RUMOUR of "smoking on board" and "endless list" of safety issues?? = Hype!!

[Ray Darr]

Keeping this quote in mind (in red, at the bottom of Danny's site for all of us to see): ..."As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions." ...I decided to take a derailed posting from below (in the Gulf Air 151 thread however this was relating to another flight) and reply to Pontious:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some pax smoked openly...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is just my personal experience, but in the past 40 years, I have been on ONE flight that a passenger - A SINGLE passenger - smoked on a flight on a flight where smoking was banned. And that was in the lav on a well-known UK Charter airline!

Smoking on any flight is dangerous. There we all should agree. However, your reaction to mobile-phone usage seemed to generate far more interest than the smoking of "some" pax on your DXB-BAH flight.

If you (or anyone) won't stand up and DEMAND the idiot STOP smoking (or according to you, the numerous passengers that were smoking) then you are part of the problem. (What was it, by the way, a tobacco convention charter or what?!)

If it is a legit safety issue, get noticed until something is done - NO excuse!

When you ("you" the traveling public, not just "you", Pontious) see anything unsafe, snap a photo of the situation!! Show proof of these idiots to the proper authorities - heck, even post a few snaps here! - instead of just throwing sand casually about.

The allegations that "some pax smoked openly" as extremely hyped up IN MY OPINION. Maybe one person lit up and passed it on to their habibi? Regardless, most frequent of us flyers know how serious smoking is treated by any crew (and fellow passengers!) and would never tolerate that happening. How about telling us how that was dealt with...perhaps the cabin crew crowded around gossiping and sharing said smoke with the passenger(s)? :p

For those of us that travel frequently on Gulf Air, I suggest you post your endless list here of whatever safety issues you were compiling from that un-named flight (check your ticket stub for the flight number, G'uv).

To paraphrase you from elsewhere, the list of all these safety issues might supply us all with a good laugh.

If they are legit, why not act on your allegations? Your family or friends may travel on Gulf Air sometime. Think something WAS wrong? Speak up!!

I suggest your experiences with GF went bad long before your feet hit the floor that morning - if not earlier.

..having said the above - your (Pontious) contributions elsewhere here have brought a chuckle to many. Keep up the (sincerely) good postings. Just give consideration that "numerous safety issues" (paraphrasing again) are indicative of an unsafe airline WHEN THEY ARE legit safety issues!

Happy trails,
R.D.

[PaperTiger]

Smoking on any flight is dangerous. There we all should agree.Wasn't dangerous for fifty-odd years before the nannies banned it.

Only potentially dangerous now because it's done on the sly, in the bog, under a jacket etc. etc.

So no, we don't all agree :rolleyes:

[davethelimey]

Wasn't there some talk of Air France introducing a smoking area on some transatlantic flights? Bearing in mind that a smoking area on a plane would be a bit like a peeing area in a swimming pool (to nick some poor sod's joke), how would this work?

As far as I know smoking on a plane isn't dangerous, just unpleasant.

[Pontious]

Regarding the smoking, it was actually 3 guys sat about 5 or 6 rows from the back. 2 were sat together on the left side as you face the rear of the aircraft, the other didn't look as though he was travelling with them. The flight was quick (about 35 mins T/O -T/D) and the crew very busy. I went to use the loo's at the rear of the aircraft and that's when I noticed these 3 guys. I attracted the attention of one of the crew (not the 'shrugger') and she went aft straight past the offenders into the rear galley. She emerged to 'challenge' them with a colleague. At that point I lost interest and turned my attention to the little lady sat next to me... but that's for another thread...

After making such a song and dance about the mobile phone use to a member of crew and looking like a complete arse for it,incurring some menacing looks from the pax I drew attention to, I just put my head down and waited for the aircraft to land. While I was out in BAH that night at a well known 'W'atering hole I got chatting to some ex-pat GF crew who confirmed that it happens sometimes and even ventured a particular nationality.

Can I ask you just how the hell am I supposed to 'snap' a photograph of the offenders when the only camera I had was on my mobile phone and "...MOBILE PHONES ARE TO BE SWITCHED OFF AND REMAIN OFF UNTIL YOU ARE IN THE TERMINAL BUILDING"!

Now then Ray Darr, don't make this a 'personal issue' because the rules are, attack the message NOT the messenger.

[mocoman]

Can I ask you just how the hell am I supposed to 'snap' a photograph of the offenders when the only camera I had was on my mobile phone and "...MOBILE PHONES ARE TO BE SWITCHED OFF AND REMAIN OFF UNTIL YOU ARE IN THE TERMINAL BUILDING"!

Most modern moblie phones can be switched into 'flight' mode; whereby all RF circuitry is turned-off, leaving functions such as camera and PDA etc still active.....

:8

[411A]

Dunno how it's handled elsewhere, but on one domestic SV flight some years ago, one pax lit up and told the cabin crew..."it is my right to smoke..." whereupon she mentioned same to me, the Commander.
At DHA, the offending individual repeated same to security at the stand, and he was dragged off, feet first, head bouncing off every step on the way down, and went straight to jail, pronto.

