How about a fine/prison for taking luggage down the slide?

[rudestuff]

In the light of yesterdays 777 crash, where people were apparently opening overhead lockers during the evacuation - surely it would be a simple matter to make it a criminal offense to take any luggage with you, punishable with the same penalty as tampering with a smoke detector?

[Lonewolf_50]

Most passengers are untrained. The conceit that you can somehow mind control everyone to follow all instructions During An Emergency is rubbish. If you give the instructions to leave the bags, and most people do and some don't, you are ahead of the game. Human Behavior 101 would be worth a review. Then study up on Human Behavior during crisis/emergency and (as pilots) you will be aware that a variety of things change to everyday people. Some keep their heads, some don't.

[TransitCheck]

Do you really think anyone is going to give a **** or even think about a stupid fine or criminal offense after an emergency. Some of these pax are still in the "startle factor" state (ie..doing what you normally do when you board/deplane) and some are just plain stupid.

[Lonewolf_50]

Baggage battles: Passengers lose their common sense when asked to evacuate a plane | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2016/08/baggage-battles?fsrc=permar|image2)


The Economist, albeit not an aviation mag but a passenger mag, has some interesting thoughts on this. I suggest some with the shrill yelling and condemnation of those in the seats aft of row 0 look at this from your customers' point of view.


From a safety aspect, punishing after the fact is nowhere near as worthwhile as learning how to encourage compliance before and during the fact. Hey, a Just Culture Concept delivered to you in the industry. What a concept!


The attitude "do it because I said so" doesn't always work in parenting, and it doesn't always work with a diverse group of strangers packed into a tube.


Talk to people
Not At Them,
nor Down Your Nose At Them.

[ExDubai]

Sure Prison, lock them up for life....... :}

[HarryMann]

One solution might be a dead bolt locking system on all pax lockers switched by the crew on Declaration of an Emergency Evacuation .
There will obviously be a few gotchas but if the Captain says Immediate Emergency Exit then that is his call...
CC override might be an option. And of course there's going to be a weight and complexity issue.
e.g. do modern airliners have pax. visual message placards that light up saying Immediate Emergency Evac ? Or audio like a fire alarm (but not noisy and panicky) but instantly recognisable.
No they don't... wouldn't this save CC a lot if grief and time in such critical emergencies if at least the majority knew WIHIH ?

[cockpitvisit]

So how many people lost their lives because passengers wanted to take their hand baggage with them during an evacuation? I don't remember a single case. I think the problem is overblown. It's understandably causing anger, because those taking their possessions are endangering not their own, but other passenger's lives, but the actual damage is next to none.

Addressing pilot suicide is much more important from the safety point of view. There are two men and a fire axe behind a bulletproof door, so a crazy pilot is still able to kill his coworker with the axe and then everybody else by flying the plane into the ground.

A punishment for passengers taking their hand luggage with them isn't going to help anyway - under stress (both from the evacuation and from the perspective of losing documents and valuables), no one will think about it.

A good beginning would be to tell passengers before the landing to have their passports, their money, their mobile phones and their keys on their bodies - because in the event of an emergency evacuation, they will not be able to take these items with them. I surely do this before every landing. But then, lots of people will probably complain about being told about such a possibility at all.

Also, pax should be told to leave their stuff on the plane in case of an evacuation in the safety briefing before the flight - many carriers don't say that. So how are people supposed to know? Yes, the safety card in the seat pocket says just that, but apart from aviation geeks, probably no one reads it.

[Teevee]

Having just watched a video from inside the EK 777 it seemed to me that the initial grabbing of baggage was in the early stages when confusion reigned and no-one quite understood what was happening. When the CC's cries of leave your baggage can clearly be heard it looks to me as though most heeded them.

[G-CPTN]

So how many people lost their lives because passengers wanted to take their hand baggage with them during an evacuation?
British Airtours Flight 28M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M).

Takeoff was aborted and the captain ordered the evacuation of the aircraft.

Even though the evacuation of passengers and crew started the moment the aircraft came to a stop, many passengers remained trapped and dead within the fuselage.

This disaster resulted in the deaths of 53 passengers and 2 crew members.

15 of those that did escape had suffered serious injuries.

[Lonewolf_50]

British Airtours Flight 28M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M).
AF 447 stalled and killed how many people? Hey, at least nobody was trying to get their luggage out of the overhead bin. :E

[DaveReidUK]

British Airtours Flight 28M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M).

There is no reference in the Airtours 28M accident investigation report to passengers' carry-on baggage being a factor contributing to the casualties, nor is it the subject of any of the 31 Safety Recommendations made in the report.

[air pig]

G-CPTN:

Originally Posted by cockpitvisit View Post
So how many people lost their lives because passengers wanted to take their hand baggage with them during an evacuation?
British Airtours Flight 28M.

Quote:
Takeoff was aborted and the captain ordered the evacuation of the aircraft.

Even though the evacuation of passengers and crew started the moment the aircraft came to a stop, many passengers remained trapped and dead within the fuselage.

15 of those that did escape had suffered serious injuries.

Went to two excellent presentations some weeks ago at TAS Manchester on this incident. Many thing came to light following the disaster, main ones being a change in the practice of the aircraft turning off the runway instead of stopping and maintaining the runway heading, The increase in the number of windsocks to give an indication of wind direction for the aircrew, use of floor lighting.

One of the main reasons of the evolution of the disaster was the turn off the runway which in combination with the thrust reverser activation pushed the flames up and over the left side of the fuselage, fire ingressed and the cabin became an inferno so severe that the fire crews had to withdraw. Another factor that there was no direct communication between the cabin crew and the flight deck and the design of the forward cabin areas which became a serious bottleneck to the evacuation.

There is far more to relate, the airfield water ring main was turned off for maintenance so the fire crews started to run out of water, poor command and control and non airfield fire crew did not have immediate access to the airfield. casualties taken to hospital by a non authorised method so the hospital didn't know they were coming. This all came out in the AAIB report. Fire crews were on scene well within the allotted time as their watch keeper saw the incident evolving and triggered the crew to respond before the aircraft had stopped and despite all their valiant efforts 56 people died.

Kegworth was the same which resulted in seat design changes because the seats at the time had a metal bar running under the seat cushion so when the aircraft impacted a number of people broke their femur's so a) were unable to evacuate and B) bled out into their legs.

[Ian W]

The airlines make a huge amount of money from freight and from passengers bags. The airlines will not guarantee the safe reunion of passengers with their bags nor take any responsibility for their airline or agents mishandling of the bags. Passengers who have left their bags in aircraft due to an evacuation have to accept that they will be rifled for valuables before they get them back (if they ever do) [cf Southwest wheelbarrow at LGA when a reporter lost his laptop without recompense].

So - passengers know that if they want to keep their valuables safe they have to be kept with them in the cabin because the airline will not keep them safe. By definition then the bags in the cabin normally carry items that the pax consider valuable. The pax are therefore sorely tempted to retrieve these valuable items when told to evacuate as they know they will have to find them on eBay otherwise.

The cure is in the hands of the airlines. They should take responsibility for loss, theft or damage to checked bags _and_ for bags left in an evacuation. The prices for checking bags should not be so usurious (they are seen as a profit item by the beancounters).

Passengers should be told to have - or be given - a body belt or shoulder bag that can contain important papers, money and small valuables. These shoulder bags could be worn during takeoff and landing and would be no hindrance to evacuation.

It is your company's fault that pax take their bags with them - have a quiet word with your management. It may be more effective than fulminating here.

[evansb]

Hey air pig! What does "Kegworth was the same.." mean?
What does "sears at the time.." mean?
What does "bled out into their legs" mean? Do you mean internal hemorrhaging?

[MrSnuggles]

Please can some mod make this

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/582491-how-stop-pax-taking-hand-luggage-evacuation.html

a sticky and/or glue all these suggestions into that thread?

