the effect on visibility was featured, and resulted in floor guidance systems; smokehoods got a lot of attention but were eventually discarded. Many other lessons were learned, as well, including not to use materials that generate toxic smoke.
I do not recall cabin baggage being identified as an important contributing factor to the difficulty of evacuation and consequent high loss of life; but maybe that's yet another memory failure on my part.
For the ultimate evacuation failure, look no further than Saudi Arabian Flight 163, in 1980.
I remember a number of issues that adversely affected the cabin evacuation in the BA Manchester disaster so that all those people died; one event I attended at that time was a course on mass casualty event management that highlighted many of the lessons from Manchester with graphic presentations of what went wrong, why it went wrong, and the result.
Toxic smoke, its rapid expansion in the cabin, and the effect on visibility was featured, and resulted in floor guidance systems; smokehoods got a lot of attention but were eventually discarded. Many other lessons were learned, as well, including not to use materials that generate toxic smoke.
I do not recall cabin baggage being identified as an important contributing factor to the difficulty of evacuation and consequent high loss of life; but maybe that's yet another memory failure on my part.
For the ultimate evacuation failure, look no further than Saudi Arabian Flight 163, in 1980.
Referring to passengers as "morons" is hardly helpful....
I do not recall cabin baggage being identified as an important contributing factor to the difficulty of evacuation and consequent high loss of life; but maybe that's yet another memory failure on my part.
I recall documenting some survivable incidents where the aircraft ended up a write off due to fire after the passengers evacuated.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multiple studies have shown that people behave irrationally in any panic situation. Whether it be aircraft or building emergencies, "common sense" often goes out of the window, and the problem is multiplied where a crowd of people is concerned.
So what is being suggested is criminalising people who are not in control of their own actions.
Prosecuting the hell out of people who pick up their baggage will never, ever solve the problem. They will always do it; in the same way as some people will always try to exit through the door they entered (even if an emergency exit is closer and it means going the wrong way) or push slower-moving people out of the way to get past.
Plan for irrationality. Much better solution.
So what is being suggested is criminalising people who are not in control of their own actions.
Prosecuting the hell out of people who pick up their baggage will never, ever solve the problem. They will always do it; in the same way as some people will always try to exit through the door they entered (even if an emergency exit is closer and it means going the wrong way) or push slower-moving people out of the way to get past.
Plan for irrationality. Much better solution.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't think of another word to describe those hauling luggage off a burning aircraft as moronic.
I wasn't implying baggage was a factor in Manchester. What I'm getting at is that a lot of cabin design changes and changes to materials, plastics and SOPs were changed with the vision of increasing survivability through reduced evacuation times. If we are now allowing people to take their luggage with them in an evacuation then what's the point in all that. You can do all sorts to change the design of a plane only for it to be rendered useless by morons taking their carry on bags with them.
I wasn't implying baggage was a factor in Manchester. What I'm getting at is that a lot of cabin design changes and changes to materials, plastics and SOPs were changed with the vision of increasing survivability through reduced evacuation times. If we are now allowing people to take their luggage with them in an evacuation then what's the point in all that. You can do all sorts to change the design of a plane only for it to be rendered useless by morons taking their carry on bags with them.
Maybe a partial solution would be to seriously limit the size of carry-on luggage, and enforce it. If the bag is small enough, it won't matter if people take it with them during an evac. We're talking big enough for a tablet, passport, wallet, specs, bottle of pills, and not much else.
A two-tier system might be necessary; one small bag to accompany the passenger, another bag accessible in flight (nappies, and other mainly-essential but bulky sundries), said bag to be locked in a cabin hold, available from a flight attendant on request. (Request to be met with a smile, and a polite but firm shake of the head in the event of an emergency evac.)
While they're at it, how about banning outbound duty free liquor. Stuff is a major fire hazard, plus it's heavy, plus it could be used as a weapon.
