how to stop pax taking hand luggage in evacuation?

[cooperplace]

my suggestion is that a professionally-made film be produced, perhaps using high quality special effects, that shows after a crash landing an aircraft starting to burn, and in, say, 60 seconds, that fire is consuming the cabin. Two scenarios are shown: 1. everybody leaves their carry-on behind and everyone gets out OK. 2. lots of people fumble with o/h lockers, grab luggage, it takes longer, lots of people die in the fire. Hollywood could do a great job with this. If such a movie was included in safety briefings, it might get the message across. Any thoughts?

[oldpax]

I often wonder what people carry across the world with them!IIf your going to a warm place you only need T shirts and shorts!!OK the other way you need warm clothes .The RAF had a box and if your hand carry dint go in then you had to let it go in the hold ,also no more than 4 kilo was allowed,talking transport command now.So why do airlines let people carrry on huge holdalls etc ,so they can just by-pass the carousel?Time to get serious,I was amazed at the pax on that EK crash !!!

[p.j.m]

Well going on the video of inside the cabin during the evacuation, it was obvious people weren't moving very fast, so it would only be natural to reach up for you bags while you're in a huge queue waiting to get off the plane.

Nothing anyone says or does is going to ever change that.

If there was a huge fire at your posterior it'd be different, but there was nothing inside the cabin to indicate any "urgency" to get out.

[TURIN]

The only way to stop pax taking bags off in an emergency is to stop them bringing them on in the first place. Good luck with that.

I often wonder what people carry across the world with them! If your going to a warm place you only need T shirts and shorts!!

Two words, Air conditioning!



The RAF had a box and if your hand carry dint go in then you had to let it go in the hold ,also no more than 4 kilo was allowed,talking transport command now.So why do airlines let people carrry on huge holdalls etc ,so they can just by-pass the carousel?Time to get serious,I was amazed at the pax on that EK crash !!!


A similar system operates in UK airports, but the box is a bit bigger and the weight is not an issue unless you can't put it in the o/head bin.
The trouble is that if your a low paid check in agent faced with a a huge queue of irate passengers who are giving you grief about the size of the 'box' and they refuse to put it in the hold, what will you do, ignore it or ruthlessly enforce the rule. Responsibility then passes to the cabin crew at the door who again try to stop passengers with oversize bags from boarding. Result is a delay and managers not happy.

[Teevee]

There are too many variables. If it was possible to design a perfect method it'd probably never be needed but you can't 'program' human beings to do the specific correct thing every time. That said, I suppose a very hypothetical solution would be to make every seat a 'Bond villain' seat, you know the one where as soon as you sit down heavy metal restraint bands snap into place AND make every seat an ejector seat. That way as soon as 'EVAC' is announced one of the CC flicks a switch and 'woosh' .. off they go...:):D

[outofwhack]

The obvious solution is to add an automatic locking system to the overhead lockers.

They get locked when the seat belt sign comes on for descent and unlocked on engine shutdown.
Passengers would know its locked in an emergency situation.

The regulators should mandate it for aircraft over a certain size.

Simples - OOW

[Wageslave]

Automatic locks on overhead lockers while the seat belt sign is on.

How hard is that?

But as ever with aviation nothing will be done until a substantial body-count forces it.

edit.
simultaneous postings

[Chesty Morgan]

So when the seat belt sign goes off for the evacuation....?

[who_cares]

So when the seat belt sign goes off for the evacuation....?
Well the last few aircraft I've flown, the checklist for evac doesn't include turning the seat belt sign off.
Plus seriously how often do you pull up at the gate and everyone is out of their seat before the signs are turned off anyhow.

[dsc810]

@oldpax
There was a couple I can remember out of the UK from Gatwick on a ski holiday to Europe who had swallowed the line about how you need not have hand baggage and had put all their stuff in their hold baggage.
Gatwick suffered a power failure and all the hold bags were left there at Gatwick.
So they arrived at their destination with pretty well nothing other than what they were wearing plus a small daysack.
Now while you can hire ski boots, helmets and some other stuff, all the things I (being rather wiser) put in my hand baggage such as goggles, sunglasses, face mask, hat, ski gloves, base layer, change of underwear and a single pair of ski socks, toothbrush, electric shaver were all stuck in Gatwick.

When did their hold bags finally turn up at the hotel you ask - after being endlessly promised for the 'next day'?
Wednesday evening - so in effect the entire week's ski holiday was trashed.
I'm sure they leanrt their lesson about how to in future put your essentials and valuables in their hand baggage and cram it right up to the weight/size limit.