I'm sorry guys, but this discussion is getting kind of tedious. Especially when spread over a vast array of threads and in different forum sections.

[air pig]

Hey air pig! What does "Kegworth was the same.." mean?
What does "sears at the time.." mean?
What does "bled out into their legs" mean? Do you mean internal hemorrhaging?

Kegworth: that investigation in the deaths, helped to make changes into design as the report from Manchester also did for operations, cabin design etc.

Sears: should read seats, will edit this point

Bled out is when you lose your blood volume into a place it is not meant to be either internally or all over the floor when your ulcer or oesophageal varices pop, but drop 2lts of blood from each fracture leaves you with very little blood to go round, resulting in death. Blood does as you assert does not have to be visible when you loose the vast majority of circulatory volume.

[parabellum]

"I would like to see a locking system for the overhead bins. They auto lock at, say, application of TO power and can only be unlocked manually, after, say seat belt sign goes off. Re-lock when seat belt sign is activated to On, (turbulence or landing) and once again, have to be manually unlocked after both engines shut down. The manual over ride, CC or flight deck, should always be available in the event of a technical failure."


Probably a bit more relevant to this thread.

[Huck]

It takes time for the line of passengers in the aisle to start moving. Just like a normal deboarding.

So these folks likely grabbed their bags while they were waiting for their chance to move. No delay caused.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

It takes time for the line of passengers in the aisle to start moving. Just like a normal deboarding.

So these folks likely grabbed their bags while they were waiting for their chance to move. No delay caused.

It's not just the time it takes to grab the bags, it's the additional obstruction the stuff causes when trying to get a lot of people out the exits in a hurry. Have you seen some of the stuff people bring on board?! You really want that coming down the slides with you?

[vapilot2004]

The problems with punitive actions after an evacuation are manyfold. Someone, presumably with the airline, would have to make positive the identification of the offenders and record the violation. This would need to be followed up with the issuance of a citation by law enforcement.

Considering the dire circumstance that led to slide deployment, this seems a trivial thing to pursue in comparison - can you imagine the purser walking round the tarmac with a notebook, taking names, etc, post crash? The last thing an airline would want, after having traumatized (at minimum) their passengers, is to pile on by accusing those same passengers of wrong doing. It would be a public relations nightmare.

Had the careless or wonton actions of certain passengers led to the injury of others, then it should be pursued, but I have yet to see or read about a clear case during an evac where this has occurred.

[Wot No Engines]

Punishment after the event will do nothing to prevent this. It just makes people in the industry feel better afterwards - 15 people dies because some idiot insisted on trying to take his bags with him, but at least he got locked up for 2 years.

Education or physical prevention are the only possible answers, and education is not a 3 minute demonstration 6 hours earlier where not smoking is repeated multiple times, but I can't remember ever being told not to take my bags if we have to evacuate.

Worse, each airline has different emergency procedures, which just adds to confusion when things go wrong, even assuming you can see the demonstration at all. A short passenger in the window seat 15 rows behind a short crew member giving the demonstration will see nothing. If you don't speak any of the languages used (normally a maximum of 2), you don't understand anything either.

All I can think of that would make a difference is for all airlines to standardise their emergency procedures and demonstrations, have passenger courses that would need to be at least 3 hours, and only permit taking hand luggage if such a course had been passed within the last 3 years.

[mickjoebill]

takes time for the line of passengers in the aisle to start moving. Just like a normal deboarding.

So these folks likely grabbed their bags while they were waiting for their chance to move. No delay caused.

Study the onboard video.
The video started at least 20 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop. I base this on the time it takes to react and turn on a camera phone and in the first few seconds there is a girl standing in the idle with a carryon bag slung across her shoulder.

The girl in white was clearly obstructed by the guy in glasses opening the bin and retrieving his bag.
Single frames show the slide was a jumble of bags and people. With more than one bag on the surface of the slide. The slide was at a shallow angle so passengers had to walk/climb off, made more difficult if you have one hand on a bag or if bags have been dropped. Just like walking on a bouncy castle.

I believe we can do better.
Certainly if there is a tech problem and ample warning for cabin crew.
Slightly tongue in cheek, passengers who agree to evac without baggage get the aisle seats.

If I saw an a accompanied man reaching for the bin I would either man handle them forward or push them back into their seat as they are risking the lives of everyone behind them. Such action would expedite safe egress. It is the folk furtherest from the open door that are at highest risk from being overcome by just a few breaths of smoke. You are talking the difference between life and death in seconds.

If you are seated next to a family where there are more kids than adults then agree to grab a kid. Parents panicking about kids is an issue.
"Look after each other", a suitably warm and reassuring tone for an inflight saftey video.
Come on Richard Branson, be the first

Mickjoebill

[The Bullwinkle]

Someone, presumably with the airline, would have to make positive the identification of the offenders and record the violation.

This wouldn't be too hard.

"Hands up if you've got your passport and keys!!.... You're nicked son! :E

[G-CPTN]

Would playing a 'professionally produced' video of the chaos that ensued on the EK evacuation (with the associated chatter which drowns out the CC instructions) - followed by a 'public information message' in several languages outlining the hazard associated with collecting and carrying 'carry-on' luggage be a good idea - to be screened during the final approach of the aircraft - or would that induce panic among the passenger who would then assume that the aircraft was going to crash?

[jugofpropwash]

A couple of points here.

First, with regard to arrest. Not everyone speaks the same language. How do you arrest someone for ignoring an announcement made in a language they don't speak? Or if the flight attendant is yelling "leave your bags" during an evacuation, what's to say the passenger even heard them in the noise and confusion? Any lawyer worth his salt is going to get that thrown out.

Locking the bins? Not going to work. Most people won't get it through their heads that they're locked (even if there's a big red sign), and at least some of those who do will just keep pulling on the bins figuring they can force them open - and further blocking the aisles. And savvy travelers who do know they can't access the bins are just going to shove more stuff under their seats.

So what's the answer? Best answer would be to separate the passengers from their luggage. A good start would be to stop charging for checked baggage. Yes, passengers will probably still want to keep their valuables with them, but surely there are many who are only lugging all that stuff into the cabin because they don't want to pay extra.

The next step might be to allow the passengers to bring their "carry on" to the door of the plane and have it placed in the hold from there - and then on landing have the bag returned to them as they disembark from the aircraft. Much less risk of something being lost or mishandled that way. I know that in the past I've flown on small commuter flights where a bus drove you out to the plane, you handed someone your bag, and then you climbed the steps. When you landed, you came down the steps, grabbed your bag, and went into the airport. No way for things to be lost or mis-routed.

Separating the passengers from their bags would also have the added benefit of improving security.

[jugofpropwash]

Two other notes.

Since you're not going to change human nature and a certain percentage of people are going to continue to take their bags, that should be factored into the timed escape simulations. Ultimately, making it as fast and easy as possible to grab your bag might save more time than trying to prevent it.

And, if passenger arrives at the slide carrying a substantially sized bag, someone needs to grab that bag away from them and pitch it off to the side, rather than allowing it down the slide. If passenger wants to go retrieve it after they go down the slide, that's on them.

[bloom]

Come on! SLF are out of their element from well before they get on the aircraft. Even boarding, they accept it! Just because the posts are Chrome and the Ropes are Velvet, it's still moving cattle. Well MOO!!! Scare the herd and they will stampede. If you sit down with each one , you will never get through to any of them.

Fly East Coast to West Coast and look at the difference in attitude. Go international, and you are out of your element for sure.

If you are not local, you are the jerk.

[krautland]

I regularly carry camera gear worth in excess of 50k in my carryon. I would be very reluctant to leave this even in an evacuation. If you want to introduce penalties for taking it with me then you better revise the contract of carriages for all carriers worldwide to reimburse me for what's actually in there, not a pithy amount that doesn't cover a single lens.

