Bags Under The Seats - Or Else

[notmyC150v2]

Ten to one says that this idiot thinks they are, should be, famous.:rolleyes:

From SMH online today.

Handbag incident on plane gets passenger kicked off
July 31, 2006 - 11:23PM

A passenger was escorted off a Tokyo-bound plane in Hong Kong after she refused to put her Gucci handbag under her seat, holding up the departure of a flight for more than an hour.

The Cathay Pacific plane was ready to take off but was forced to stop on the runway because the young passenger would not comply with a flight attendant's request, the Apple Daily newspaper reported on Monday.

After 15 minutes of argument, police officers, airport security guards and airline officials were called in to resolve the situation, but she still refused to give in.

After an officer threatened to arrest her, the unnamed passenger finally agreed to leave the plane with her handbag, much to the delight of her angry fellow passengers who clapped as she was escorted off.

"It's not my fault, it was them who were too stubborn," she shouted as she left.

Did the Cabin Crew have to push it so far? Is it really important? Not being sarcastic but genuinly curious as to the reason for the dogmatism.

[pakeha-boy]

....not trying to be sarcastic....but have you ever worked on a daily basis with cabin crew???

...the other thing...they dont make the rules,they just follow and enforce them..:{

[AerocatS2A]

Did the Cabin Crew have to push it so far? Is it really important? Not being sarcastic but genuinly curious as to the reason for the dogmatism.
I'd be directing that question to the passenger not the crew. Why the hell couldn't she just put the bag under the seat (or in the overhead) like everyone else does?

[CSilvera]

kudos to the crew!

[notmyC150v2]

I agree that the passenger is a complete wally but I am still curious as to why the rule is there.

Not pursuing the CC for enforcing the rule, just trying to understand its existence.

[sinala1]

Baggage etc needs to be pushed forward under the seat in front to reduce any blockages etc that could slow peoples ability to move into the aisle and therefore to the exits in an evac.

I have had similar situations more than once. A point to remember is that if someone fails to follow simple instructions such as pushing a handbag under a seat, you have to presume that they may not follow crew instructions in an emergency and could therefore represent a hinderance to the safety of pax and crew. I would guess the ultimate offloading of this passenger was not so much for the Gucci handbag, but the fact that she was failing to follow the directions of the crew (which under Australian law classifies you as a Disruptive Passenger - not sure about HKG rulings though).

[blueloo]

I thought pressing the call button on an Australian flight resulted in you being considered a Disruptive passenger under Australian Law.

:}

[X_class]

A plane takes off at 200 .. 300 km/h. If something goes wrong then the plane may slow dramatically. If the bag is not secured then it will continue at the original speed.
Would you like to be hit by a handbag travelling 100km/h faster than you are ?

[notmyC150v2]

err good point Xclass. When you put it like that it does make sense.
;)

[pakeha-boy]

......only Tana Umanga swings a bag @300km.......AND the misses got me with a good the other night:ouch:

[Woomera]

Cabin bags (not in the overhead lockers) go behind the foot rests of the seat in front. Reason is simple: the foot rests are stressed the same as the seats (24G?).

If the aircraft should suddenly come to a halt, on a hill near Canberra for example, the foot rest ensures the bag decelerates at the same rate as the fuselage and seat belted passengers.

Bags, laptop computers and camera continuing at constant velocity, whilst passengers and aircraft decerate rapidly may be dangerous to your health.

So are hills near Canberra!

My only criticism of the crew - they should have turfed the tart off the aircraft earlier!! :mad:

Happier pakeha?

Buster, I've had a camera land on my head in CAT. Probably explain why I'm now a PPRuNe Mod!

Sunny Woomera

[pakeha-boy]

so woomera....you dont think you could have used a different example other than MT Erebus.....I could tell you a story about a family member....on my dads side...if he was here,could tell you about the stopping power of that MT:*

[Buster Hyman]

I don't think that being hit in the back of a head by a hand bag is your biggest concern if you hit a Mountain.

[SkySista]

Errr.... correct me if I'm wrong but Erebus is a loooooong way from CBR!!!! :}

[AerocatS2A]

Depends how you hit the mountain. A Dash 8 in NZ collected the top of a hill and most of the passengers walked away. A secure cabin might make the difference between 3 and 4 fatalities in such a situation.

[Buster Hyman]

Well, I sat behind a colleague in the AN cricket team on a trip to AKL once & watched as all his stubbies flew out of the overhead locker after a particularly nasty CO landing. It was very Homer-esque as each can landed one at a time on his scone! Classic stuff.

