PDA

View Full Version : Smoking in the loo


BaronChotzinoff
23rd Jun 2008, 04:35
Whatever you might have thought, don't do it as they really don't like it.

Flying back from Berlin to EMA last night and the only information the pilot deigned to convey during the whole flight was the fact that someone had been found to have been smoking in the front toilet, one shouldn't do this etc followed by a lacklustre recitation of the penalties involved - something like £50,000 fine and/or 15 years in prison.

Then, after landing at 11.15pm, as we all settled down to wait a full 25 mins for The EMA Bus to get round to picking us up, Knacker of the Yard boarded the flight along with one of his henchwomen and removed said offender - a young chap who didn't look like a hardened 80-a-day man to me but who may have been out to prove a point.

Quite how they can get enough evidence against him to make a charge stick though ... "Well I went in after him and it stank of fags ..."

deltayankee
23rd Jun 2008, 09:57
Quite how they can get enough evidence against him to make a charge stick though ... "Well I went in after him and it stank of fags ..."

It's a no brainer. There are smoke detectors and the crew will be waiting for you when the door opens.

angels
23rd Jun 2008, 10:01
And as a smoker I fully agree that Plod got involved.

This topic has been on here umpteen times. We know that smoking in plane bogs kills people.

Load Toad
23rd Jun 2008, 12:13
I do so hope the idiot (if he is guilty) is prosecuted to the full extent and at least fined a considerable sum of money. A bit of prison time might help his attitude.
And I'm a smoker - but it isn't hard to do without for the duration of a flight and enjoy your ciggy when you get to the other end.

And I've never thought 'they' think anything else but 'not like it' - it's a safety issue. I don't fancy dying just so some pillock can satisfy his lack of having will power.

Alanwsg
23rd Jun 2008, 12:19
A question about this ...

Do the smoke detectors in the toilets set off a general alarm (i.e. one that the passengers would hear)?
Or is it just the CC that are alerted?

jetset lady
23rd Jun 2008, 12:39
Alanwsg,

The smoke detectors will set off various alarms dependent on the aircraft type but on all types I've flown on (737,757,767,777,A319,A320,A321) there are invariably audible alarms to those in the area, inc pax, plus various signals on crew control panels, flashing lights outside toilet and on call panels and an alarm in the flight deck.

Jsl

P.S. For people that are thinking of trying this, we know all the tricks and I think you'll find the courts take a very dim view when you are caught. As said before, people have died from this sort of idiotic behaviour and there is little we dread more than an onboard fire.

Glamgirl
23rd Jun 2008, 12:46
Don't forget the flashing lights in the cabin and the stern voice over the pa system announcing the smoker...

The smoke detectors have a direct link with the police on the ground as well, to make sure they get the message.

:E :E :} :} ;) ;)

Justin Cyder-Belvoir
23rd Jun 2008, 14:11
Which part of " This is a non smoking flight" did he not understand?

Don't have sympathy for him: there is so much paper in the toilets they are absolutely not for lighting cigarettes in!

Abusing_the_sky
23rd Jun 2008, 14:19
They don't understand because the majority do not speak or understand English. And i'm pretty sure the offender was not German or English. We get this a lot, we have them arrested and they still don't get it...

From now on i shall instruct my JU's to mime the "NO :mad: SMOKING" as part of the safety demo, maybe they'll understand then.

:=

Do you think it's the NO SMOKING signs in the toilets that makes them smoke?!?:ugh:

barry lloyd
23rd Jun 2008, 14:45
They don't understand because the majority do not speak or understand English. And i'm pretty sure the offender was not German or English. We get this a lot, we have them arrested and they still don't get it...


If this happens mainly on the flights from Berlin, then it's very likely that they're Polish. (It's cheaper for them to drive from some parts of Poland to Berlin than to fly from their local airport). Perhaps a sign in Polish would help?

(And before everyone starts to tell me that they all speak English - not when they're in trouble they don't (personal experience!).

denis555
23rd Jun 2008, 15:16
Idiotic thing to do in my view.

I did know someone who got caught in the act on a long haul. He was a desperate smoker and had equipped himself with a large plastic yogurt container and blu-tac which he had placed over the sensor in the ceiling.