[Band a Lot]

G-CTPN, I agree with the pro type demo video on the personal screens most aircraft now have. Language selection and a few multi question answer to be able to move onto the entertainment selections of the unit.

Leave the carry on, Do not inflate life jackets inside, be quiet and listen to CC instructions and the like.

This before take off and again prior to landing, it will need to be graphical enough to show that it can kill if not followed (CC can override and go to entertainment for small kids if required).


If people saw the bad that can happen, the will more likely comply but some never will. I also agree replacement in full for loss but would need registration somehow.

[Espada III]

I'm SLF. So many good points above, but some that don't take account of practicalities. Evacuate a plane in the US without your passport - you're in detention or similar until your embassy can sort you out. Have your passport - you're free to go. So, I need my passport and if I'm taking my passport I'll take my wallet, phone, iPod, etc etc etc...until '..you know what, I'll take the whole bag..'

So airlines and XAAs and AIBs, work out how to evacuate a large plane in reasonable time, permitting some important belongings to go with the passenger. It cannot be that difficult.

[KelvinD]

Well said Espada. It is amazing to read some of the hysterical nonsense that finds its way onto this forum. "Lock 'em up!". "I' would knock them out" etc. Anyone who has experience of this part of the world will know how awkward life will become if you find yourself without documents. If you are a Third World national (Indian, Pakistani, Filipino etc) you could find yourself stuck there for years, literally. The consulates of many of these countries treat their own nationals no better than cattle. Look at the problems facing Indian construction workers in Saudi at the moment. They have lost their jobs and been dumped by their employers. The Indian government's response seems to be "Send 'em some sarnies", rather than get them on a plane and back home. And I am pretty sure the problems revolve around lack of documents as the employers will be holding their passports. Western nationals have the comfort of knowing that if they were stuck in a similar situation, their consulates will help them out. The passengers on that flight seemed to include a high number of families, so it is not a simple case of waltzing in with a passport in your breast pocket. I can bet they would have been carrying reams of documents such as birth certificates, education certificates etc and they would know what awaits them when they rock up at immigration with nothing! By the way, someone on the BBC calculated that the bloke making the phone video was on the tarmac within 80 seconds. As this is within the 90 second rule, where was the problem?

[cooperplace]

I regularly carry camera gear worth in excess of 50k in my carryon. I would be very reluctant to leave this even in an evacuation. If you want to introduce penalties for taking it with me then you better revise the contract of carriages for all carriers worldwide to reimburse me for what's actually in there, not a pithy amount that doesn't cover a single lens.

I'm sorry, but this is exactly the attitude that is bothering so many people: "my belongings are sufficiently valuable that I will delay the evacuation". Your cameras and lenses are replaceable, even if worth $1m; people aren't. Have you considered taking out your own insurance?

[Toruk Macto]

People will always take their bags , industry needs to come to terms with it and find a solution .

[Heathrow Harry]

Yes - outside the West it can be very sticky even after an emergency

When the BA flight lost all 4 south of Java way back and eventually made it into Jakarta Halim at some ungodly hour of the morning all the pax were taken off and lodged in local hotels until they could sort out onward flights - except one. I think he was a Pole and at that time they required a special Indonesian visa as he was a "communist".
They wouldn't let him out of the airport. They made him sleep in the departure lounge before sticking him on the first flight to S'pore in the morning.

Both the BA Captain and the British Ambassador offered their personal guarantees that he'd be delivered intact if he could stay in the hotel or the residence but "rules are rules"...... in fact he was lucky not to be arrested .................

[Methersgate]

People will always take their bags , industry needs to come to terms with it and find a solution .

The solution is to remove the overhead bins altogether, to prohibit bags on the floor, and to permit pax to take only a coat or jacket and a small handbag which can go in the seat pocket. Locking the bins will just cause worse delays as pax try to open them.

Ian W makes an excellent point in post 13:

"Passengers should be told to have - or be given - a body belt or shoulder bag that can contain important papers, money and small valuables. These shoulder bags could be worn during takeoff and landing and would be no hindrance to evacuation."

Give them a branded shoulder bag before check in.

If pax did not have bags with them, they would move more quickly to the gate, board and seat themselves much faster, and would leave the plane faster.

This must have a commercial value.

[EastMids]

I hate having to lug around a heavy carry on bag. I would much rather check it. I suspect many others feel the same way. But I don't feel that I can check all the expensive equipment I frequently carry. In order for me to do that, airlines have got to stop treating checked baggage with contempt. Airlines have created an environment in which passengers feel it is better / safer to carry on than check, so there is always going to be a risk that in a pressured and traumatic environment, passengers decide to take their bags with them again.

To cut down dramatically on the amount of carry on bags - and thus eliminate a large part of this problem - I suggest airlines come up with some sort of charter similar to the following:

* We will compensate you at fair market rates for your bag and its contents, whatever that value may be, if it is damaged, lost, stolen or destroyed while in our care, whether it is checked or left in overhead bins during an evacuation. You do not need your own insurance, while your bag is in our care it is our responsibility and we will compensate you fully

* We will make payments to you at the same level (and in the same time bands) as we do for passenger delays, if we fail to return your bag to you at the end of your journey

* We will compensate you for out of pocket expenses if we fail to return your bag to you at the end of your journey, and continue to do so until we do return your bag to you or we pay you for the loss of your bag

* We will ensure you have access to (and pay for if necessary) any medication that you may need that is in bags that are mishandled, delayed, lost or destroyed by us, whether checked or left in overhead bins during an evacuation

* We will work with the authorities to ensure that you can continue, unhindered, to your ticketed destination if your travel documents are lost by us or have to be left on an aircraft that you have to evacuate

* We will ensure that the checked baggage is on the reclaim carousel in the time it takes for the last passenger to walk to the carousel

I bet there is not one airline that is prepared to take proper responsibility for the baggage that is placed in its care, although doing so would go a long way to solving this problem in many cases.

[buggerall]

Only educating pax will make a difference. What would help in such education is to confiscate all the bags that were taken by pax and publicly burn them. Also give $10k to each passenger that did not take bags.

[buggerall]

BTW with Sully on the Hudson did anyone take bags?

[lowca]

As a passenger that makes trips only with cabin baggage, I will allow myself for some comments.

I have pouch on my belt with money, passport, phone and travel documents. So I can leave my underwear and rainjacket that is stuffed in the bin overhead. And travel souvenirs. Bad luck, I will buy a new one after evacuation.

But in the original thread someone from India pointed out, that reclaiming visas, documents etc after loss is a costly, long and tedious process.
And then imagine somebody on business trip that has laptop put into the bin. Laptop is replaceable with some minor money. But the real value is the work on the laptop. FInancial data / artistic work / whatever that may not be recoverable ever.
And who will pay for that loss? Airline? Never. My insurer? Wow, have you read the smallprint on your policy?

And I find the idea to 'forbid bags on board' as a weak one. First airline that will implement it will get blasted with black PR. Not being able to take medicines / water / favourite snacks for children etc ... no, it will not work. And I personally would never choose this airline. Not being able for 4 hours to read a book, then play a while on the tablet, eat an apple, make some pictures from window?

I agree that bags on slide are strongly unwelcome. But I fear that the lot of passengers will take their carry-ons with them anyway. Just because they feel that some things inside are very valuable or irreplaceable. Locking bins will not help, will cause chaos.

I fear that the process of making a remedy for that misbehaviour will produce some deadly solution.

Thus said I return into reading mode.

[BEagle]

Indeed, lowca!

If airlines didn't cram as many people into such a confined space as they do, there'd be less of an evacuation problem. But the risk of having their carry-on bags stolen or lost means that people WILL try to take their belongings with them during an evacuation.

