Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

how to stop pax taking hand luggage in evacuation?

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

how to stop pax taking hand luggage in evacuation?

Old 12th Aug 2016, 13:54
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To prevent crashes, what we - who pay you peasants your wages - really need is far harsher, and probably collective punishments for failing crew.

A failing magenta line follower isn't just a magenta line follower which knows it's too tired, or too emo but clocks in for work anyway.

A failing magenta line follower is a magenta line follower or other airline thing that knows - or is in a position to know - that the other magenta line follower is too tired or ill or emo or psycho, but doesn't call it out.

So when something like Germanwings 9525 happens, we, as the folk who pay your wages, need to know that not just the perp's family will be destitute and out on the street, but that will also happen to all the folk who knew the perp, but didn't say anything.

---

Do you get this objectification thing yet ?
You could try looking up "in-groups" and "out-groups".

A couple non-aviation articles you might want to look at below. They might seem a bit tangential, but I'm not so sure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-report-cycle/

https://hbr.org/2015/02/why-debunkin...ubious-parents

Thing is, lots of passengers don't want loads of carry-on. But you peasants steal, break, disappear, delay, or just ship to some other random destination checked stuff, so we have to carry on stuff we'd rather put in the hold. If it's important, and can't be carried on, we have to use Fedex or a private flight.

Last edited by PAX_Britannica; 12th Aug 2016 at 14:30. Reason: sp.
PAX_Britannica is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2016, 14:13
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MurphyWasRight
If not already ( probably is ) make it illegal to take carry on with you in evacuation.
That by itself does little but the announcement that in the unlikely event of an evacuation all carry on found outside the airplane will be confiscated as part of the criminal investigation would make people think.

Could add a bit of sugar by stating that returned carry on after evac would have a $100 reward attached to it.
The $100 reward is a great idea, even $50 would do, perhaps. Lots of people here are saying 'you'll never change human behavior" but the advertising industry doesn't see it that way: they change human behavior every day.
cooperplace is offline
True on changing behaviour, but of course they do spend a lot of money and repetition on it. The trick is to come up with something that is effective and essentially (statistically at least) no cost. I suspect that even $500 would be 'noise in the system' considering the relatively low occurrence rate.

Old 12th Aug 2016, 10:44
Tourist

1. You will need to make this a law in all countries. Good luck with that.

2. Do you think the law will find it possible to prosecute passengers acting under the stress of an aircraft crash? Good luck with that
1: Dont need a law passed in all countries, just enough that the announcement is believable, possibly use language such as 'laws and international regulations ...' to avoid having custom announcements per destination.

2: No need to actually prosecute the passengers, just impound the "evidence" for a week or two with maybe a $1000 fine to get it back.

Only apply it to items that clearly would fit only in overhead, underseat items such as purses and the like are much less likely to be a real threat.

The goal is just to make it less convenient to take it with you than leave it in the overhead.

As others have pointed out humans are actually quite good at making rational decisions based on available facts.
MurphyWasRight is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2016, 14:46
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MurphyWasRight
As others have pointed out humans are actually quite good at making rational decisions based on available facts.
Umm, no. I guess it depends on what you mean by "rational".

Humans are appallingly bad at
Originally Posted by MurphyWasRight
making rational decisions based on available facts.
Unless Bayesian reasoning was a significant part of their education.

Today's magenta line followers are a bit like 1980's coalminers. They'll be obsolete in a few years, and we'll all be safer.

Last edited by PAX_Britannica; 12th Aug 2016 at 14:47. Reason: sp.
PAX_Britannica is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2016, 21:27
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Umm, no. I guess it depends on what you mean by "rational".

Humans are appallingly bad at

Originally Posted by MurphyWasRight View Post
making rational decisions based on available facts.
Unless Bayesian reasoning was a significant part of their education.
Good point, what I could have said was 'perceived facts' the possibility of becoming a 'crispy critter' due to reaching for the carryon in overhead is not likely to be a seen as a 'real fact' while risking having the carryon impounded at least could be.

Should also change $1000 fine to read $1000 fine/processing fee/bribe depending on the destination. Just the thought of dealing with local authorities might be enough of a deterrent.
MurphyWasRight is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2016, 23:12
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Something Must Be Done

This is one of those "something must be done" arguments.

This particular kind of "something must be done" argument goes like this:
<Outgroup X> does Y. Y is bad. <Outgroup X> must be punished.

For <Outgroup X> insert the appropriate perjorative term -
for example: kikes, dykes, New Yorkers, pakis, slopes, liberals, magenta line followers, ...

It's not so important whether Y really is bad or not. Or if <Outgroup X> really does do Y.