It didn’t work…

A steward was waiting for him when he came out and he played the innocent whist said steward read the riot act. Apparently, apart from the well deserved bollocking he was let off with a warning.

Once back in his seat he remembered the yogurt pot which could prove enough pre-mediation on his part to change the steward’s mind. So he sweated it out until he could creep back in and retrieve it.

This was in the early days of the ban so I guess he got off lightly and nothing more was heard…

Abusing_the_sky
23rd Jun 2008, 15:53
Yes barry, that's correct. Having said that, it happens on all routes to Poland too... Sometimes i'm lucky, i have a polish crew member that can translate for me. But sometimes i'm not that lucky and i am desperate to find out where he put the ciggie but. What am i suppose to do, learn polish?!?:confused:

We hope the airline gets the idea and starts sticking polish signs everybloodywhere:rolleyes:

PaperTiger
23rd Jun 2008, 15:58
We know that smoking in plane bogs kills people.Speak for yourself.

Glamgirl
24th Jun 2008, 01:28
What part of a round red sign with a cigarette inside the circle with a big line across it do these people not understand?

They're trying it on (most likely because they know they'll get excellent treatment in UK prisons including free meals).

A few years ago, I caught a guy smoking in the toilet on a Spanish flight. I read him the riot act (as such). His excuse? He had a stomach problem so he had to have a cig after eating to feel better and it helped his digestion and condition. Well, I nearly burst out laughing, it was that ridiculous.

There are 3 reasons why you can't smoke on my plane:

1 It's against the law
2 If I can't have one, neither can you
3 How dare you put MY life in danger? (Chemical toilet fluids, paper towels etc etc)

Gg

Airgus
24th Jun 2008, 07:42
Those paxs will never understand that smoking in the toilet is totally dangerous (fire hazard... YES... FIRE HAZARD! ... F-I-R-E).

Most of the materials in the pax cabin (where you are seated when flying) are made in such a way to be fire retardant or fire-proof (that is why smoking was allowed 15 years ago) but toilets can not be designed in such a way (because of the toilet-paper, paper napkings, plastic, etc...).

Therefore it has to have a smoke detector for your safety (and the safety of the rest of the paxs flying in that plane) S-A-F-E-T-Y, ok?.

Smoking is not allowed in toilets due to safety reasons and smoking was banned in the main cabin because of hygienic reasons.

Why would you find an ashtray on the toilet door (before you enter the toilet)? because some planes were designed when smoking was allowed inside the cabin and an ashtray was necessary for those willing to use the toilets, in order to put the cigarrete off before entering the loo. Although these ashtrays have a nice and clear DO NOT SMOKE's sign, some paxs are a bit tempted to smoke just because an ashtray is observed, well... do not do it!.

remember is a SAFETY issue (not just a hygienic one)

allymc316
24th Jun 2008, 08:38
Why cant smokers see the danger :ugh:. Just take a cigarette before you get on the plane, sit down buckle up. Then have one after the flight.

No excuse in my opinion, if they dont like it then dont fly! Just my opinion tho. As a non smoker I dont know what the cravings are like but please think of other people's safety in front of yourself :O

AMC316

Load Toad
24th Jun 2008, 10:41
There isn't a 'craving' at all - that's BS. What there is is a habit to suck something especially when people are nervous or they have nothing to do. And - I smoke - quite a lot sometimes
People who smoke - who may be tempted to endanger the aircraft and passengers because they have no will power should be given a child's dummy / pacifier to suck - it could be dipped in nicotine or cigarette ash to keep them happy for the duration of the flight - and the sitting there sucking on the dummy thing would mean cabin crew would know clearly who could be considered a fire risk....

barry lloyd
24th Jun 2008, 11:27
What part of a round red sign with a cigarette inside the circle with a big line across it do these people not understand?


Well, you'll see it plastered over every available space in the UK, because that's the kind of country we are - we love telling people what they cannot do! People from other countries are not so familiar with them, and do not notice them as we do.
There's no excuse in this day and age, (even Aeroflot banned on-board smoking 15 years ago), and I'm not disagreeing with you, just putting another point of view.

denis555
24th Jun 2008, 13:27
Temptation - a terrible thing.

I was tempted once a long time ago but realised the stupidity of a) upsetting the CC who had a difficult enough job to do and b) risking being arrested at the other end ( which would really impress my boss ) and c) the possibility of a fine.