He might still be there, for all I know.

Seems reasonable to me.:ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

Ray Darr

"Smoking on any flight is dangerous. There we all should agree."

I don't.
Nor, it appears, do aircraft manufacturers who instal ash-trays.
How many airline accidents have been caused by someone smoking on board?

It's beyond doubt that smoking is dangerous, and there may be good health and/or comfort reasons to prohibit it in a confined space like an airliner, but that's a different matter.

[RAT 5]

Would somebody please quote chapter & verse of any a/c downed due to passenger smoking.

A years ago Alitalia had 2 flights FCO-JFK. They departed within an hour of each other. One was smoking, one was non-smoking. Some passengers, not realising the difference, were highly miffed to be on the wrong one. The cabin staff had much fun & games(= trauma) enforcing the rules of that particular flight.

This is a social issue, not a flight safety issue. I happen to be a non-smoker, & anti smoker, but to forbid something ( the same on turn rounds for flight crew) for bogus reasons, devalues the rule.

[bealine]

"Smoking on any flight is dangerous. There we all should agree."

Smoking in the toilets is dangerous due to (a)the potentially explosive nature of methane from the septic tank and (b) the potential fire hazard of paper towels, tissues and other flotsam in the waste bin

A passenger puffing away behind a locked door is a real danger so I would have thought having a small smoking zone on an aeroplane far and away safer than banning it altogether.

As for a peeing zone in a swimming pool, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. Due to the air flow on modern aircraft, if the smoking zone was in the centre section, and semi-sealed with fore and aft bulkheads, the smoke particles would be sucked out of the cabin pretty swiftly and non-smokers would not be inconvenienced too much.

For the record, I am not a smoker, I am just interested in the "safety" aspect which keeps raising its ugly head. It is, IMHO, more dangerous and more hazardous than passive smoking for the airline industry to keep extending the life of the aircrafts' air scrubbers!!!

[BigGrecian]

Most modern moblie phones can be switched into 'flight' mode; whereby all RF circuitry is turned-off, leaving functions such as camera and PDA etc still active.....

The last two flights have been on have said:
"Mobile Phones are to be switched off and remain off until you are in the terminal building, this includes phones with a Flight mode function."

[sirwa69]

I posted this on the original thread but it seems the significance has been hijacked to this one.


I have flown 106 intra gulf flights with Gulf Air in the last 12 months. While I have frequently witnessed mobile phones being used or ringing (I have even forgot to switch mine off on more than one occasion) I have never, I will repeat that so you get it, NEVER seen any pax smoking.
While the cabin crew have difficulty with mobile phones I doubt if there would be any truck with smoking.

Incidently, Emirates have decided that they are to allow the use of mobile phones on their aircraft. So where's the safety problem.

Now many members of this forum will know that I am not an employee or appologist for Gulf Air, what I am is a regular flyer with them and I personally do not have any issue with their safety.

[Rollingthunder]

Is it not for the regulatory agencies to decide if mobile phones are safe to use on-board? Not the airlines themselves?

[TightSlot]

Correct, RollingThunder, and the crew are legally required to apply the regulations, whether they, or their customers agree with them or not. At the time of writing, the UK CAA still have not approved mobiles with a "flight/safe mode" for use, and therefore, no matter how silly it may seem, the crew are also required to prevent this kind of phone being used. This strikes me a being a bit daft, but I am required to apply the regs as they stand, not to interpret them.

If Emirates have decided to permit unrestricted use of mobiles on board (something that quite a lot of people don't seem to want) then it can only be because their national authority have given permission

[eal401]

If you (or anyone) won't stand up and DEMAND the idiot STOP smoking (or according to you, the numerous passengers that were smoking) then you are part of the problem.
What and potentially turn an uncomortable situation into an air rage incident? Yeah, that would be really clever!

Tell a flight attendant, it's their job to deal with such things, not yours.

[callout]

Having worked on aircraft for many many years, the smoking did cause some major problems with the aircraft. Items such as ventulating systems would be gummed up with nicotine. It seems since smoking has been banned on most aircraft the pressurization problems have all but disappeared. We use to have to clean the outflow valves on a regular basis because of them sticking. Yes, I do believe now that we are suppose to be smarter, smoking should be banned on all flights. By the way, don't get caught smoking on the ground in the aircarft in Austrailia. It's a major fine handed down from the government. This also includes cargo as well as passenger aircraft.

[PAXboy]

Pedantic Mode = ON.
"gummed up with nicotine." I think that it's actually the tar from the tobacco and the same stuff that gums up a smoker's lungs.

Mode - Normal. :=

[silverhawk]

Pushback cancelled at MAN yesterday due pax smoking in he toilet.

Guess which airline........... only EK, dest Dubai.

Is smoking on an aircraft safe......NO

Is smoking pleasant on an aircraft.........No, for non-smokers.