(Maybe he's a Mod too...):ooh:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Errr.... correct me if I'm wrong but Erebus is a loooooong way from CBR!!!! :}

Reading between the lines, the Woomera editded the post after PB's reply and before you read it.

[Dj Dave]

Skytrans Airlines up in Cairns now ask the passengers to surrender all hand luggage for this very reason. I doubt the 404 seats are indeed rated to 25Gs.

Funny enough, if a plane crashes, a bloke carrying a laptop would probably kill his fellow passenger but keep his hardrive intact as theyr'e rated 30Gs+



Dj Dave

I don't recall the details but I think the Titan and similar era aircraft seats are stressed to 9G. Then the FAA changed the design rules and required new designed aircraft to be stressed to 25G. An example was the "new" Cessna 206 (with the Lycoming engine) which grew around 90 kg over the original Cessna 206 (with the Continental engine) due to the seats meeting the new design rules.

Sunny Woomera

[Barkly1992]

Congrats to the Cabin Crew.

I was once in BN boarding for CNS I think when two US vistors ahead of me in the queue were told that their hand luggage was too big to be taken on board and would need to be checked and loaded in the hold. They put on one almighty performance - what sort of ferking country is this - in the US I can take this huge bag on board. The flight attendant carefully and politely explained the rules and stood her ground. She pointed out that they would go no where near the test frame thingy.

She was abused - the airline was abused - the country was abused. The passenger refused to leave the queue - until he finally worked out that she was not going to give in. He finally agreed to check his and his wife's bags into the hold.

Everyone in the queue stood quietly until see won her case - no applauding - no abuse - just accepting that this is what she did.

Cheers

:D

[madherb]

Agree that all bags should be stowed. It is only for the few minutes or so during the t/o or landing. Ms Gucci, on the other hand, would lose tremendous face, as said bag would be out of view.............SLF can be VERY irritating at times.
If you want to see 'hand baggage' like never before, go travel on a few sectors in the dark continent. The SLF have got it down to a fine art - once had some smelly liquid dripping onto me, found a couple of 'fresh' fish wrapped in newspaper in the o/h locker........almost re-started the cod wars. (cold war? whatever) I think it was almost a slap in the face with a wet fish! And it was yesterday's paper as well.
(staggers off to imbibe some reviving fluid)
;) M

[Wheeler]

My boss ended up in a Tokyo hospital after being KO'd by a lap top falling out of an overhead during a 'landing'. (Could'nt have happened to a nicer guy!)

[egbt]

My boss ended up in a Tokyo hospital after being KO'd by a lap top falling out of an overhead during a 'landing'. (Could'nt have happened to a nicer guy!)

Same happend to me last week whilst on taxi out at LHR, fortunately it only caught me a glancing blow, and the lap top was OK. Cabin crew did not close the locker correctly and on the 777 it's a big locker!

[lexxity]

And that's why cabin baggage weight should be restricted.

[airbusthreetwenty]

And that's why cabin baggage weight should be restricted.

You try telling that to narky business men.

[blue up]

The Gerona, Spain 757 accident brough up some interesting points about unsecured loads. The flightdeck (where I had been flying the day before) was showered with Jepp plates. The bag was (and is still) unsecured. The Tech log is now about 5 to 8 lbs in weight with a hard plastic case and the fire axe is secured to the aft wall of the flightdeck by 2 strips of fabric, 2 press studs and a pair of AN3 bolts with washers. All of these items are potential killers.

Have a look around the flightdeck of your chariot next time you go to work.

I'd be willing to bet that Aus/NZ aircraft are safer than European due to the increased levels and frequency of turbulence

[Taildragger67]

I like the comment made on the other (smaller) thread on this topic in R&N:
"Bet it was a fake Gucci bag"!! :ok:

Wonder if she was also wearing some piece of Chavberry clothing?

Mind you I can just see some chav heading off from Stansted to Eye-beefa: "'ere, 'oo said you could shove moi Gucci bag wiv all my Versarchi cloves up veah?"

(translation: "My good man, who gave you permission to place my Italian bag, containing my clothes designed by an orange woman, in the overhead locker?")

Innit?!!

(for all those Dunnunda readers who don't know what a 'chav' is:
http://www.chavscum.co.uk/)

[PAXboy]

For the journos, it is the word 'Gucci' that makes it irresistable. At the end of it - it is just a handbag and if she cannot understand the most basic of safety instructions then I certainly don't want to be in a seat anywhere near her.