As regards safety it is obviously easy to start a fire in a toilet with so much paper around and I would not trust a drunk to put the butt out by soaking it and wrapping it up in a wet paper towel,

So I’m glad to see CC get tough on anyone who tries it on.

Lord Lardy
24th Jun 2008, 15:23
From a pilots perspective you can deal with more or less any emergency thrown at you but one you have very little control over is a fire on board. With many years experience behind me now, it still gets the blood flowing in the simulator when we practise for such an event. It is truly frightening when the smoke is simulated by dry ice, you are on oxygen and you struggle to see your instuments due to the poor visibility. It is an event I really hope I never have to deal with in reality.

There have been many commercial accidents over the years associated with fires. This discussion is about smoking. It dosen't matter how it starts. The reality is that if you don't put it out quickly you are in real trouble. Flying across the Atlantic can put you within two hours of land. For those flying to holiday destinations in the Canary Islands you are sometimes an hour from land depending on the routing of the flight when travelling from the UK or Ireland. If you don't put a fire out it can be a race for survival. Have a listen to the following actual recording between Swiss Air Flight 111 and Air Traffic control when a fire broke out on board in 1998. It took 12 minutes from the time they discovered smoke on board to their eventual crash killing 229 people. The aircraft was overweight for landing and had to attempt to dump fuel before landing as per their procedures. However they failed to get the opportunity to do so.
It's something people should consider when they feel the urge to light up.

SWISSAIR CRASH (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4WN41Ba8p68&feature=related) Recording Part 1
SWISSAIR CRASH (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kdWLqCE6d8o&feature=related) Recording Part 2

radeng
25th Jun 2008, 08:06
>We know that smoking in plane bogs kills people. <

It doesn't have to be done in plane bogs to kill.

denis555
25th Jun 2008, 09:23
It doesn't have to be done in plane bogs to kill.

No offence but 'nannying' can often contribute to the problem, for instance

Smoking Kills - ( but i'm ok )
Passive Smoking Kills ( ok I'll find a nice quiet corner with no one around )
Smoking in a/c Toilets Kills (Ok I'll be careful - do they think I'm stupid?)

Of course the answer to all three is, yes - you are. But please let's not moralise or state the obvious too many times. It often has the opposite effect and drives smokers to smoke just to cheese off the 'nannies',

Load Toad
25th Jun 2008, 09:36
Although I totally agree with not smoking on planes (and I'll reiterate that I am a smoker...) are there documented and proven cases of accidents or crashes caused by cigarette smoking or the disposal of smoking materials?

barry lloyd
25th Jun 2008, 09:46
Although I totally agree with not smoking on planes (and I'll reiterate that I am a smoker...) are there documented and proven cases of accidents or crashes caused by cigarette smoking or the disposal of smoking materials?

Not an accident as such, but I seem to remember that there was a situation on a Trans Canada?/Air Canada flight some years ago, when there was a fire in the washroom caused by a cigarette being put in the waste bin. Someone else will have the full info, no doubt.

Load Toad
25th Jun 2008, 09:50
Group says pot would calm "air rage" | News | CW2 Colorado | KWGN-TV (http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-pot-smoking-dia,0,6530515.story)

Might calm 'em down a bit.

G SXTY
25th Jun 2008, 15:09
Google "Air Canada DC9 fire". Very sobering reading.

Any smoke anywhere in the aircraft - never mind fire - and I would be aiming for the nearest available runway.

PaperTiger
25th Jun 2008, 15:23
Not an accident as such, but I seem to remember that there was a situation on a Trans Canada?/Air Canada flight some years ago, when there was a fire in the washroom caused by a cigarette being put in the waste bin. Someone else will have the full info, no doubt.No doubt. And that full info is contrary to what you "seem to remember".

are there documented and proven cases of accidents or crashes caused by cigarette smoking or the disposal of smoking materials?No. Not one. Zero.

A couple where it was suspected (AC797 above) and Varig at Orly, but no definitive evidence. Other unexplained in-flight fires could conceivably have occurred as a result, but again never proven (which is obviously harder to do the longer ago they were).

And before I get flamed by the cult, I support the smoking ban and think offenders should be punished. But I do not invent spurious reasons why.