...and that is essentially why the concept of hand baggage exists (and that airlines charge for hold baggage)
because the not stupid know that there is a fair possibility of their hold baggage being delayed, lost entirely or of valuables in them going strangely "missing".

As to why they take them when they leave..
This blog might just possibly give a clue:
https://nickbradbury.com/2013/07/28/the-crash-landing-of-southwest-345/
He left his hand baggage behind, it was retrieved later by the airline and returned to him, 2 days later note, and minus the apple mac book pro in it - well what a surprise - who'd have guessed it.
I'll bet he will be grabbing his hand bags next time as well

[DaveReidUK]

The obvious solution is to add an automatic locking system to the overhead lockers.

The only thing obvious is that as a proposed solution it's neither cheap, simple nor practical.

[Teevee]

Even the question on the thread isn't actually correct. It should be 'How to stop pax TRYING to take hand luggage in an evacuation' Because I am willing to bet that locked or not there'd still be a few trying to prise, jemmy or otherwise break the overheads open no matter what they had been told.

[usav8r11]

Automatic locks on overhead lockers while the seat belt sign is on.

How hard is that?

But as ever with aviation nothing will be done until a substantial body-count forces it.

edit.
simultaneous postings





I would add that once the EVAC switch is pushed/activated then all overhead bins would be locked:ok:

[MrSnuggles]

If it could be implemented correctly I think the version usav8r11 suggested would be somewhat successful.

Locking the bins while in flight is not a smart idea since bad laptop batteries on fire would be unreachable unless some emergency code system can be utilised... which actually only increases risk.

Having a master lock in the evacuation checklist might work. This would in theory prohibit passengers from reaching for their stuff after seat belts are unfastened. Now, when passengers already unfastened seatbelts and opened the overhead lockers...? I don't know.

[plhought]

How about ending this practice of charging passengers exorbitant fees for checked/hold luggage? Never used to be as much stuff forced into the bins nowadays as 10+ years ago.

[Rwy in Sight]

agent faced with a a huge queue of irate passengers who are giving you grief about the size of the 'box

Some (outsourced) agents work wonders on stopping people to board certain blue and yellow 738 with bags over a certain limit.

[MrSnuggles]

If airlines would take greater responsibility for items in the hold, the size of carry-ons would decrease, I think. If a fee was introduced for your carry ons but not luggage in the hold, that too would reduce the amount of clutter in the lockers.

When you appeal to a persons wallet size, the results will come pretty fast. Quicker than using penalties or fines, because (as a real world comparison) we all drive too fast and rely on luck to not get caught.

[cooperplace]

a lot of thread drift here: what do people think of my idea of a movie? A lot of these other suggestions, such as stopping people taking any cabin luggage and locking o/head lockers, have drawbacks. The right movie would cut across all languages and fundamentally alter the behavior. As a refinement, it could be suggested that if people kept their passports and credit cards on their person, then everything else -the stuff in the carry-on bag- is highly expendable. Who cares about underwear/toothpaste/clothing when the aircraft is on fire?

[cooperplace]

hi mods, it's been suggested that this thread: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/582533-how-about-fine-prison-taking-luggage-down-slide-2.html be merged with the current one, which seems a good idea. I'm also happy for you to move it anywhere on the site, but please don't delete it, 'coz I think my idea could make a difference, and no-one has said otherwise.

[cooperplace]

2 other points: 1. the movie showing people burning could be followed with the words DON'T TAKE YOUR LUGGAGE!! in about 10 languages; 2. It wouldn't need to get to 100% of the pax, because once 90% of people got the message, as soon as someone reached for the o/head locker, everyone around them would urge them to leave it behind.

[grounded27]

Automatic locks on overhead lockers while the seat belt sign is on.

Maintenance and liability nightmare WHEN it fails, not if.

[riff_raff]

If you've ever sat in the back row of a large single aisle aircraft, and had to spend 20 minutes watching over 100 feeble-minded passengers in the rows ahead of you attempt to extract their carry-on baggage from the overheads, and finally manage to shuffle down the aisle to the exit, you'd agree that these people are not someone you would want to rely on to quickly and safely exit the aircraft ahead of you during a emergency situation.

Your best option is to get a seat as close as possible to an emergency exit. There is no way to prevent the typical commercial aircraft passenger from doing something stupid.

[Tourist]

A common definition of insanity regularly attributed to Einstein is

"It’s often said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."