[lexxity]

You try telling that to narky business men.

I do, regularly.:\ :uhoh: :mad:

[G-ZUZZ]

If the hosties had been a bit quicker off the mark, they'd have just buckled the seat-belt through the handle of the handbag. Easy and quick.

[Centaurus]

Was a pax in a F27 out of Alice years ago when a loud mouth blowsy big boobed big mouth New Yorker woman got aboard and immediately protested she wanted a window seat. the TAA hostie asked her to be seated and it would be sorted later. The Yank woman had a really penetrating NY accent which is not pretty, and continued to stand in the aisle and complain loudly.

Then someone in the sea of faces ahead shouted aloud:"Sit down you stupid bitch" And the band played and everyone cheered. Loved it.

[Sunfish]

Perhaps if there was not a cash register ay every check in station (A La Heathrow) and a higher weight allowance, more people would carry lighter hand luggage.

Perhaps if it was possible to completely trust the baggage handlers not to steal your camel suit more people would carry lighter hand luggage.

Perhaps if it was possible to check in less than two hours before an international flight, more people would carry lighter hand luggage.

Perhaps if airlines could guarantee that your luggage would arrive with you, more people would carry lighter hand luggage.

My carry on bag would have weighed in at about ten kilos on my recent New Guinea trip. It contained the essentials without which my trip would have been ruined. The easily replaceable stuff (well, at least in Melbourne!) was in my checked bag.

Contents:

Scuba "Occy" (dive computer, pressure gauge, first and second stage regulators, dive horn and emergency reg assembly). About $3500 worth.

Dive mask and snorkel (fits my face) About $200

Camera and underwater housing, charger and associated paraphenalia about $1500 - its a cheap one.

Anti malarials, toiletries and anti everything stuff.

Flea rake and toothbrush

Three novels.

Bathers.

Money and documents.

Mobile phone.

Its surprising how fast the weight builds up.

[Lord Snot]

You're STILL on about that diving trip......???

What's it got to do with some old bag and her hand bag?



What's more, why do the hosties get so worked up about a hand-bag?

When tons and tons of airframe, engine, bodies and bulkheads are flying around at 100s of km/h in an impact, what possible damage is one piddling gucci bag going to do to someone???

[HANOI]

Can't help himself , the usual " Look at me everyone "




On the money Hanoi! :}

Sunny Woomera

[Taildragger67]

If the hosties had been a bit quicker off the mark, they'd have just buckled the seat-belt through the handle of the handbag. Easy and quick.

... and trusted that the handbag's construction was up to the same standard as the seat belt restraint system.

Rapid deceleration from V1; punter's arms fly forward due inertia, losing grip on handbag. Handbag weighs, say, 6kg with an iPod, camera and a couple of other hard items. Handbag strap fails. Now loose handbag becomes a 200kt projectile and slams into F/A's chest (assuming emerg exit seat). F/A's ribs broken, lungs punctured, unable to breath, so unable to open door.

Your kid, in the seat behind the chav, can't get out as a result.

THAT is why it's in your interest that the seat belt wasn't just put through the handbag loop.

[Lord Snot]

6 Kgs?? That's a heavy handbag.... Must be a few "power tools" in there plus some batteries (re-chargeable) and re-charger... and the rest. Vibrating plugs, beads, etc.

Reality: Yes in an RTO things will fly around a little but it's not like you're hitting a brick wall.

Even so, if the old hag is sitting in the front row, facing the hostie, then the gucci-handbag has around a metre and a half of travel and will not have room to reach a velocity sufficient to cause a rib-cracking impact.

On top of that, the gucci-handbag is still subject to the earth's gravity which means the gucci-handbag will actually land at the hostie's feet. And start buzzing wildly... Batteries and plugs will probably roll everywhere.

Now if the old hag is seated in another row, the gucci-handbag will simply bounce off the seat-back in front of her BEFORE reaching the limit of it's travel as dictated by the handle-length. This is due to the miniscule seat pitch, the average punter's LOOSE seatbelt tension and my own limited knowledge of the handle length of the average gucci-handbag.

The gucci-handbag will bounce, like I said, straight back into the old hag's face, and then land on her lap. And start buzzing wildly....

Either way, in an RTO the gucci-handbag will not hit the hostie in her jumpseat although you may get some batteries rolling under everyone's seats and knocking into your toes.