There, I hope that's this year's smoking-crashes-airplanes thread over and done with. :bored:

denis555
25th Jun 2008, 16:01
flamed by the cult ???

How could they flame you? They won't be carrying cigarette lighters will they?;)

6chimes
25th Jun 2008, 19:46
I think the airports and the law in the UK have a lot to answer for here.

You have to check in 2 hrs before the flight, nowhere to smoke airside before you board yet a whole load of bars in departures for you to while away the wasted time spent because you had to be there so early. We all know when a smoker has a drink they want a cigarette.

A lot of people are still nervous when they fly and if they smoke then they will really want a cigarette.

Let smokers have a cigarette in a separate room before they board and it will reduce the problem.

6

BaronChotzinoff
25th Jun 2008, 21:29
You have to check in 2 hrs before the flight, nowhere to smoke airside before you board yet a whole load of bars in departures for you to while away the wasted time spent because you had to be there so early. We all know when a smoker has a drink they want a cigarette.o

Good point. Comparing the airports in question, EMA and Berlin SFX, the former has pleasant departure lounges and lousy arrivals and the latter has cattle-pen departures and speedy arrival throughput - I won't compare seeing a German official already there with the under-wing excluders to waiting 25 mins for the bus at nearly midnight with young children dropping off in hte arms of their parents - but in essence they are both the same - most people go and wait for departure far too early and they can't get a fag in either case whether in a cattle-pen or a suave lounge. Maybe modern airports should have "quads" or roof gardens where passengers can go and smoke.

rjc54n
25th Jun 2008, 21:59
And much kudos to EMA they have added an outside smoking area airside from departures. Whilst there is never any excuse for disobeying the regulations on board, the option to smoke after security might quell the temptation of the nervous/desperate. It is also appreciated by those who can comfortably go without for a few hours. (It almost makes up for EMA turning the departure lounge into one big shop)

Rainboe
26th Jun 2008, 21:09
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 707-345C PP-VJZ Paris-Orly Airport (ORY) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19730711-0)

Not confirmed smoking, but aircraft lavatory sinks aren't usually known for spontaneous ignition.
Varig Flight 820 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_820)

denis555
27th Jun 2008, 07:37
And much kudos to EMA they have added an outside smoking area airside from departures.


Agreed - a rare example of a sensible compromise that neither effects safety or other non-smoking passengers. If only this attitude could have been built into the anti-smoking legislation generally - but it wasn't.

So to all smokers out there you had better get used to it. UK law will remain ( or get more restrictive ) - it will never get any looser with regards to smoking - and it will only tighten up internationally.

So a flight to Hawaii through LAX will mean no puffs at all until you get landside at Honolulu ... thats a l-o-n-g time for a dedicated puffer.:hmm:

Pax Vobiscum
27th Jun 2008, 14:33
Why don't airlines provide/sell nicotine patches or gum? Is it because they don't satisfy the craving to light up?

(Genuine query from a lifelong non-smoker.) :confused:

Having seen some of my fellow pax struggling to get off a SYD-LHR at Changi in an effort to smoke a pack of 20 before the next 14-hour leg, I can sympathise with Denis's concern.

boredcounter
28th Jun 2008, 00:54
....................It can get stepped into the carpet..................

Glamgirl
28th Jun 2008, 01:06
I'm a bit surprised at some of the comments on this thread. By that I mean the people claiming there's no proof that a cigarette has ever brought a plane down, as such.

Now, if you were really in the aviation business, you'd know that we don't operate to "it might work/never happen/let's just try it/yeah, let's take a chance" etc etc.

Smoking on aircraft, especially in the toilet (as mentioned earlier, paper towels and chemicals), has a potential to set the aircraft on fire (or at least parts of it). Therefore, it is a clever thing to not allow smoking. Also, it's the smell/fog/smoke in eye issue for non-smokers.

I'm a smoker, and I'm glad aircraft are non-smoking. My brain is trained to not even think about cigarettes whilst on a plane. I understand some people find it difficult, but as you can get nicotine chewing gums in the pound shop these days, you can arm yourself with those if you think the flight is going to be horrendous due to lack of smoking.

I do agree that there should be smoking areas airside though. Tampa has a genius one. It's like a cage attached to the terminal. It looks like a dump, but at least you can smoke there.