Phones are a different thread, if you look at a phone in one hand and a cigarette in the other I'm sure you will be able to differenciate. Good luck

[Omaha]

Reading these pages would have you believe the biggest culprits in this regard re: smoking onboard are the pilots themselves ........ in the cockpit. :rolleyes:

[eal401]

but at least 10(?) years ago, there was a mid-sized USA-registered aircraft that had a toilet fire (caused by a cigarette).
If it is the incident I am thinking of, an Air Canada DC-9, I believe it wasn't a ciggie but a faulty toilet motor. Anyone know more?

[Rollingthunder]

Status: Final
Date: 02 JUN 1983
Time: 19:20 EDT
Type: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32
Operator: Air Canada
Registration: C-FTLU
Msn / C/n: 47196/278
Year built: 1968
Total airframe hrs: 36825 hours
Cycles: 34987 cycles
Engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney JT8D-7B
Crew: 0 fatalities / 5 on board
Passengers: 23 fatalities / 41 on board
Total: 23 fatalities / 46 on board
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Airport, KY (CVG) (United States of America)
Phase: En route
Nature: International Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, TX (DFW)
Destination airport: Toronto-Pearson International Airport, ON (YYZ)
Flightnumber: 797
Narrative:
At 16:25 CDT Flight 797 took off from Dallas for a flight to Montreal via Toronto. At 18:51 EDT, while cruising at FL330, the three aft lavatory flush motor circuit breakers tripped. The captain thought the plush motor had probably seized and waited for about eight minutes before (unsuccessfully) trying to reset them. At about the same time a strange odor was smelled at the aft of the plane. After finding out that the lavatory was full of smoke, a cabin attendant used the CO2 bottle to put out the fire (though only black smoke was seen coming out of the seams of the lavatory's walls).
The first officer went over to take a look, but had to return to the cockpit to get his goggles. When returning to the cockpit at 19:07, the 1st officer told the captain he thought it best to descend. Around that time the aircraft started developing electrical problems and a Mayday call was issued. Flight 797 stared to descend and contacted Cincinnati at 19:10 for an emergency. During the descent smoke began to fill the passenger cabin. The emergency landing was carried out on runway 27L at 19:20. The Cincinnati fire services were not able to put out the fire, which gutted the fuselage.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "A fire of undetermined origin, an underestimate of fire severity, and conflicting fire progress information provided to the captain.
Contributing to the severity of the accident was the flight crew's delayed decision to institute an emergency descent." (NTSB/AAR-84/09)

[Eurekadelta]

Paxboy:

In actual fact both Nicotine and Tar cause 'gumming up' - I was once told by engineer that the one disadvantage of passengers no longer being allowed to smoke was that 'Nicotine stained' pressure leaks were no longer easily visible on the a/c exterior.
:8

[virginpaul]

Flying Lawyer

"Nor, it appears, do aircraft manufacturers who instal ash-trays."

Ash trays are still fitted so that idiots who do think they are above the regulations and smoke on board aircraft have somewhere safe to stub them out - rather chucking them in the lav waste bin or stubbing them out on the carpet!

Ash Trays are mandated on UK reg aircraft inside the lavs and on the outside of toilet doors. (as are automatic fire extinguishers in the lav bins and heat indicating decals nearby).

I don't mind having to change an outflow valve these days (although we rarely do these days) as they are no longer the disgusting sticky gummed up mess they were.

I am a smoker, but I could never stand the stench of smoke on a flight - I never sat in the smoking zone in the old days.

Personally - I think it is safer on board aircraft now smoking is prohibited.
A very great number of the passengers on aircraft I have been on do not know the correct way to face when sitting on a toilet - let alone being responsible enough to not set fire to themselves, travelling companions, their blankets or other debris they sit amongst.

Perhaps there have been no hull losses due to smoking, but I bet there have been a great many "incidents". I believe it is better to legislate before an incident occurs, than, as with other issues (seats squeezed in next to overwing emergency escape hatches/non fire retardant seat covers etc a-la British Airways Manchester incident) wait until the body count is high enough to drive the Authorities into legeslative action.

Prevention is better then tombstone engineering (cure).

Paul

[PaperTiger]

If it is the incident I am thinking of, an Air Canada DC-9, I believe it wasn't a ciggie but a faulty toilet motor. Anyone know more?Correct, although the NTSB could not definitively establish the source of the fire. A cigarette was not absolutely ruled out, but if you wade through the entire report (http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR86-02.pdf) , the location of the fire makes it most unlikely. Particularly since smoking in the seats was allowed, there would have been no need to sneak one in the bog, and certainly no motive for stuffing it down behind the sink.

And before anyone mentions it, the Air France 707 at Paris was similarly inconclusive wrt cause.

[SQawk77]

It's hard to believe that anyone in the industry is advocating the reintroduction of smoking on aircraft.
Leaving aside the argument as to whether or not it's dangerous, smoking has no place in any form of public transport in the 21st century.
In addition to the problem of outflow valves getting bunged up with nasty gunk, etc., does anyone think cabin crew want to return to the delights of working in an aircraft cabin with a smoking section? I think not. Even if there was a satisfactory way to segregate smokers in flight, why should the crew have to put up with it?
The message is - if you want to travel on public transport you can't smoke - the chioce is yours.