Whether the threat of punishment will stop <Outgroup X> doing Y doesn't even enter the argument.

The important thing is simply to bully and abuse <Outgroup X>, or anyone else that you feel like bullying, on the pretext that they somewhat resemble <Outgroup X>.

That works both ways: a really good Nazi didn't have to worry about being jewish - that could be swept under the carpet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's suppose you actually want to make scheduled flights safer.

Then you need to look at where injuries and fatalities come from. Analyse the statistics.

It's not 1953 - we don't have Comets exploding in mid-air for no apparent reason every few months.

It's mostly human factors now: CRM, fatigue, training, management pressure.
That's for the maintenance folk, as well as the pilots. A tired engineer working overtime on an overloaded night shift on a task they're not experienced with can kill people quite effectively.

Mercifully, we now have so few crashes that statistics cease to be so helpful - we have to analyse each incident separately, as well as look at statistics.

If we do that, I don't think we're going to find that what passengers do with carry-on baggage in an evacuation is causing any fatalities at all.

Aircraft certification requires 90 second evacuation. Perhaps certification would be more realistic if some proportion of the test subjects took luggage with them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But given that travel on scheduled flights (don't do a Patsy Klein or a Buddy Holly) is so safe now, does it even make sense to worry about safety of air travel ?

Aren't there more important things to worry about ?

In the US, maybe you could ask:
  • Why there are so many gun-related deaths - perhaps compared to other developed countries with high firearm possession such as Germany and Switzerland. (Germany has large numbers of illegal weapons from WW2 and the Balkan wars as well as registered weapons - granny might have a medium machine gun and a few unstable anti-tank missiles in her loft).
  • Why are there so many road traffic deaths compared to other developed countries ? Germany has no mandatory speed limit on 2/3 of its Autobahn network, but german roads are about twice as safe.

Last edited by PAX_Britannica; 12th Aug 2016 at 23:21. Reason: sp.
PAX_Britannica is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2016, 23:35
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No overhead storage of anything other than pillows, blankets or soft articles of clothing (coats, hats, etc) would eliminate the need for doors.

The emergency evacuation qualification test procedures should also be revised to take into account a large percentage of passengers ignoring the exit instructions they were given prior to take-off and the significant delay this creates. Take a look at this video of the emergency evacuation qual test for the A380. One thing you'll clearly note is that not a single passenger stops to grab baggage from the overheads, or is even carrying anything like a purse or laptop case during the procedure. Compare that to the situation shown in this video of the recent 777 accident.
riff_raff is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2016, 02:58
  #47 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 462
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by riff_raff
No overhead storage of anything other than pillows, blankets or soft articles of clothing (coats, hats, etc) would eliminate the need for doors.

The emergency evacuation qualification test procedures should also be revised to take into account a large percentage of passengers ignoring the exit instructions they were given prior to take-off and the significant delay this creates. Take a look at this video of the emergency evacuation qual test for the A380. One thing you'll clearly note is that not a single passenger stops to grab baggage from the overheads, or is even carrying anything like a purse or laptop case during the procedure. Compare that to the situation shown in this video of the recent 777 accident.
comparison of the two videos makes it abundantly clear that passengers delaying to get carry-on COULD cause deaths. It's intuitively obvious: a 380 was evacuated in 78 seconds. That could easily be stretched to 3-4 minutes if people grab carry-on. If the cabin bursts into flames 100 seconds after landing, that will lead to many deaths. The argument that &quot;in no recent crashes have pax taking luggage with them caused deaths&quot; has no credibility. Video like that of the 380 could be included in my proposed video for inclusion in the safety briefing. Remember: it is possible to change human behavior, and you don't the message to get thru to 100% of people: 90% will be enough, because if every luggage-grabber is surrounded by people who've got the message, they'll abandon their attempt to take luggage.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2016, 03:00
  #48 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 462
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
in vaccination theory there is the concept of herd immunity: when enough people are immune, epidemics can't spread. maybe we could use the term "herd common sense": you don't need everyone to have common sense, just nearly everyone, and that will drive everyone's behavior.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2016, 05:52
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you look at the video of the 777 accident, it is clear that most of the passengers ignored the emergency evacuation instructions. It was not just 10% of them.

The only way to change the natural selfish behavior of humans in emergency situations is to impose on them some form of penalty for non-compliance that encourages them to follow the rules.
riff_raff is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2016, 07:12
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
These people are under utterly abnormal stress. Probably more than 99.999% will ever experience. They are not rational.
They will not have time to think about consequences of prosecution. They are in a crash and don't know if they are going to live through the next minute, and yet they still take bags. Do you really think that a threat of possible prosecution is going to affect the situation?
Tourist is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2016, 07:24
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do you really think that a threat of possible prosecution is going to affect the situation?
Yes, I do.
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2016, 08:35
  #52 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 462
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by riff_raff
If you look at the video of the 777 accident, it is clear that most of the passengers ignored the emergency evacuation instructions. It was not just 10% of them.