Gg

PaperTiger
28th Jun 2008, 15:12
I'm a bit surprised at some of the comments on this thread. By that I mean the people claiming there's no proof that a cigarette has ever brought a plane down, as such.

Now, if you were really in the aviation business, you'd know that we don't operate to "it might work/never happen/let's just try it/yeah, let's take a chance" etc etc.So for the 50 or so years before smoking in the cabin was banned, aviation had been continually "taking a chance" ?

I don't mind justification of the ban on tangible grounds - SHS fears, interior (and exterior) dirt and staining, the changing social acceptability of public smoking and the general unpleasantness of it. That surely ought to be enough without having to load up on other dubious rationales. I don't know why smoking discussions always become so emotional (actually I do, but this isn't a Pyschology forum).

BTW I don't usually respond to ad hominems but, for a good part of those 50 years I was indeed in "the business".

Union Jack
28th Jun 2008, 15:37
So a flight to Hawaii through LAX will mean no puffs at all until you get landside at Honolulu ... thats a l-o-n-g time for a dedicated puffer.:hmm:

Even longer when you cross the International Date Line westbound, although I suppose that that does give smokers the chance to boast that they went a whole day without a puff!

Jack

dazdaz
29th Jun 2008, 16:40
I've just done a Google, nowhere have I found a loss of airframe attributed to a person smoking on an a/c. But you dear reader might know more.

Daz

Load Toad
30th Jun 2008, 00:34
If that's the case:

- There are no proven cases of cigarette smoking on board an aircraft causing fire
- Fire on board an aircraft is incredibly dangerous, causes loss of life and is to be avoided at all costs
- No smoking on 'planes at all and no tolerance shown to people that break the rules
- Provide smoking substitutes to smokers with no will power that are travelling on a 'plane; advertise that these are available from cabin crew
- Allow smokers somewhere to smoke at airports

Final 3 Greens
30th Jun 2008, 05:49
I've just done a Google, nowhere have I found a loss of airframe attributed to a person smoking on an a/c


Which just goes to prove that the system of policing the rule works, despite the massive growth in air travel and should continue to be policed severely.

I am generally anti rules that affect minorities, but in this specific case the rule is clearly fundamental to flight safety.

If you are a smoker and cannot endure a flight without a smoke (I can emphathise), then there are two choices.


Seek help to reduce the need to smoke so you can comply
Find alternative means of travelI would impose a mandatory prison sentence for anyone caught smoking on an aircraft, since I regard it as being equal to drink driving and it is not feasible to ban someone from flying.

PaperTiger
30th Jun 2008, 15:44
I've just done a Google, nowhere have I found a loss of airframe attributed to a person smoking on an a/cWhich just goes to prove that the system of policing the rule works, despite the massive growth in air travel and should continue to be policed severely.No answer to that really. I bow to the superior and unassailable logic of that statement :ugh:.

Layzeeboy
1st Jul 2008, 16:49
As a smoker I agree that it should not be allowed anywhere in the cabin. And I remember the days when we could light up in the rear of the cabin. Now, I don't even think about cigarettes in flight.

Many airports have smoking lounges skyside which are a nice convenience and allow you to get a few in before boarding. Surprisingly, some of the airport bars here in the states still allow it. Until about a year ago the UAL Red Carpet Lounge at O'Hare had one. Now on my layovers there (usually twice a week) I go outside. Then, I have to come back through security. Everytime I do it I can't help but think how many of us there are clogging up an already overtaxed security line just for this reason. If they had the smoking room this wouldn't be a problem.

VAFFPAX
1st Jul 2008, 18:10
I distinctly remember when AF still had the 'compromise' of the Clean Air cabin, in which a section near the loos was cordoned off with curtains so that the desperate smokers could indulge in their cancer sticks. However, the problem remained that smoke would inevitably seep out into the main cabin, annoying the poor souls nearest to said section.

Thankfully that practice soon went out the window. I hate to think how bad a smoking section in a plane must've been before the no-smoking policies were in place (back then I didn't gallivant around the world - then I was a desk-bound lackey).

S.

Pontius Navigator
1st Jul 2008, 20:53
I hate to think how bad a smoking section in a plane must've been before the no-smoking policies were in place

On a 707 type with heavy, unrestricted, continental smokers the filters were changed every 4-6 weeks. On the same type, with no smoking the filters were not changed.