People are looking at this wrong.

Passengers are going to take the luggage if they have it.
Accept it.
There is no point in raving about it. The majority don't read Pprune or give a cr@p what you think.
You don't know what is in the bag and how much they perceive it to be worth to them.
If I had £10,000 in my bag, there is every chance I would take it with me. Maybe my wife's ashes etc etc etc. You don't know.
Ranting about putting others at risk is pointless. We all do that every time we speed on the road, but everybody does it.

The only way to solve this problem is to remove the issue.
Locking overhead bins are an obvious idiocy.

No hand luggage will solve it, but is the cost/benefit worth it?

How many lives have been confirmed lost through people carrying off luggage?

There are a thousand things we could do to save lives in airliner crashes that we chose not to do because we don't care enough at the end of the day.

What's the big deal about hand luggage?

[Uplinker]

@cooperplace; Your idea might have worked in the 1950's. Sadly, today's society is "f..k you" and nobody is going to comply with, or even remember a film they might have seen a year ago.

Lots of comments about stupid or selfish passengers, (and of course they are), but most people put valuable stuff in their carry on. Why?, because they know that stuff will get nicked or broken if it is "trusted" to the baggage handling system. Put yourself in the same position. You have to evacuate the aircraft but in the overhead locker is your laptop with 6 month's work and data on it; Your passport; your wallet with $/£/€/¥1,000 foreign currency; your iPad with loads of pics of your family on it; your credit cards, or the longhand draft of the book you are writing etc., etc.

Put yourself in the position of that passenger; if you can grab your bag as you go past would you do so, or will you say "Oh, that's OK, I will abandon it and claim it all back from insurance. Well, the money, yes. The hardware, yes, the passport, yes, but the data, the photos, the memories, the manuscript? What about another passenger taking it and stealing your identity?

I am not saying this is right or proper, I am simply saying that this is what people WILL do. Why do folk slow down to look at a car accident on the other side of the motorway, thereby causing a traffic jam on the unaffected carriageway? = HUMAN NATURE.

Telling people doesn't work anymore. I grew up when society used to behave and obey the rules. This is no longer the case; it is every person for themselves and screw the others.

Also, sadly, the authority and training of cabin crew is not respected. They are seen as trolley dollies. If the cabin crew consisted of army sergeant major types who shouted and barked at you, you would most certainly do what you were told - immediately. But a beautiful, delicate 20 something hostie, young enough to be your daughter?

Some of the things and abuse that our crews have to put up with from pax make me want to go and thump the passenger(s) concerned.

Just saying. Sad, but true.


.

[Thorr]

Reduce the excess charges for hold luggage and introduce a charge for hand/carry on luggage.

[cooperplace]

@cooperplace; Your idea might have worked in the 1950's....and nobody is going to comply with, or even remember a film they might have seen a year ago.

Also


.

my suggestion is for a 30 second movie, showing the bodies frying, included as part of the safety briefing: if they've seen it a hour ago, they might remember

[Uplinker]

OK, well that might work. The current videos are very very sugar coated.

Not wishing to shoot you down again, but I wonder if there would be problems showing graphic scenes to minors and nervous flyers?

[PAX_Britannica]

[Warning: may contain irony/sarcasm: Unsuitable for US audiences]

Lock the flight deck crew in the flight deck.

The key is removed from the plane before leaving the gate.

The flight deck is unlocked after landing after all passengers are accounted for.

The axe is removed from the flight deck.

Escape ropes/ladders are removed, and escape hatches welded shut.

That way, the magenta line followers at the pointy end have more incentive not to crash.

For good measure, all crew property not immediately essential to flight will be carried in checked baggage.

[Tourist]

OK, well that might work. The current videos are very very sugar coated.

Not wishing to shoot you down again, but I wonder if there would be problems showing graphic scenes to minors and nervous flyers?

Or perhaps the airlines don't want to lose customers due to fear of flying?


Why on earth would an airline do something that might lose them custom?

Airlines are about making money. Airlines are not responsible for any deaths caused by passengers as long as they have asked them not to get their bags.

Belabouring the point will just lose custom, and airlines don't want that. If Airlines were interested in making things safer at a cost to profit, there are lot easier ways to do it, especially as I have yet to see any evidence of any deaths caused by passenger getting their bags.

[NSEU]

I have yet to see any evidence of any deaths caused by passenger getting their bags.

Dead men tell no tales?