If airline baggage handlers took greater care and there was less theft at airports, perhaps people would be prepared to trust their belongings to the hold. But they won't at present - the number of 'aeroplane mountaineers' with their large backpacks is just ridiculous nowadays. Particularly on LoCo airlines which charge for hold luggage, as I saw when I was unfortunate enough to have to travel with one earlier this year. On arrival, queuing for passport control is bad enough, but many travellers will do anything to avoid waiting ages for their bags to be delivered at the carousel.

[Band a Lot]

@buggerall I am certain a few did on the Hudson. But far less than would be killed for a $10,000 payment for not.

Often these people do not have bank accounts and killings for less than $100 are common.

[rfw1]

As a matter of interest, How do airlines treat people who loose their bags in a evacuation like this ?

For arguments sake say a bag with Passport , Wallet , $2000 currency , Medication, and $2500 worth of assorted camera / electronics kit.

[Ozmd]

To people questioning/distracting the whole issue by giving undue weightage to opening of the overhead bins by passengers:

Did they not survive anyway?

There's an old adage : "If the map doesn't fit the ground, the map must be wrong!"

May be our presumption/hypothesis that 'in taking the baggage the people will compromise theirs and others lives' was scientifically proven wrong ;)

Not promoting such practices 'considered' potentially unsafe but many a times what we think is wrong may not be so! Suffice it to say that the world suffers from presumptions, prejudices and the wrongfully derived inferences swiftly and thoughtlessly morphed into rules, regulations and even laws!

Your mileage might vary ;)

[Gove N.T.]

The airlines make a huge amount of money from freight and from passengers bags. The airlines will not guarantee the safe reunion of passengers with their bags nor take any responsibility for their airline or agents mishandling of the bags. Passengers who have left their bags in aircraft due to an evacuation have to accept that they will be rifled for valuables before they get them back (if they ever do) [cf Southwest wheelbarrow at LGA when a reporter lost his laptop without recompense].

So - passengers know that if they want to keep their valuables safe they have to be kept with them in the cabin because the airline will not keep them safe. By definition then the bags in the cabin normally carry items that the pax consider valuable. The pax are therefore sorely tempted to retrieve these valuable items when told to evacuate as they know they will have to find them on eBay otherwise.

The cure is in the hands of the airlines. They should take responsibility for loss, theft or damage to checked bags _and_ for bags left in an evacuation. The prices for checking bags should not be so usurious (they are seen as a profit item by the beancounters).

Passengers should be told to have - or be given - a body belt or shoulder bag that can contain important papers, money and small valuables. These shoulder bags could be worn during takeoff and landing and would be no hindrance to evacuation.

It is your company's fault that pax take their bags with them - have a quiet word with your management. It may be more effective than fulminating here.
Airlines are required to pay compensation for baggage irregularities under the terms of the Montreal Convention. It doesn't work matter if it's a simple tag off delay or an evacuation.
It seems typical that the ignorant believe pilferage if rife in the airline industry but it is utterly false. Pilferage represents a tiny fraction of the less than 1% of baggage mishandlings that are reported.

[infrequentflyer789]

As a matter of interest, How do airlines treat people who loose their bags in a evacuation like this ?

For arguments sake say a bag with Passport , Wallet , $2000 currency , Medication, and $2500 worth of assorted camera / electronics kit.

Well, lets take a first world flag carrier, accident at a main base for said carrier and in a first world country... answer seems to be "you're on your own not our problem".

See e.g. BBC NEWS | UK | Passenger criticises BA treatment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7196128.stm) (there were other horror stories too).

Expect carriers and airports of lower reputation to be worse.

This is why pax take bags.

[I note from that story that all pax were seen by doctors, however I have been unable to establish if that was for the purpose of covering the airline against injury compensation claims or for assisting pax needing medication. I know which I suspect.]

[ExXB]

OK, can we figure out, please, what is acceptable to take with you?

A ladies small handbag?
A ladies medium handbag?
A ladies large handbag?
A ladies very large handbag?
My bumbag with my passport, insulin, glucose monitor, money, credit cards and other valuables?

It appears some are saying 'none of the above' despite no empirical evidence that taking even a wheelie bag has ever caused death or injury.

My stuff is coming with me. And I'm not being selfish.

[edmundronald]

GoveNT 1% baggage loss on checked bags means that if you travel weekly for business you will lose your stuff once a year. Show me a pro photographer whose insurance will let him replace $20K of camera stuff once a year.

The situation with bag loss is a scandal. In particular it is responsible for the long lines at security - people would be ready to fly in paper pyjamas and no cabin bags if they *knew* that they'd get their clothes and stuff back at the other end. As it is, no laptop, important paper file or anything life-essential within the next 48 hours can be checked.

It's impressive to see how much energy in airports is expended on stopping "foreigners" bringing in contraband, and how little is done to stop local hoods from pilfering the bags under the eyes of the local police.

Edmund

[EastMids]

It seems typical that the ignorant believe pilferage if rife in the airline industry but it is utterly false. Pilferage represents a tiny fraction of the less than 1% of baggage mishandlings that are reported.

And all those youtube videos of handlers throwing bags around... Even if there was zero theft would anyone entrust delicate, valuable equipment to checked luggage? Don't make me laugh!

As I said previously, until airlines treat checked bags with proper respect - the same respect the owner would - many people will not check their valuables. And if it valuable to them and they have to get off in a hurry, in that pressurised traumatic moment when thinking logically sometimes goes out the window first, there's a chance they'll [try to] take it with them.

[flight_mode]

One solution would be to tell PAX not to take their baggage in the event of an emergency evacuation. Sounds simple I know, but there are plenty of airlines in Europe and beyond that make absolutely no mention of bags in the pre-flight safety demo. Don't inflate your life jacket before exit and remove high heels feature but no mention of leaving bags behind.... simple education, not prison would be a good starting point.

[Superpilot]

You will find it extremely difficult to convince a business man who has a laptop with years and years of emails, documents, sales and lead generation data to leave it behind in the event of an emergency. I bet for many the small risk is worth it and many cases a fine might be worth it too. You are talking about someone's livelihood in a lot of cases. I would certainly take something like a small laptop bag with me in an emergency evacuation. In reality, it's not going to impede the evacuation any more than the old fat dear in front of me.

...and on the subject of backups. Easier said than done. Not everything is in flat file formats and as restorable as it would seem.

[LLuCCiFeR]

Couple of points;

1) a fine won't work, because people will take their chances and try it anyway.
2) how will these fines be enforced? You will need cameras in the cabin because I would doubt that eye witness testimonies during the chaos of an evacuation will hold up in a courtroom.
3) better IMHO would be a legal approach in the direction of "endangering people's lives" or "obstructing an escape route" with actual prison terms.
4) perhaps blacklisting passengers, banning them for life to fly on any IATA airline?
5) if none of the above work, I guess we can always (re)introduce the death penalty... :E

[PDR1]

It seems typical that the ignorant believe pilferage if rife in the airline industry but it is utterly false. Pilferage represents a tiny fraction of the less than 1% of baggage mishandlings that are reported.

Rather depends where you are. I know people who still haven't been recompensed for stuff that never re-emerged from the fiasco in the opening of terminal 5.

Then there are some american airports where a job as a baggage handler is essentially an all-you-can-eat buffet for the light-fingered. The worst I've experienced would be Chicago, as it seems have some others:

5YGc4zOqozo

But you airline chappies really need to get your acts together and sing from a single hymn book. On the one hand we have harrumphing aircrew sneering at their customers for having the temerity to bring so much as a wallet into the cabin rather than putting it in the hold. On the other hand your employers make it clear at every stage of the ticket purchasing process that they don't want our stinking luggage cluttering up the hold and taking up space that they can use for paying freight (needed to pay for the 5-star hotel parties for the cabin crew, I expect) so we if we actually want to take more than the clothes we stand in we must either pack it into cabin baggage or take out a mortgage to put it in the hold.