The only way to change the natural selfish behavior of humans in emergency situations is to impose on them some form of penalty for non-compliance that encourages them to follow the rules.
while I agree that their behavior CAN be changed, I suggest that another way of doing this is for pax to realize that's it's in their own interests to leave their luggage behind. Self-interest as we all know is a strong driver of human behavior.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2016, 10:09
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My point was to use the threat of prosecution to convince pax that they would loose their bags -if- they took them with them. the bag going to 'jail' as evidence would suffice, totally agree prosecuting someone who was in a plane wreck would not be done.

That would change the "rational" decision to the safe one for all.
MurphyWasRight is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2016, 00:11
  #54 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 462
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
possibly the best approach is carrot AND stick.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2016, 02:44
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the best approach is carrot AND stick.
I agree. Plus a public education program to emphasise the carrot and the stick.

Last edited by rjtjrt; 14th Aug 2016 at 09:50. Reason: Typo
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2016, 06:46
  #56 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 462
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by rjtjrt
I agree. Plua a public education program to emphasisze the carrot and the stick.
100% agree; the safety briefing is part but not the only part of that education program. All sorts of information can get embedded into the public consciousness,and there's no reason why "you don't take your luggage when evacuating" couldn't also get into people's minds.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2016, 09:29
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cooperplace, you are in a dream-world.

Passengers come from all over the world, including countries where just trying to get people to queue is impossible and seatbelts are unheard of.

If you really think that it is possible to make all these disparate groups of people leave their bags you are delusional.

I have yet to see a single airline that has successfully managed to make all passengers stay sitting down after landing, and that happens every flight.

Pax behaving in accordance with some plan in incredibly rare circumstance like a crash is never going to happen even if there is a world famous disaster where the pax all die because of it. It simply wont reach the consciousness of half the passengers.
Tourist is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2016, 01:16
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
100% agree; the safety briefing is part but not the only part of that education program. All sorts of information can get embedded into the public consciousness,and there's no reason why "you don't take your luggage when evacuating" couldn't also get into people's minds.
What actually needs to get in to peoples mind is:

"if you take your luggage it will be impounded and at best it will be weeks and a hefty fine to get it back; if you leave it on board it will likely be returned within hours"

Best way to get it in to people's minds is to implement the confiscate/impound carry on rule and then the first couple of times it happens make sure that the complaints from people whose carry on was confiscated on the tarmac are widely aired along side the "you were warned" explanations.


Most evacs (fortunately) end up being precautionary and I suspect many pax are aware of that, even when the result is bad as in the recent event it may not be obvious to those on board -when making the decision- to grab bags.

That is why focusing on the safety issues is not all that effective since the danger is somewhat theoretical.


An interesting statistic would be % of passengers grabbing bags while leaving the miracle on the hudson landing where it was likely obvious to most that it was a true time critical emergency.
MurphyWasRight is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2016, 03:13
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's not that passengers ignoring emergency evacuation procedures present a danger to themselves, it's the hazard they create for everyone else. Consider the numerous examples where a single obnoxious drunk passenger is physically restrained by the crew, and the flight makes an emergency landing at the nearest airport. The drunk guy is arrested and charged with a federal felony criminal offense for creating a danger to the other passengers on the flight. How is this any different than someone ignoring the instructions they were given during an emergency evacuation?
riff_raff is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2016, 07:48
  #60 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 462
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist
cooperplace, you are in a dream-world.

Passengers come from all over the world, including countries where just trying to get people to queue is impossible and seatbelts are unheard of.

If you really think that it is possible to make all these disparate groups of people leave their bags you are delusional.

I have yet to see a single airline that has successfully managed to make all passengers stay sitting down after landing, and that happens every flight.

Pax behaving in accordance with some plan in incredibly rare circumstance like a crash is never going to happen even if there is a world famous disaster where the pax all die because of it. It simply wont reach the consciousness of half the passengers.
I agree no airline has succeeded, but I doubt that any have tried very hard. They rely on crew announcements "remain seated" etc. My suggestion includes a visual representation, as outlined earlier in the thread, of what could happen as a result of pax taking luggage during evacuation. I don't believe that 100% of the pax will ever get the message but I suggest that with a mix of the right measures, 90% might. And this could make a big difference in evacuation from a burning plane.
cooperplace is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.