Congratulations(belated) to EK on Smoking Ban

[gulf_slf]

Well done EK on their announcement that as of 1st August 2001 that they will ban all smoking on their flights!!

Great news for all as this is major contribution to flight safety and obviously to pax comfort!

All I have to do is avoid EK flights/sectors between now and August!.

[Sharjah Night Shift]

About time too.

Will the cabin crew be using fire extinguishers on those who insist on lighting up?

[ExSimGuy]

Have to take my next vacation early - say, late July :)

(oh well, there's still SV - isn't there?)

[I'd rather]

Gulf slf - please enlighten me - just how is banning smoking a major contribution to flight safety??

[upupnaway]

Anyone have any idea when Emirates start flying to Perth, WA. Also lots of rumors around on whether they will join BA/QF or Star alliance, any thoughts out there.

[Bird Strike]

gulf-slf,

I'm rather pleased to hear that! I know some of the sectors were non-smoking already (I believe it was due to code-sharing with non-smoking airline), but I did suffer one sector where I was seated very close to the smoking section, which put me off.
I have nothing against those who enjoy smoking, I just don't it to happen close to me in an enclosed space.

I'd rather,

I am not sure if banning smoking in itself is a MAJOR contribution to flight safety, but it certainly is a contribution, in that it will reduce the risk of a fire, as well as possibly making other hazards such as smoke in the cabin more easily identifiable.

It's also a contribution to flight safety on an individual level that one will not be passive smoking in-flight! :)

[CargoOne]

Birdstrike,

May I ask you to tell me even one accident with fire onboard of aircraft due to passengers smoke for last 40-50 years?

Personally would prefer airlines to allow smoking but only at special places like AF did.

[I'd rather]

I think there is more likely to be a risk of fire from someone sneaking a furtive fag in the loos than in a designated smoking area in the aircraft.

In addition, I think the smoking ban possibly contributes to incidents of air-rage - many of the reports seem to start with a passenger having been caught smoking/told they can't smoke and things escalate from there.

I would rather be on an aircraft where smoking is allowed - better air quality and more contented passengers. Yes, it's a filthy habit, but to tell an addict that they can't have a cigarette for, say, 10 hours and then put them in a cramped, uncomfortable environment, in circumstances where they may very well be nervous anyway, seems to be to be asking for trouble.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't smoke (except when very drunk) but I find the smugness of the anti-smoking lobby and the glib assumption that the banning of smoking on aircraft MUST automatically be good idea annoying.

[flypastpastfast]

TOUGH!

[five percent]

CargoOne

There are quite a few incidents of hazards of passengers smoking on aircraft - just a glance at safety manuals of airlines state numerous occasion when rubbish bins caught on fire as a result of passenger cigarettes thrown inside - left alight on meal trays etc. Action by crew when smoke observed stopped the need for emergency landings.

I'd rather - reference to air rage - from experience more air rage was noted with passengers who did not want to be seated in no smoking areas than any other problems experienced now with passenger who want to smoke and cannot.

In a smoke free environment it is very easy to spot a smoker in a toilet and know who the passenger is - check the toilet for fire hazards and embarrass the person concerned like hell by informing them you know what is going on.

As a smoker myself I really do not have a problem with 12 hours without a cigarette and manage to relate with these desparate people very well who respect my ability to refrain for the consideration of others!

One of the main reasons this has been banned on aircraft is not because of passengers who chose to sit in this area because there were generally more seats available. It was the selfish behaviour of people sitting in the no-smoking area who thought that they could just pop to the back for a cigarette - and create a continuous stream of smoke that made life uncomfortable for the smokers and other passenger visiting toilets. More agression from these people demanding to smoke than any others!

[Bird Strike]

CatgoOne,

I never said banning smoking prevents accident. I said it would contribute to FLIGHT SAFETY. I presume you misinterpreted my definition of flight safety.
Why should 'flight safety' be limited to 'accident-related issues'? To me, flight safety issues can include different things from crashes to incidents (like carpet catching fire from cigaretts), even cosmic radiation risks.

So even if there had been no recorded case of accident caused by smoking, I feel that my comment on smoking ban contributing to flight safety still stands.

Having said that, if there is an unreasonable pax who smokes in the toilet, it could compromise flight safety further, as I recently saw.