I keep thinking of the pilot who went down a 747 slide with a fire extinguisher to assist with a brake fire and broke his arm (probably because the extinguisher interfered with his balance)

[cooperplace]

OK, well that might work. The current videos are very very sugar coated.

Not wishing to shoot you down again, but I wonder if there would be problems showing graphic scenes to minors and nervous flyers?

Uplinker, you're right, there are lots of problems here, and as others point out, airlines are run by bean counters, so safety isn't the first priority -money is. With imagination and expertise, a 30 second movie could be made that gets the point across that fumbling with your carry-on slows the evacuation, and that delay could cost lives. It needn't be that graphic: it could show animated or stick figures being caught in the fire. What I'm saying is that if someone did this in a clever, catchy way (think Hollywood) and if the right 30-sec movie was included in the safety briefing, it might catch on across the industry. If the flying public gets it into their minds that "someone else grabbing their carry-on will kill ME" then maybe this could work.

[cooperplace]

[Warning: may contain irony/sarcasm: Unsuitable for US audiences]

Lock the flight deck crew in the flight deck.

The key is removed from the plane before leaving the gate.

The flight deck is unlocked after landing after all passengers are accounted for.

The axe is removed from the flight deck.

Escape ropes/ladders are removed, and escape hatches welded shut.

That way, the magenta line followers at the pointy end have more incentive not to crash.

For good measure, all crew property not immediately essential to flight will be carried in checked baggage.

Pax Brit., I understand that you're sceptical. My suggestion is a serious one: what is needed is a change to human behavior, which is never easy. If pax accurately weighed up the choice of death or losing their belongings, everyone would make the right choice. But pausing for 5-10 seconds (say) to grab that bag is incorrectly viewed as being a no-cost action. I think the right 30-sec movie, in the safety briefing, might convince most people of the folly of grabbing carry-on. Obviously it's impossible to convince everyone, but that's not the objective.

[Tourist]

If pax accurately weighed up the choice of death or losing their belongings, everyone would make the right choice.

Can you give some evidence for this please?


The current empirical evidence from a whole bunch of crashes now on video (which may be pure good luck, obviously), is that taking the hand luggage doesn't kill anyone and means you have got your luggage. Many of those that have left theirs have had them burned or stuff pinched.

From that, it would suggest that any passengers accurately weighing up the choice on the basis of current evidence would take the bag.

[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.

[cooperplace]

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.

[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.

[DARK MATTER]

Here's a link to an Indian website which offers a very different insight into the problem of leaving possessions on-board an aircraft following an accident.

Emirates crash: When you don't own your liberty and property, your possessions become most important (http://scroll.in/article/813593/emirates-crash-when-you-dont-own-your-liberty-and-property-your-possessions-become-most-important)

It's an interesting read.............

[alemaobaiano]

I think the right 30-sec movie, in the safety briefing, might convince most people of the folly of grabbing carry-on.

One problem is what to do when there is no means of showing the film on board? I've just come back from a round trip to Manaus and there is no a/v system of any kind on the airline I flew. I'm sure they are not the only low cost (high fares though !!) carrier that doesn't have IFE.

[PAX_Britannica]

I suggest that:
- There is no evidence to suggest that passengers taking their carry on luggage with them has ever caused a fatality.
- There is evidence that allowing flight deck crew to leave the flight deck has been [I]a causal factor in hundreds of deaths.

Consider:
- Germanwings 9525
- Silkair 185
- Egyptair 990
- LAM Mozambique 470
- MH370 [?]
- ...

We don't know exactly what happened with MH370, but what we do know isn't consistent with non-psycho crew trying to get to the scheduled destination.

The hundreds of deaths in the first four examples I've listed above could have been prevented by my suggestion of locking the crew into the flight deck.


For good measure, all crew property not immediately essential to flight will be carried in checked baggage.

I could extend this to clarify:
Crew are deep body searched immediately before entering the aircraft. Crew are immediately sacked if found in possesion of cash, credit cards, passports, driving licence, other financial instruments or identity documents. If such items are found, these are shipped on the flight as checked baggage, while uniforms and corporate or professional ID are immediately confiscated. The (ex-)crew can make their own way home from airside.

[seafire6b]

Dark Matter - thanks for that link, it certainly provides an insight into the other side of the coin. One can see how deprivation of such items as listed by PAX Brit could cause passengers to be instantly downgraded to a lowly "non-person" status.

PAX Brit - you omitted medications from your list!