A two-tier system might be necessary; one small bag to accompany the passenger, another bag accessible in flight (nappies, and other mainly-essential but bulky sundries), said bag to be locked in a cabin hold, available from a flight attendant on request. (Request to be met with a smile, and a polite but firm shake of the head in the event of an emergency evac.)
While they're at it, how about banning outbound duty free liquor. Stuff is a major fire hazard, plus it's heavy, plus it could be used as a weapon.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airports will never go for banning duty free or any sales to passengers. Go it to most UK airports and you'll see large podiums of miniature spirit bottles and small bottles of wine right on the walkway that every departing passenger is forced to pass by. They're blatantly designed for passengers to take onboard and drink. When challenged by my airline due to alcohol fuelled disruptive pass the airport said 'these are for people who may want a drink on their arrival in their hotel'. This may be true, but isn't that why they invented mini bars? The airport is interested in selling and making money and nothing more.
The airports will never go for banning duty free or any sales to passengers. Go it to most UK airports and you'll see large podiums of miniature spirit bottles and small bottles of wine right on the walkway that every departing passenger is forced to pass by. They're blatantly designed for passengers to take onboard and drink. When challenged by my airline due to alcohol fuelled disruptive pass the airport said 'these are for people who may want a drink on their arrival in their hotel'. This may be true, but isn't that why they invented mini bars? The airport is interested in selling and making money and nothing more.
I concede there are probably a few airports around that won't have the full range of availability.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So a UK airport takes the money and then orders it waiting for it to be collected on arrival? And airports have to all then keep an arrivals store manned and open all hours of the day to give out customer orders thousands of miles from where it was purchased? I can't say I'd bother with that. On arrival I just want to get going and not mess about with a second retail experience after a long flight.
There is always the issue about having your documents and a mobile with you after an evacuation. In the BA case in Denver there were mentions about the AF overrun in Toronto where pax with document enjoyed stay at a hotel while the others remain under the supervision of immigration authorities.
Plus all passengers tend to carry a tablet or something similar so we need to give some bases that people rated their few hundrends dollar or Euros more than few seconds.
Waiting for the incoming fire (no pun intended) ..
Plus all passengers tend to carry a tablet or something similar so we need to give some bases that people rated their few hundrends dollar or Euros more than few seconds.
Waiting for the incoming fire (no pun intended) ..
Last edited by Rwy in Sight; 29th Oct 2015 at 07:44.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What IS permitted then? Common sense tells me that most people who habitually carry a handbag, and have it at their feet will grab it on the way out. These handbags range in size from quite small to ... I suspect some here will say these too should be left behind, but I cannot see that as being very likely.
Is this dangerous? Depending on the size of the bag, probably not.
I have a small 'man-bag' that has my medicine, glucose metre and test strips, my money, my iPad and my documents. It never goes in the overhead bin and it is smaller than my wife's handbag. I can assure you that I will be taking this with me in any evacuation.
This theme repeats here from time to time, usually after an evacuation where youtube videos show the 'morons'. However, like some others here, I cannot recall any incident which was made worse by the 'morons'. Intuitively it feels right that carry-on should be left behind, but this isn't supported by the facts.
I think this safety rule should be re-looked into by the regulators. The rule has been in place for many, many years and it is taken as gospel that it is right to have it - although it cannot be enforced. But perhaps a variation would be more effective. If the rule stated that nothing other than a small 'personal' item (with specific dimensions) can be taken in an evacuation perhaps many of the morons can be encouraged to be better prepared. The baggage industry would love it, they could market all sorts of products to suit the new rule. Of course you will always have 'morons' but give people a rule they can follow and perhaps many will do so.
Oh, and can someone remind me of the airline's liability for loss or damage of items in carry-on? I don't think MC99 liability applies to carry on, but even if it did their liability is capped.
Is this dangerous? Depending on the size of the bag, probably not.