Once you have your own house in order, and have got your stories straight then (and only then) will all this unseemly whining at the people who pay your salaries be anything less than childish tantrums.

€0.04 supplied,

PDR

[mmurray]

Laptop is replaceable with some minor money. But the real value is the work on the laptop. FInancial data / artistic work / whatever that may not be recoverable ever.

If your data is that important you backup to the cloud or you backup to a small SSD you can put in the pouch around your neck.

[ExXB]

PDR,
Don't forget the airlines refuse all liability for valuables in checked luggage! This despite neither Warsaw nor MC99 allowing them to do so (for international and intra-EU flights).

The US DOT has directed that such refusals to be null and void, but the lawyers have refused to allow the airline tariffs to be amended. It is their first line of defence when their customers' valuables are damaged or stolen. Only a savvy traveller or a PPRuNe member know the truth.

Agree with your post completely.

[exekcabincrew]

How about:

-Insure the pax cabin bags so in case they leave them during an evac they get a compensation. EXPLAIN this to pax.

-During an emergency cabin prep before landing allow the pax to take small personal items from the bag. Such as passport, cellphone, wallet, etc.

-After that, before landing lock the hatracks and put some sticker on each lock clearly stating it's not gotta open.

-The safety demo has to be more explicit somehow. I have no idea how, but the relaxing music and smooth videos of most airlines just don't get the pax's attention.

About arrests and prison, I don't imagine how you can convict some Indian dude that saw a plane for the first time in his life, doesn't know how to read and has no idea of what the hell just happened... Locking him away is not gotta solve much I think. Plus in any European court the pax could simply state that he\she was under a lot of stress (and it's true) and couldn't think straight under those circumstance, so the pax simply grabbed the bag without realizing what he was doing. This would be enough to get away with it.

[mmurray]

Maybe airlines could start by restricting people to a small item of cabin luggage. Instead of bags on wheels that are so large they can barely get them down the aisles and need help lifting them into an overhead locker. I'm just amazed when I see what people take onboard.

[PDR1]

Maybe airlines could start by restricting people to a small item of cabin luggage. Instead of bags on wheels that are so large they can barely get them down the aisles and need help lifting them into an overhead locker. I'm just amazed when I see what people take onboard.

Which just shows the problem. When you buy the ticket this is precisely what you are encouraged to do.

Perhaps what we are really seeing here is just how out of touch with reality some aircrew really are!

PDR

[mmurray]

You will find it extremely difficult to convince a business man who has a laptop with years and years of emails, documents, sales and lead generation data to leave it behind in the event of an emergency.

Years and years of information that isn't securely backed up in at least two separate physical locations ? Is anyone still that stupid ? Information obtained overseas can be backed up to the cloud or put on a small SSD. You can carry a few TB on something pretty small these days. If the data is their whole life it ought be on a hard disk in the hold, a small disk or SSD around their neck and also in the cloud.

[mmurray]

PDR

I just came back to Australia from the UK. With both internal flights in the UK on BA the ground crew seemed to spend 15 minutes before the flight trying to offer people incentives to put their "wheely bags" in the hold. One was "priority boarding".

[edmundronald]

It's an interesting discussion, but apart from the optics what is the real-life impact here?

And why don't the airlines fix the checked bag loss/pilferage problem? I've given up on any form of bag when I travel, just take a over the shoulder briefcase and 3 socks and T shirts. I used to check a bag for the toothpaste and shampoo which security confiscates, but it's not worth the bother, I just pass on shampoo and toothpaste or buy some cr*p at arrival. I had 3 or 4 bags misplaced and it's just too much hassle to deal with on a regular basis.

Edmund

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Correct, and the reason people opt for priority boarding is not so they can get a seat, or sit in the cramped confines of cattle-class for an extra 30 minutes whilst everyone else boards, but to ensure they can find a space in the bins to put their luggage.

The whole luggage situation is a joke and it is the part of flying that I hate the most.
Options are to pay a premium to get baggage in the hold where there is fair chance it will get trashed or robbed, pay a premium to get boarded early so you can find an empty bin within eye-shot of your seat or get onboard and take your chances in finding one at all.

Whichever route you take it is either £££ for the airline or aggravation for you and the cabin crew.

Oh, and Edmund, your maths are out a tad. Weekly flyer with 1% loss will expect to lose their gear once every two years ;-) That said, it is still unacceptable.

[OldLurker]

Do diplomatic couriers still fly with document cases chained to their wrists? Hard to leave those behind.

Then, it's difficult for non-musicians to understand how precious a violin is to its player. It has an economic 'value' of course – which may be many millions – but it's much more than that. Often, too, it's on loan, an awesome responsibility. You carry your baby, I'll carry my Stradivarius.

[Basil]

I can scarcely believe some of the comments on here:

The selfish who think that their few dollars worth of hand baggage is worth someone else's life.
The stupid who absolutely HAVE to take their laptop because it isn't backed up.
The ignorant who ignore the advice of experienced professional aviators.

You really need to have to take a look at yourselves, folks.

[cockpitvisit]

One solution might be a dead bolt locking system on all pax lockers switched by the crew on Declaration of an Emergency Evacuation .

Then the very same troublemakers will block the aisles struggling to open the overhead bins. Plus there is still hand baggage under the seat in front of you.

[PAX_Britannica]

Oh, and Edmund, your maths are out a tad. Weekly flyer with 1% loss will expect to lose their gear once every two years ;-) That said, it is still unacceptable.
Umm, his maths is fine.

Return Flight ?

[PAX_Britannica]

Rather depends where you are. I know people who still haven't been recompensed for stuff that never re-emerged from the fiasco in the opening of terminal 5.

Then there are some american airports where a job as a baggage handler is essentially an all-you-can-eat buffet for the light-fingered. The worst I've experienced would be Chicago, as it seems have some others:

5YGc4zOqozo

But you airline chappies really need to get your acts together and sing from a single hymn book. On the one hand we have harrumphing aircrew sneering at their customers for having the temerity to bring so much as a wallet into the cabin rather than putting it in the hold. On the other hand your employers make it clear at every stage of the ticket purchasing process that they don't want our stinking luggage cluttering up the hold and taking up space that they can use for paying freight (needed to pay for the 5-star hotel parties for the cabin crew, I expect) so we if we actually want to take more than the clothes we stand in we must either pack it into cabin baggage or take out a mortgage to put it in the hold.

Once you have your own house in order, and have got your stories straight then (and only then) will all this unseemly whining at the people who pay your salaries be anything less than childish tantrums.

€0.04 supplied,

PDR
Mr Caroll must either be indigent or a moron. Either way, he can be disregarded.

If you have something valuable that can't be carried as cabin baggage on a scheduled flight then you either Fedex it or charter a plane.

[jugofpropwash]

I look at it this way. The "must save" possessions that most people board with (wallet, phone, papers, meds, laptop) would usually fit into a laptop bag or decent sized purse. That could be stowed under the seat, and to be honest, something that size and weight really isn't going to impede the evacuation much.

The real problem is these 50 pound overstuffed suitcases that just barely fit into the overhead to begin with - probably packed with a week's worth of clothes and whatever other stuff the owners could get into them. If you get those suitcases into the hold, you've solved most of the problem. Now, yes, there's still going to be a few people with expensive camera equipment or musical instruments or the like, but that's more likely to be the exception.

How do you get the bulky suitcases into the hold? Maybe offer a ticket discount if you check any bags over a certain size, rather than charging extra for them. I still think the airlines created much of this problem when they got greedy and started charging a fortune for checked bags.

[AngloFrench]

I have been through an emergency evucation, and ever since have used an AmeriBag, sometimes called a "Healthy Back Bag", to hold the essentials.

Mine is leather, and has a patina from over 20 years use, and is highly recommended.