[PAX_Britannica]

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/the-fix/wp/2016/08/10/a-look-inside-the-training-the-white-house-thinks-could-stop-the-police-shooting-protest-damning-doj-report-cycle/

https://hbr.org/2015/02/why-debunking-myths-about-vaccines-hasnt-convinced-dubious-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.

[MurphyWasRight]

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.

[PAX_Britannica]

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
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.

[MurphyWasRight]

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.

[PAX_Britannica]

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.

[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 (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?contentKey=4008) 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 (https://youtu.be/_gqWeJGwV_U?t=133). 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. (http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2016/08/03/6990012878098221473/960x540_6990012878098221473.mp4)

[cooperplace]

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 (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?contentKey=4008) 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 (https://youtu.be/_gqWeJGwV_U?t=133). 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. (http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2016/08/03/6990012878098221473/960x540_6990012878098221473.mp4)

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]

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.

[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.

[Tourist]

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?

[rjtjrt]

Do you really think that a threat of possible prosecution is going to affect the situation?
Yes, I do.

[cooperplace]

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.

[MurphyWasRight]

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.

[cooperplace]

possibly the best approach is carrot AND stick.

[rjtjrt]

the best approach is carrot AND stick.

I agree. Plus a public education program to emphasise the carrot and the stick.

[cooperplace]

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.

[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.

[MurphyWasRight]

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.

[riff_raff]

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?

[cooperplace]

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.

[dsc810]

@riff raff
Its a numbers game costs/benefits etc - as is all "justice"

You can prosecute 1 person
You cannot prosecute an entire plane load
It runs the risk of bringing the juctice system into disrepute - which they are terrified of.
As the old (cynical) saying goes 1 man murders his wife it's a crime, 50000 do it then its a lifestyle choice.

[Tourist]

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.

Ok.

Lets just take the example of the Big 3 middle eastern airlines.

To make this work, since they carry such a large % of passengers you would have to get their governments to sign up to this new law.

They absolutely know that if they do, they will definitely be committing to prosecuting their own nationals the next time they have an incident requiring an abandon aircraft.

These are countries where they can't stop their own nationals driving the wrong way down motorways.

The idea that they could ever possibly persuade them that they should not take their baggage with them is ludicrous, particularly when you consider the quantities of cash that many of them are carrying.

[MurphyWasRight]

There is no need to actually prosecute the passengers, just impound the offending item for longer (and with greater risk of pilferage) than it would take to get the item if left behind.

It also does not have to be perfect in all countries as long as most do so the norm mindset becomes better to leave it than risk the consequences.

Also my prior suggestion of cash reward for leaving items would probably be more effective if instead it was 1-3 years 'gold/platinum/rubidium' (whatever is hardest to attain) status in the airlines mileage program. To many business travelers that would be much more compelling than $100.

[cooperplace]

Ok.

Lets just take the example of the Big 3 middle eastern airlines.

To make this work, since they carry such a large % of passengers you would have to get their governments to sign up to this new law.
.

I'm not proposing a law, I'm proposing a movie.

[Tourist]

cooper.

Nobody is watching the movie.

Seriously.

Airlines have given up on even pretending to make people watch nowadays. Most people have headphones on playing with their ipads or reading a book.

The last thing any airline is going to do is push a movie that will scare people and impinge upon profit, and why would they? There is no tombstone imperative.

[Rwy in Sight]

OK, I do understand the need to left everything behind. And let's say that about 100 pax escape with their bags and no pax dies. The airline just lost a hull, it is probable the crash is due to its SOP/ maintenance / crew negligence and fights in every possible font to handle the bad news.

Among the people escaping with their bags are some very important customers (commercially) and some pax of high net worth who have a half decent legal team. Some other pax have contacted an ambulance-chasing lawyer who knows their way around. Would you be happy for the airline to have a jail a poor devil that escapes with his possessions because he does not any better and its all he/she has?

I stand to be corrected but those prosecutions would be most intresting.

[MurphyWasRight]

No need to put people in jail, fear of prosecution has actually been shown to be a weak deterrent at best even with capital punishment.

The law (or even existing 'failure to comply with crew instructions') is only needed to justify seizing the bags to have people believe they are more likely to see them again if they leave them behind than take them.

Pax view thinking scenarios:

Premise : Bag is important to the pax.

1: I will leave it behind for altruistic, help everyone, reasons : A few.

2: I will leave it behind because I might go jail: "no way they would never"

3: I will leave it behind because I might get hurt: "not me I am VIP/invincible"

4: I will leave it behind because it will be confiscated and I will never see it again if I take it with me.
If I leave it I will probably have it within a day since most evacs don't end in fireball.