PS:

Rapid deceleration from V1....... 200kt
Love it. Even if the V1 were anywhere near 200kt, the deltaV is going to be a fraction of that. Maybe still enough to hurt you but only if you caught one of those power tools With the teeth!!

[Led Zep]

I think the less lose items in the cabin the better - I know people who were killed in a car accident due to flying objects. The the crash was "survivable" apparently, but they were killed when a street directory hit one and a handbag another.
All it takes is a little bit of bad luck at 80km/h, things don't have to be travelling fast to kill you they simply have to hit you in the right place.

[Lord Snot]

the less lo(o)se items in the cabin the better That's true, not arguing that at all.

But then the hosties should be making the pax stow their shoes, because a lot of people kick them off as soon as they sit down and leave them laying on the floor.

And what about glasses in 1st class, it's not uncommon to see them sitting on the armrest during take-off after welcome drinks. And even less uncommon on landing.

Pens sitting on the divider are subject to the same acceleration forces as the gucci-handbag but are a lot sharper.

The point is, sometimes crews become focussed on someone who is not seen to be toeing the line, simply out of principle, to the detriment of more important, bigger picture stuff.

[qcc2]

LS in QF the cabin is cleared befoe the safety demo (procedure). does it happen all the time? of course not, but there is definatly no glassware left for t/o. BA just announced a 23 kg limit to incabin bags,:= as long as you (yourself, not the hostie) can lift them into the overhead lockers.totally ignores the overhead locker weight limitations. QF still has a limit of 7kg per bag.needless to say with the BA/QF codesharing agreements this can only get more pax errate as QF crew try to enforce qf standards:ugh:

[notmyC150v2]

I have never seen the glasses in Business Class left out during takeoff. Lately they're taken back just after push back.

I don't care if the projectile doesn't have the power to kill me, but I would object to a slight bruise if it was caused by some feckwit who didn't have the courtesy to stow the damn luggage where and when they were told (now I understand why, of course). And if I worked in that space for a living I would object to the chance of it happening regularly and would do what ever it took to ensure it didn't happen at all.

So I guess that now I understand why the CC took the action they did I support it fully. It's just a shame they had to stop the aircraft to chuch the passenger out.

[Cloud Cutter]

It's a no brainer. You might be suprised how many people drive arround in cars with things like TV screens just sitting on the back seat. I don't think the issue is a RTO, but something a bit more severe.

[makintw]

So what to do about the (many here in Asia) duty free carrier bags filled with XO and the like.

Lethal weapons or what??

'bout time the vested interests put safety first and only allowed duty free purchases on arrival.

[Led Zep]

So what to do about the (many here in Asia) duty free carrier bags filled with XO and the like.

Lethal weapons or what??

'bout time the vested interests put safety first and only allowed duty free purchases on arrival.

Put yer moonshine in an overhead locker above someone else - that way, should the bottle break some other sucker will get covered in alcohol and get burnt as they try to make their way out of that flaming hole in the wreckage. :ugh:

Bit dramatic I must admit, but the possibility for such a scenario is definately there.

[Taildragger67]

Snot,

I agree that 200kts is a bit quick for V1; so lets take it down to about 140 or so. Stick a 2.5 kg camcorder, a 1L bottle of water, a digital still camera, an ipod, Blackberry, phone, PDA, book, keys and my wife’s purse in the bag and you’re probably not far off 5-6kg. Even 4kg could have a decent amount of energy imparted to it.

As for ‘room’ to reach speed – the bag is already going that speed (inertia). As for travel direction – it will maintain its travel direction initially. We’re only talking 3-4 feet. If what you say about falling at the F/A’s feet is true, then I shall need not worry about wearing a seat belt in the back seat of my car as there is no chance of my zooming head-first through the windscreen. Yes I’m substantially heavier than a handbag, but I’m travelling substantially slower and so have exponentially less energy.

Zep -

Agreed. One way to reduce emissions = reduce payload -> reduce each 747 flight by 3-400kg - no duty-free!! Pick it up on arrival (either at a shop at your destination or pre-purchase & collect upon return).

But then you'd have Macquarie Bank whingeing about something so that ain't ever going to happen, now is it...

[Lord Snot]

Good points on the face of it, Taildragger. But you're missing the point:

In your car smash scenario you are going from ~60kts to 0 in the length of your car, if you drive it into a brick wall. Doubled if it's a head-on smash with someone going the same speed. This equates to a siginificantly higher acceleration force than an RTO where the aircraft takes roughly half the runway (Balanced Field Length case) to stop after reaching approx 150-160 kts or so. Yes it is a dramatic deceleration compared to what we're used to but it is not in the same league as your car-smash scenario. I'd still buckle up if I were you.