AF

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Fair point Pax Britannia, I based it upon my flight profile Heathrow > Hong Kong (week of work), Hong Kong > Dubai (week of rest), Dubai > Heathrow rather than looking at it as Fly out and return same week. :ok:

However you look at it though, it is still unacceptable losses and airlines really do need to do more.

Even though passenger numbers are rising, thankfully the instances of baggage mishandling are gradually reducing. I certainly wouldn't trust my camera gear to the hold unless I knew I would be compensated for loss at replacement cost.

Couple that with the fact that I need the gear for the Job in China then I am driven to keep that gear with me.

- Would I grab my bag in the event of an emergency evac? "Never".
- Would I entrust it to the baggage handlers and check it into the hold? An equally resounding "Never".

In the first instance I would be thankful to be out fit and well, and able to fight a claim on the grounds that I did as instructed by one of the airline staff.
In the second instance I would expect a battle for compensation because it was "my choice to put it in the hold" and the airline shirks it's responsibilities.

[jackieofalltrades]

Do diplomatic couriers still fly with document cases chained to their wrists? Hard to leave those behind.

Flying through KDCA not so long ago I saw several diplomats with their cases attached to them.

[flight_mode]

I feel for the cabin crew.They're trying to look professional and friendly, obligatory smiles every 10 seconds whilst swinging half their body weight over their heads and bouncing them into the bins. All whilst buttoned into a tight outfit, balancing on heels and keeping theirs hats straight.

Admittedly the above is on ME and Asian carriers. Many euro crews seem to push straight back straight back with 'If you can't find space it's going in the hold' or 'Then it will have to go under the seat' both options leaving the pax cheesed off.

[Planemike]

In the light of yesterdays 777 crash, where people were apparently opening overhead lockers during the evacuation - surely it would be a simple matter to make it a criminal offense to take any luggage with you, punishable with the same penalty as tampering with a smoke detector?


Just be grateful every one on board escaped with their lives and stop thinking up ways of criminalising escaping passengers......

[Basil]

'If you can't find space it's going in the hold' or 'Then it will have to go under the seat' both options leaving the pax cheesed off.
. . and then there was the time I felt my feet being pushed back as pax in front attempted to push baggage under their seat. The kindest interpretation was that they didn't understand the standard procedure :rolleyes:

[rog747]

http://www.trekairways.co.za/42913%20ZS-CIG%20Robin%20Anderson%20crash%201.jpg

seems pax have been taking their luggage off for a while now

1960 http://www.trekairways.co.za/Trek_Airways_DC-4.htm

[RatherBeFlying]

When the pax shows up at the boarding pass kiosk, s/he should have to pass a computer based quiz on evacuation:

1. During an evacuation, if the person ahead of you on way to an evacuation exit is blocking the way for you and those behind you while retrieving baggage, you must?

A. Shove him or her back to their seat to ensure the survival of yourself and those behind you.

B. Patiently stand there until you and those behind you are overcome by smoke and toxic combustion products.

2. If you absolutely must retrieve possessions before evacuating, you must?

A. Wait until everybody behind has passed your seat.

3. During taxi, takeoff or landing, it is possible that an emergency evacuation may be required. Where should important personal items such as passports, medications, credit cards, cash and other valuables, keys, phones, USB sticks etc. be kept during these phases of flight?

A. On your person

B. In an overhead bin where retrieval will not be possible in an emergency evacuation. Note that anybody blocking an aisle during an emergency is subject to being violently forced back into their seat without legal recourse.

[Phileas Fogg]

Here in the Philippines the P.A.'s are clearly dictated by the authority, I have flown with four of the airlines here and, at least in parts, the P.A.'s are the same word for word, examples:

1. Smoking in the toilet is a criminal offence, and:

2. Removing the life jacket from the aircraft is a criminal offence.

So what next ...

3. In the event that we should crash and whilst you may not be thinking clearly should you dare to take your handbag with you we're going to have you banged up ... :)

[PDR1]

How about "crashing the plane will be a criminal offence"?

Of course the self-righteous aircrew work to obstruct that by claiming that ADR/CVR data and anything discovered by the AAIB must be "confidential" and must never be passed to the police (see the shoreham thread)...

PDR

[PDR1]

Mr Caroll must either be indigent or a moron. Either way, he can be disregarded.


Interesting that you feel it helpful to promote crime and blame the victims. But your core message needs more publicity:

"If you have anything you value then never take it with you on an aeroplane because even the aircrew will expect it to be stolen or trashed by the time you get there"


Mr Caroll is neither indigent nor a moron - the incident is well known. Clearly we need more aircrew to be held criminally and financially liable for the consequences for their neglect and contempt for those who pay for their existence.

PDR

[PAXboy]

Clearly we need more CEOs and Heads of Training and Staffing to be held criminally and financially liable for the consequences for their neglect and contempt for those in their employ, who may be pushed to work longer hours and in schedules that are known to be deleterious to their health so as to safely carry the people who pay for their existence.

Unless to you make the person at the top of the tree responsible - nothing will change anywhere in the tree. Look at the example in the UK of newspapers hacking the phone messages of people? Did any of the bosses get banged up in prison?

The very, very few flight crew who might be criminally responsible are those who deliberately crash the plane [Germanwings 2015] and they are already dead.

[ExXB]

Four pages and still no concrete examples of why taking your carry on is a bad thing.

I NEED my insulin. To a slightly lessor extent I NEED my glucose meter. I put these in a small bumbag, with my passport, money, credit cards, phone and other valuables (if I am taking them) which I also need .

I have no confidence that my stuff will survive any subsequent fire (DXB a classic example). I have no confidence I could access my two types of insulin, or replace my meter in foreign lands. I have no confidence that temporary travel documents can be made available in less than 72hrs, particularly over a weekend.

Airlines REFUSE to accept liability for valuables in checked luggage even if they are destroyed in a crash like DXB. They get the diamond mine, you get the shaft. Same if they are stolen (pilfered is the wrong word for stealing).

And does anyone think you will be reunited with the stuff you leave behind? I don't.

[mmurray]

Some people seem to think this is a choice between walking off the plane safely with their stuff and walking off the the plane safely without their stuff. If that is the case then sure I want my stuff. But if it's a case of walking off the plane empty handed or dying I'll walk off the plane with nothing if I have to. My family don't need to know I am alive the moment I get off, I don't need my money or passports or laptop or iPad or kindle or medicines or whatever. Sure it will be a pain, probably a serious pain but I'll be alive. Mind you none of my medicines are for life threatening short term conditions just long term conditions that mean I can probably miss a week without too much damage. I can see other people have a more serious problem in this respect.

[Basil]

I NEED my insulin. To a slightly lessor extent I NEED my glucose meter. I put these in a small bumbag, with my passport, money, credit cards, phone and other valuables (if I am taking them) which I also need .
Can't see any objection to that.
It's standing there opening overhead lockers to which we take exception.

[ExXB]

So what is acceptable? Or is it the location of the article?

[Ancient Observer]

Never mind putting people in prison for reaching for their bags - how about putting people in prison for stupid comments on pprune?

The only people qualified to comment on this are those who have had a real "evacuation" experience, either inside Aviation, or outside it in potentially dangerous industries.

Until you have had such an experience, you have no idea what a couple of hundred people will do when they panic.

[Basil]

The only people qualified to comment on this are those who have had a real "evacuation" experience, either inside Aviation, or outside it in potentially dangerous industries.
Nope but worked in safety critical industry most of my life; come close to death a few times and spent a lot of time studying and thinking about a/c evac so more qualified to comment than most on here.

[Mad Monk]

I tend to carry a small back pack of essentials that I stow under my seat. Easy to grab should I have to exit in a hurry. No access to overheads needed.
Is this permissible under the 'no grab luggage' ruling ?