I have a small 'man-bag' that has my medicine, glucose metre and test strips, my money, my iPad and my documents. It never goes in the overhead bin and it is smaller than my wife's handbag. I can assure you that I will be taking this with me in any evacuation.
This theme repeats here from time to time, usually after an evacuation where youtube videos show the 'morons'. However, like some others here, I cannot recall any incident which was made worse by the 'morons'. Intuitively it feels right that carry-on should be left behind, but this isn't supported by the facts.
I think this safety rule should be re-looked into by the regulators. The rule has been in place for many, many years and it is taken as gospel that it is right to have it - although it cannot be enforced. But perhaps a variation would be more effective. If the rule stated that nothing other than a small 'personal' item (with specific dimensions) can be taken in an evacuation perhaps many of the morons can be encouraged to be better prepared. The baggage industry would love it, they could market all sorts of products to suit the new rule. Of course you will always have 'morons' but give people a rule they can follow and perhaps many will do so.
Oh, and can someone remind me of the airline's liability for loss or damage of items in carry-on? I don't think MC99 liability applies to carry on, but even if it did their liability is capped.
So a UK airport takes the money and then orders it waiting for it to be collected on arrival? And airports have to all then keep an arrivals store manned and open all hours of the day to give out customer orders thousands of miles from where it was purchased? I can't say I'd bother with that. On arrival I just want to get going and not mess about with a second retail experience after a long flight.
If you'd ever spoken with, or rather listened to people who have seen overheads collapse in a prang, and rain down burning liquor on those below, maybe you'd think the same as I. I only had to hear one mans description of the event to become convinced.
The current status quo is purely about economics, and nothing to do with safety.
Paxing All Over The World
Time to start scrutinizing the videos: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...auderdale.html
The flight was taxying for departure, not on arrival. It would be interesting to see if there is some variation in pax behavior in this matter, whether the evac happens on departure or arrival.
The flight was taxying for departure, not on arrival. It would be interesting to see if there is some variation in pax behavior in this matter, whether the evac happens on departure or arrival.
This is going to be controversial, but it is my honest opinion.
Having flown to a large number of destinations all over the northern half of our planet, and witnessed the insane attitudes & behaviours of a huge number of fellow passengers in all kinds of situations, the only way that you could stop people putting others lives in danger by hauling bags out from under seats and down from overhead lockers is by posting armed sky marshals at each emergency exit to either seriously wound or summarily execute anyone carrying luggage during an evacuation.
Bottom line - your fellow passengers are stupid and WILL put your life in danger.
You just have to prepared to look after number one in ways that don't rely on the cooperation of these lunatics.
Having flown to a large number of destinations all over the northern half of our planet, and witnessed the insane attitudes & behaviours of a huge number of fellow passengers in all kinds of situations, the only way that you could stop people putting others lives in danger by hauling bags out from under seats and down from overhead lockers is by posting armed sky marshals at each emergency exit to either seriously wound or summarily execute anyone carrying luggage during an evacuation.
Bottom line - your fellow passengers are stupid and WILL put your life in danger.
You just have to prepared to look after number one in ways that don't rely on the cooperation of these lunatics.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just have to prepared to look after number one in ways that don't rely on the cooperation of these lunatics.
I had to point out to her that my approach will be different: If you are in front of me, move immediately toward the exit. If you are reaching into the overhead, I'll be pushing you out of the way as I pass beside or over you.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Many people now carry enormous "carry on" luggage to avoid paying for hold luggage, happily encouraged by people like Mike OŽL.
2. Due to this many pax eg in row 5 are forced to stow their bags in overheads above rows further back, rows 8,9 10 or worse.
The fun starts in an emergency when said "morons" try to push their way back against the flow to retrieve their bags.
Please may I never be there to see it.
2. Due to this many pax eg in row 5 are forced to stow their bags in overheads above rows further back, rows 8,9 10 or worse.
The fun starts in an emergency when said "morons" try to push their way back against the flow to retrieve their bags.
Please may I never be there to see it.