More and more will pick #4 after a few well publicised instances where exactly that happens.

The desire is the bag, attack the bag not the person.
Legally property is much easier to mess with than people.

[parabellum]

An interesting chat with a FA who works for a SE Asian airline and has done for twenty years, the topic was hand baggage and evacuation, in this instance the recent EK accident. What she said was, that most of the pax on that flight are first time flyers coming to work, mainly as labourers and they have no English language whatsoever, so the FA can scream all day and it will make no difference. Second point, these pax came mainly from Kerala state and have absolutely no proper regard for women, they are regarded as chattels and will be ignored anyway.

[megan]

The desire is the bag, attack the bag not the personGet rid of the bins so that the only carry on has to fit under the seat. Imagine the uproar. British Airways allow you to have a 51 pound bag for the bin. Ridiculous.

[MurphyWasRight]

What she said was, that most of the pax on that flight are first time flyers coming to work, mainly as labourers and they have no English language whatsoever, so the FA can scream all day and it will make no difference. Second point, these pax came mainly from Kerala state and have absolutely no proper regard for women, they are regarded as chattels and will be ignored anyway.

That obviously has other safety implications as well (to put it mildly).

On the other hand first time flyers are more likely to pay attention to the safety movies etc, if they can understand them of course.

The part about confiscating bags could have images of bags on the tarmac being collecting and tossed into a trash compacting truck.

[cooperplace]

these pax came mainly from Kerala state and have absolutely no proper regard for women, they are regarded as chattels and will be ignored anyway.

surely not! in Kerala, or god's own country, as the signs there say. I think this problem extends beyond Kerala.

[cooperplace]

cooper.

Nobody is watching the movie.

Seriously.

Airlines have given up on even pretending to make people watch nowadays. Most people have headphones on playing with their ipads or reading a book.

The last thing any airline is going to do is push a movie that will scare people and impinge upon profit, and why would they? There is no tombstone imperative.

sadly, everything you say is correct; except maybe about the tombstone imperative. We can all envisage a crash in which delays in evacuation cause deaths.

[Tourist]

We can all envisage a crash in which delays in evacuation cause deaths.

Hmm, that's not how it works.

Tombstone imperative is post, not pre.

[Ian W]

As I said in a post that got pulled a lot earlier but has been repeated here. You want pax to check bags and not take those smaller bags with _very_ valuable contents?
1. Reduce or eliminate checked bag fees.
2. Actually take care of pax's bags.
3. Take accountability for loss of bags far more seriously
4. Understand that the cabin bags now contain things of considerable value to the pax. So ensure that #2 applies to bags left in aircraft after an evacuation. State that the bags will be guarded - and guard them.
5. Provide cheap money belt/wallet holders that can carry wallets, passports, money, jewelry, phone etc. and which are completely hands free.

Those 5 steps will reduce the need for pax to want their bags it will still not fully answer the problems of 'parents' ashes in the bag' but it should improve things. All without having the need for a police cordon around the crash jumping on pax with bags - a PR 'optic' that the airline may wish to avoid.

[MurphyWasRight]

All without having the need for a police cordon around the crash jumping on pax with bags - a PR 'optic' that the airline may wish to avoid.

After the first two occurrences make the news the urge to take bags with you will go down. That 'optic' is exactly what is needed to change behavior.

Also there is no need to jump on the passengers just firmly take the bags, offering a receipt in exchange for passengers name.

I suspect in most cases the passengers will not be able to simply walk away, for safety and other reasons they need to corralled anyway.

BTW: Totally agree with the other points, especially on taking 'real' responsibility for PAX property.

[NutLoose]

Personally I would ban duty free on aircraft, there is no need to transport spirits etc in overhead lockers, it is another source of danger from flying bottles to flammable fluids in a crash, plus you are burning fuel to haul it all.
I cannot understand why a system couldn't be introduced where when you buy an article of duty free spirits or tobacco etc at your departing airport and you are presented with a voucher that is redeemable at your destination in the shop there. It would also get around those drinking them in flight.


..

[riff_raff]

Why not create a system that makes things safer for passengers willing to demonstrate personal responsibility for their own safety when flying?

For example, the seats closest to emergency exits could be reserved for passengers that have passed a safety class in commercial aircraft emergency evacuation procedures. This would provide an incentive for people to show greater responsibility in return for increased chance of survival during an emergency crash situation.