[Basil]

So what is acceptable? Or is it the location of the article?
I'd say, that your bumbag or a little handbag is OK but holding up an evac whilst you open a locker is not.

[Basil]

I tend to carry a small back pack of essentials that I stow under my seat. Easy to grab should I have to exit in a hurry. No access to overheads needed.
Is this permissible under the 'no grab luggage' ruling ?

My personal opinion is that would be OK but that is only my view.
I could not countenance holding up an evac as you open an overhead locker.
How about some experienced senior cabin crew coming up with comments?

[krautland]

I'm sorry, but this is exactly the attitude that is bothering so many people: "my belongings are sufficiently valuable that I will delay the evacuation". Your cameras and lenses are replaceable, even if worth $1m; people aren't. Have you considered taking out your own insurance?
I do have gear insurance and it explicitly does not cover travel inside aircraft and trains. it covers on set work accidents.

[Basil]

I do have gear insurance and it explicitly does not cover travel inside aircraft and trains. it covers on set work accidents.
Your gear is still not more valuable than the life of another passenger.
Have you looked around for insurance which will cover it in transit?

[GrahamO]

There's little point having a punishment for an event that is pretty unlikely to be repeated is there ?


As being involved in a crash is a rare enough incident such that fining someone for delaying others while collecting your bags isn't in a practical sense, likely to amend their behaviour of a future event as the chances of them being involved twice is vanishingly rare.


I understand people don't want others to stop to collect bags, but as others have said, its human nature and fining them after the event is pretty pointless.


Best simply stop them from flying again if anything, but a monetary charge is never going to work from a practical sense.

[ionagh]

How about making the seat pocket detachable? tell pax to put any valuables, travel docs, medication etc into the pocket and in the event of an emergency they can detach the pocket and take it with them.

[seafire6b]

Genuinely good idea ionagh, but after your average LoCo flight between the UK and the Med, how many seat pockets would remain in situ aboard the aircraft?

[alserire]

Fine them. Stop them ever flying again.

You'd wonder about the intelligence of some people.

[ionagh]

after your average LoCo flight between the UK and the Med, how many seat pockets would remain in situ aboard the aircraft?

Simples they will charge for them, only free in an emergency.

[Basil]

Remember that, to avoid smoke, you may have to crawl to the sliderafts.
If you get smoke in your eyes they will snap shut and may refuse to open again.
A lungful of smoke may incapacitate you.
Add aisles obstructed with baggage which forces you up into smoke and I think you can see the difficulty.

In forty years of flying, I never had so much as a little smoke in the cabin and remember, when the outside humidity is high, you may see condensed water vapour coming from the vents. Looks like smoke but isn't.

I don't wish to alarm anyone unduly but, in a situation like the following, baggage is not important:

http://aviationessentials.com/images/scctd5.jpg

http://kft.firetrainer.com/graphics/pics/MA-3000_Cabin_Flashover.jpg


Keep flying; my pension needs you :ok:

[cooperplace]

Never mind putting people in prison for reaching for their bags - how about putting people in prison for stupid comments on pprune?

The only people qualified to comment on this are those who have had a real "evacuation" experience, either inside Aviation, or outside it in potentially dangerous industries.

Until you have had such an experience, you have no idea what a couple of hundred people will do when they panic.

the arrogance and intolerance of some people on this forum is breathtaking.

[Planemike]

the arrogance and intolerance of some people on this forum is breath taking.

Yep......hear, hear to that !!!!

[El Bunto]

Your gear is still not more valuable than the life of another passenger.Are you sure about that? The insurance pay-out for a human life can be remarkably low.

A couple of comments up-thread have hit the nail on the head; people change their behaviour in response to incentives, not nebulous threats such as 'you might be arrested if you take your luggage' or vague hand-wavy mumbling about Warsaw Conventions and compensation for lost property.

Stating that passengers will unquestioningly receive money-in-the-hand as soon as reaching the processing facility after an incident should encourage compliance. And the money has to be serious; in the many thousands of dollars. Take the cost of some of the proposed measures ( locking overhead bins etc ), divide by the number of evacuees per year and you'll have an idea of what level is required.

[Basil]

Are you sure about that? The insurance pay-out for a human life can be remarkably low.
OK, little scenario:
Man A is last to leave with his large trolley bag.
Right behind him, Man B dies of smoke inhallation.
Man C, father of Man B is a powerful and rather ruthless gangster.

What price watching yer six for the rest of your life?

[PDR1]

the arrogance and intolerance of some people on this forum is breathtaking.

Indeed. Never mind putting people in prison for stupid comments on PPRuNe - how about putting people in prison for suggesting people be imprisoned for posting comments on Pprune?

PDR

[PDR1]

OK, little scenario:
Man A is last to leave with his large trolley bag.
Right behind him, Man B dies of smoke inhallation.
Man C, father of Man B is a powerful and rather ruthless gangster.

What price watching yer six for the rest of your life?

Well if you're going to resort to the fatuous arguments, how about the more likely scenario:

Man A is last to leave and is reaching for his carry-on bag when Man B (behind him) stops him doing so because it's against the rules and selfish. Man A survives, but loses a few family possessions (which have sentimental value) when the aeroplane burns out because .
Man C, father of Man A is a powerful and rather ruthless gangster whose treasured items Man B has just caused to be destroyed.

What are the chances of Man A avoiding wearing concrete swimming shoes within the year?

PDR

[Basil]

PDR1 and others: Just accept that you will never win any argument that it is OK to open overhead lockers during an evac.
It is not.

p.s Man C, father of Man A is a powerful and rather ruthless gangster whose treasured items Man B has just caused to be destroyed.

What are the chances of Man A avoiding wearing concrete swimming shoes within the year?
So he's going to murder his own son? I know they can be slightly irritating at times but . . .

[ExXB]

Just one example, please, where taking any item from an overhead bin has caused death or injury. Just one and I'll shut up.

[PDR1]

PDR1 and others: Just accept that you will never win any argument that it is OK to open overhead lockers during an evac.
It is not.


Basil - just accept that any time you have to try to steamroller and end to a discussion in such a way you are simply exposing yourself as a person deserving of no respect whatsoever.

PDR

[S.o.S.]

There is a long established rule in PPRuNe: 'Play the ball not the player'. It is possible to disagree with a view without insulting the person who wrote it.


I address this to all, not just recent posters.

[Phileas Fogg]

Just one example, please, where taking any item from an overhead bin has caused death or injury. Just one and I'll shut up.

I was deadheading from LCA to CWL back in the early 90's, I can't recall if the cabin PA was "Don't store glass bottles (duty free) in the overhead bins" but it certainly was, something to the effect, "Exercise caution when opening the overhead bins".

Well bucket & spaders will be bucket & spaders, brains in neutral and all that, and I got clonked around the head by a litre of whatever is was by some idiot who couldn't exercise caution or indeed any common bl00dy sense.

[ExXB]

PF,
Couldn't agree more, one must always be very careful opening the overheads, even in a non-emergency. But we are hearing that one is putting others at risk in an emergency, without empirical data to support such comments.

I admit it sounds right and seems to make sense. BUT in a series of recent incidents; AF in YYZ; BA at LHR; BR at SFO; EK at DXB we have seen some 'break' the rule without apparent consequences.

Perhaps if the rule was changed to say a 'small purse or hand bag' from 'under the seat in front' it would reduce the opening of bins, and give passengers the assurance that some of their meds, documents and valuables can be safeguarded.

During a normal disembarkation it isn't getting stuff from the lockers that slows things down its the single door and dawdlers.

[Basil]

you are simply exposing yourself as a person deserving of no respect whatsoever.

As SoS implied, as a lifetime mil & civ pilot I am not going to rise to playground insult.

[Basil]

Perhaps if the rule was changed to say a 'small purse or hand bag' from 'under the seat in front' it would reduce the opening of bins, and give passengers the assurance that some of their meds, documents and valuables can be safeguarded.
I wouldn't entirely disagree with that.