Like I said if you face forces of that magnitude in an aircraft it means you have worse things to worry about than a stray gucci-bag.

As for ‘room’ to reach speed – the bag is already going that speed (inertia). Yes it will but the aircraft is NOT going to stop instantaneously, magically imparting a speed relative to the cabin of 140kts or whatever. This is elementary physics.

it will maintain its travel direction initially. We’re only talking 3-4 feetDebatable. Gravity works constantly so it's going to head downward. Quick enough not to hit her in the chest? I don't know. But surely you get the point??????

All I'm trying to say is that this hysteria is often a waste of time. I'm not slagging off QF cabin security but I do see glasses there not infrequently. I also see pens on the armrests and plenty of other articles not secured.

What about shoes, they're okay to leave unsecured?

As long as it doesn't look like a bag, it's okay to leave it laying around?

Why is it a crime to hold onto a handbag which might be soft and flexible but it's okay to hold onto an iPod which is definitely not soft OR flexible and will hurt a lot more when it hits someone?

Common Sense.

[qcc2]

all pax change prior to boarding into their airline supplied cotton pyjamas & slippers. all your personal effects (incl. ipod, mobiles,etc.) are tagged/bagged and put in the hold stowage. you pick them up at the carousal at the next port. you have your amenities kit/headset/ personal entertainment system onboard, so there is no need for all that other s&**.:O
taking cover:cool:

[Taildragger67]

Snot,

Fair points, well made. I defer to you.

However, whilst I may now be convinced as to the physics side of things, I guess my main point remains that the punter was (apparently) asked to do something reasonable by the crew and (apparently) she refused. Whether or not it was a reasonable request technically (ie. given the science we've been discussing :8 ) is a different story.

Maybe in years past, the crew might've bent the rules; however I'd suggest any discretion has been beaten out of them in recent years := .

[Lord Snot]

I guess my main point remains that the punter was (apparently) asked to do something reasonable by the crew and she refused.Yes, you've got me there. I just can't help arguing the devil's side.

[Lord Snot]

I guess my main point remains that the punter was (apparently) asked to do something reasonable by the crew and she refused.Yes, you've got me there. I just can't help arguing the devil's side.

[Taildragger67]

Both times! :}

[priapism]

Everyone seems to be missing the point here. The fact is that all handluggage -no matter what the size should be stowed under the seat in front for take off and landing because , in the case of an emergency evacuation, such material can easily be kicked into the aisle and become a tripping hazard. Forget about impact speeds depending on the G - forces square rooted into the terminal velocity of an object multiplied by it's weight -the aircraft can be at stadstill and this stuff can bring one evacuating punter down and clog egress to an exit.

Simple really

[R4+Z]

Actually not that simple really. Until the airlines are willing to take responsibility for possession of those items entrusted into their care, people will continue to insist on retaining some control on items that belong to them. As for puting the bag under the seat or in the overhead locker, well I recently flew on a Thai flight and people were allowed to spread their items into other overhead lockers than those over their seats. I must admit that if I hadn't been able to fit my hand luggage into the locker I would have unloaded what was in my way and took on anyone who objected. Fortunately it didn't become an issue for me even though it did for others.

Lets face it the biggest reason for issues boarding a plane is that people want to ensure they get the locker space, and that is truly an airline issue.

[Lodown]

If airlines could be entrusted to:
- not lose checked luggage
- keep the crooks out of the baggage handling staff
- not break bag contents
- not take 30 minutes to deliver the baggage to the carousels
then there wouldn't be a need to carry on cameras, laptops, a change of clothes, etc., in the first place.

Why it isn't encouraged for travelers with briefcases, overnight bags, etc., to check them at the gate and receive them again almost immediately after landing is beyond me. It would go a long way towards removing some of the passenger concerns listed above.

[Raider1]

I couldnt believe some of the earlier posts promoting more carry on luggage. Dont some of the proffessionals here remember the UK emergency landing where those killed or seriously injured suffered their fate simply because of cabin luggage becoming deadly high speed projectiles during the crash landing.

Oh well guess it is all acedemic now. I see today BA and some US airlines in light of the Heathrow security emergency have banned ALL carry on luggage except passports and essential travel documentation....... even female handbags totally banned......and all liquids........ooops there goes the duty free!!!!!!