The issue on whether the passenger can understand English is a red herring. If they can't understand the instructions they will light up in the cabin. No one would willingly sneak off to an aircraft loo if they thought smoking was permitted in-flight.

And toilet fluid? That is why it has a flamable warning.

radeng
2nd Jul 2008, 12:40
If toilet fluid is flammable, surely having methane from farts in contact with it is getting close to fuel air bomb? Perhaps we shoukld ban people from eating beans for two days before flying!

dazdaz
2nd Jul 2008, 14:00
The smoking ban on a/c was not introduced i.e flight safety (possible in-flight fire) it was the start of the 'politically correct lobby' now look at us, can't even have a smoke standing at a bus stop:{


Daz

VAFFPAX
2nd Jul 2008, 14:38
I'm so sorry that you consider that a case of the politically correct lobby... But I am a non-smoker and while I believe in live-and-let-live, I detest having to look like a fish out of the water with my mouth gaping open because my nose is clogged up thanks to your smoke, nevermind smelling like an ashtray when I get off a plane after a 13 hour flight.

It's common courtesy and decency to ask whether you can light up, but in my time of working in an establishment where smoking was permitted, I have never had smokers asking for permission. That's not to say that all smokers are rude, but the general implication that 'if I can smoke, I'll smoke because it's my right to smoke, bollocks to the non-smokers, they can find themselves a different place' is obvious.

S.

dazdaz
2nd Jul 2008, 15:22
VAFFPAX

"nevermind smelling like an ashtray when I get off a plane after a 13 hour flight."

So I take it your objections as to smoking might not apply to short haul?

Daz

VAFFPAX
2nd Jul 2008, 15:47
They apply to all flights. Thirteen hours, six hours, three hours, one hour, stuck in a metal tube with recycled air, you smell like an ashtray when you get off and people smoked. Unless your filters are exceptionally efficient (which would be a surprise, they certainly weren't back then), the length of time is irrelevant.

Besides, why would anyone need to light up on a one hour flight? Or a two hour one? I welcome things like an airside smokers' lounge (as someone else pointed out, like EMA now has) that allow smokers to get their fix in while they wait, but that's as far as you can go.

I probably sound terribly militant, but I'm not. I just feel it's unfair on the majority to have a minority impose their will because they chose to start a habit that is now addictive.

S.

NG_Kaptain
2nd Jul 2008, 15:58
Varig on July 11, 1973 crashed in Paris due to an uncontained fire in the aft lavatory, was suspected a smoker started it accidentally.


PROBABLE CAUSE: "A fire which appears to have started in the washbasin unit of the aft right toilet. It was detected because smoke had entered the adjacent left toilet. The fire may have been started by an electrical fault or by the carelessness of a passenger. The difficulty in locating the fire made the actions of cabin personnel ineffective. The flight crew did not have the facilities to intervene usefully from the cockpit against the spread of the fire and the invasion of smoke."

PaperTiger
2nd Jul 2008, 17:40
Varig on July 11, 1973 crashed in Paris due to an uncontained fire in the aft lavatory, was suspected a smoker started it accidentally.
The fire may have been started by an electrical fault or by the carelessness of a passenger.
Between June 1985 and June 2002, operators of Boeing aircraft made a total of 67 reports to Boeing of heater ribbon failures where thermal degradation was evident. Charred insulation material was identified in many of the reports. Structural damage from fire had occurred in at least two cases.
...
Service Difficulty Reports USA 1999042300717, USA 1988040800197, AUS 19990967, and AUS 19991248 all report burned heater ribbons.
...
The above information concerning heater ribbon failures supports the existence of an unsafe condition relating to the potential for water line heater ribbon installations to provide a source of ignition, combined with the availability of flammable materials in sufficiently close proximity to the ignition source to ignite. Heater ribbons are used extensively in transport category aircraft, including Boeing 707
...
In-line water heaters and water lines that contain integral heating elements are more prevalent on newer generation aircraft. Although historical data is limited, the possible failure modes of in-line and integral water heaters are considered to present a much lower threat of ignition than those associated with external heater ribbons.

TSB Aviation Safety Recommendations (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/recommendations/A02O0123/rec_A0204-A0205.asp?print_view=1)