A woman was smoking in the toilet, and when the flight attendant sussed it out and banged on the door, she chucked the LIT cigarette into the waste paper bin (that was extremely stupid thing to do). She proceeded to argue with the flight attendant about smoking. The flight attendant needed to collect the dustbin, fill it with water to extinguish the cigarette (luckily the bin was more or less empty so no paper caught fire). All because of this stupid woman failing to observe the basic rule of 'no smoking in the toilet', followed by even more stupid behaviour of throwing the lit cigarette into the waste paper bin. As far as I am concerned, she should have been reported to the captain and severely reprimanded. What if the bin was full of paper and caught fire? I guess the smoke alarm would have gone off, and we (sitting near the toilet) would have noticed the smoke and extinguished the fire with the extinguishers (which were just behind the crew seats opposite us). It is still not a pleasant thought.

I guess this was a case where smoking ban reduced the flight safety, but as long as the people observe the rules, it should enhance the flight safety.

Maybe an airline should consider installing a 'smoking cubicle' with nothing flammable in it, so that one can smoke without letting the smoke get to everyone else, or risking setting fire to anything? And charge $50 per use so that they can make a few bucks out of smoking as well? (Apparently smoking increases the cleaning costs quite a bit.)

[max_cont]

Why should myself and my colleagues have to smoke your cigarettes too.

I do not smoke, I never have. Until the ban on smoking came into affect, my clothes and hair used to reek of cigarette smoke at the end of a flight. Not to mention the sore throat.

Passive smoking kills.

A colleague was told he had to give up smoking or he would get seriously ill. He was not a smoker. He just had to run the back galley.

The AC packs do recycle air from the cabin through the E&E bays. The tar gets into all the electronic equipment and does cause higher failure rates. Whats that, if not a flight saftey hazard.

Now with the availability of nicotine patches to help you controll your urges, surely you can wait a few hours before resuming your slow suicide.

Why inflict it on others who would rather avoid contributing to their own demise.

I have watched somone die from cancer of the throat, caused by smoking. I don't recomend it.

------------------
Stay cool, stay longer.

[jetter]

CargoOne - Lavatory fire, Air Canada DC9 about 20 years ago. All killed.

[SussexPSR]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember from training that the AC DC9 incident was the result of dodgy wiring in the toilet water heater....
From a cabin crew point of view air rage has definitely got worse since airlines have banneed smoking....ask any hostie..

[OO-AOG]

This Air Canada acc/incident is still a mystery. The fire has started in the lavs but it hasn't be determinated if it's from a cigarette or from another wiring problem.
By the way, there was some survivors.
I think that the smoking ban does nothing for safety as you have now more and more people smoking in the lavs. We had 3 of these idiots on my last LAX-CDG leg last month.

[bravo 2-0]

From the AirSafety Network::
AIR CANADA DC-9 All Killed onboard!!
It may not have been a cigarette but why increase the chances of a fire in the cabin/toilets.

It is also one more element if an emergency occurs and oxygen masks are employed in he cabin, if a smoker is slow in putting out the cigarrete or discards it carelessly in panic, there is chance that you could have an ignition of the oxygen supply...not pleasant!

Date: 02.06.1983
Time: 19.20 EDT
Type: McDonnell Douglas DC- 9-32
Operator: Air Canada
Registration: C-FTLU
C/n: 47196/278
Year built: 1968
Total airframe hrs: 36825 hours
Cycles: 34987 cycles
Crew: 0 fatalities / 5 on board
Passengers: 23 fatalities / 41 on board
Total: 23 fatalities / 46 on board
Location: Cincinnati-Greater Cincinnati APT (USA)
Phase: Cruise/Ground
Nature: Scheduled Passenger
Flight: Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - Toronto-Lester B. Pearson IAP (Flightnumber 797)
Remarks:
At 16.25h CDT Flight 797 took off from Dallas for a flight to Montreal via Toronto. At 18.51h 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 lavatotory's walls). The first officer went over to take a look, but had to returnb to the cockpit to get his goggles. When returning to the cockpit at 19.07h, 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 19.10h for an emergency. During the desent smoke began to fill the passenger cabin. The emergency landing was carried out on Runway 27L at 19.20h. 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 flightcrew's delayed decision to institute an emergency descent." (NTSB/AAR-84/09)

Source: (also check out sources used for every accident)
NTSB/AAR-84/09