[S.o.S.]

PDR1 is taking time out from this forum.

[M858]

PF,
Couldn't agree more, one must always be very careful opening the overheads, even in a non-emergency. But we are hearing that one is putting others at risk in an emergency, without empirical data to support such comments.

I admit it sounds right and seems to make sense. BUT in a series of recent incidents; AF in YYZ; BA at LHR; BR at SFO; EK at DXB we have seen some 'break' the rule without apparent consequences.

Perhaps if the rule was changed to say a 'small purse or hand bag' from 'under the seat in front' it would reduce the opening of bins, and give passengers the assurance that some of their meds, documents and valuables can be safeguarded.

During a normal disembarkation it isn't getting stuff from the lockers that slows things down its the single door and dawdlers.
Unfortunately, I think that many people's concept of "valuables" goes beyond personal documents, medicines, etc. - I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the bags that people stop to retrieve contain nothing of particular value at all; some people are simply selfish, and that is very difficult to legislate against or change.

[Phileas Fogg]

ExXB,

It seems that each and every time I fly, and after landing, the cabin crew make an announcement to remain seated until the seat belt sign has been switched off ... Yet on each and every flight pax are out of their seats and at those bins in contravention of the announcement that was made only moments earlier.

Alas the overhead bins have become an addiction and probably the only way to cure it would be to remove them!

[ExXB]

PF, again don't disagree.

I'm just not convinced a problem exists. Four recent 'unscheduled hull retirements', as I listed above, suggest there is not a problem.

The problem is that 'everyone knows' passengers should leave everything behind, but fail to realise that simply isn't going to happen.

[Phileas Fogg]

ExXb,

Have you actually jumped down a slide?

I jumped down a slide of an A300 sized mock-up, as one jumps one can barely see the slide surface that one's bum is to subsequently make contact with, one's bum makes contact with it some halfway to the ground before one needs to apply braking action by sitting upright ... I can't realistically imagine doing this with an armful of bag(s)!

I'd suggest that people on slides with bags or whatever represent a danger to those jumping behind them.

P.S. But we enjoyed ourselves so much we went back up the top to jump down the slide again ... and again :)

[Basil]

P.S. But we enjoyed ourselves so much we went back up the top to jump down the slide again ... and again :)
Would make another money spinner for large airports to have one rigged and charge pax to have a go ;)

[ExXB]

PF, no I haven't. Be hundreds of others have, some with their carry-on. And nothing suggests those actually representing a danger to themselves or those following.

Yes I know it sounds right, but that's what everyone said before they lifted the ban on using small electric devices on the ground.

I think it would be better to realise that, for whatever reason, passengers will continue to do this. Rules, and procedures, should be developed in that knowledge to mitigate what could happen. Sticking ones head in the sand is OK for ostriches, but not an intelligent species.

[+TSRA]

Rules, and procedures, should be developed in that knowledge to mitigate what could happen. Sticking ones head in the sand is OK for ostriches, but not an intelligent species.

You imply that humanity is intelligent, so I'll agree with your first sentence. ;)

The idea of a fine or jail time would require that someone goes back through and obtain evidence that person A or person B did indeed leave an aircraft under an evacuation order with personal belongings. Plus, people still murder others on a daily basis knowing full well what the consequences are, so I don't think that will work.

From where I sit as a Captain who may possibly have to give an evacuation order one day, I don't care if you have treasured belongings in the overhead bin or even a small bag with insulin, as was previously mentioned - chances are very high we are somewhere that can replace any or all of your things and guess what - you're going to the hospital anyways, so those medical issues you have can be looked after.

Instead, maybe we need to look at the way we describe an evacuation to passengers in the first place. Too many times these safety messages try and convey a sense of calmness or hilarity to a situation that will be anything but. To someone who has stood beside the burning hull of an aircraft watching two of their friends die, I can tell you that I cringe when I hear someone joke that "there are many ways to leave your lover but only four ways of leaving this aircraft" or other form of similar filth.

I think we go the very hard road and actually describe to people during a safety briefing exactly what will happen and what the consequences will be, for example "In the event you hear the command evacuate, evacuate, evacuate, you will release your seat belt, stand up and proceed to your nearest emergency exit without pause or delay. Failure to do so may cause you or those around you serious bodily injury up to and including death. Your flight attendants are pointing to your nearest exit now."

[cooperplace]

You imply that humanity is intelligent, so I'll agree with your first sentence. ;)

The idea of a fine or jail time would require that someone goes back through and obtain evidence that person A or person B did indeed leave an aircraft under an evacuation order with personal belongings. Plus, people still murder others on a daily basis knowing full well what the consequences are, so I don't think that will work.

From where I sit as a Captain who may possibly have to give an evacuation order one day, I don't care if you have treasured belongings in the overhead bin or even a small bag with insulin, as was previously mentioned - chances are very high we are somewhere that can replace any or all of your things and guess what - you're going to the hospital anyways, so those medical issues you have can be looked after.

Instead, maybe we need to look at the way we describe an evacuation to passengers in the first place. Too many times these safety messages try and convey a sense of calmness or hilarity to a situation that will be anything but. To someone who has stood beside the burning hull of an aircraft watching two of their friends die, I can tell you that I cringe when I hear someone joke that "there are many ways to leave your lover but only four ways of leaving this aircraft" or other form of similar filth.

I think we go the very hard road and actually describe to people during a safety briefing exactly what will happen and what the consequences will be, for example "In the event you hear the command evacuate, evacuate, evacuate, you will release your seat belt, stand up and proceed to your nearest emergency exit without pause or delay. Failure to do so may cause you or those around you serious bodily injury up to and including death. Your flight attendants are pointing to your nearest exit now."

totally agree

[Phileas Fogg]

Too many times these safety messages try and convey a sense of calmness or hilarity

My local airline's safety demo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIzUnVlkaHg

[PAXboy]

Thanks for posting PF but, the overpaid marketing child who thought that one up fails on so many levels. The first is that, anyone using a hearing aid - will not hear a single word of the voice, as the music will swamp the device. :hmm:

So, if my brother, or one of my closest friends, were travelling on the flight - they would have to read the document carefully. Happily, they are both experienced travellers. Whilst I would be able to hear it all, the dammed music is sooooo irritating, that I would want to block my ears. :mad:

[+TSRA]

My local airline's safety demo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIzUnVlkaHg

My point exactly. Why would I ever actually pay attention to any one of those flight attendants when they're telling me to leave my things behind and leave the aircraft when I saw them earlier in the day dancing to Lady Gaga?

This is what most of those passengers must be thinking: Apparently this is fun, not serious, and they don't actually mean it because if it was really serious, they'd tell us without the dance.

[Wageslave]

Simply impound the carried off luggage long term as "potentially significant to the coming accident investigation" as it was about to be spirited away from the scene. Luggage that remains on board is not under suspicion of being spirited away to confuse the investigation so can be forwarded asap.

Sorted.

[Planemike]

Not a good idea at all...............if I might say so, Wageslave. What happens if there is some thing important in that luggage which the passenger requires? The passenger has just been through a traumatic experience and then you want to make it difficult for him/her to reclaim their luggage which just happens to be their property... Besides which the passenger maybe unwilling to hand it over. A less than sensible idea, I would submit......


Sorted For whose benefit, may I ask ???

[ExXB]

The problem wageslave is that the luggage that remains on board is usually reduced to ashes. And we saw that in the BA incident, which didn't have a fire, it took days to reunite the passengers with their belongings.

As the airlines refuse liability of damage or loss of valuables in both carry-on and in the hold they are as much to blame. As I mentioned a few pages back the Warsaw/Montreal regimes do not allow the airlines to refuse liability, but they do. Meaning you need a high priced lawyer just to get compensated for a proven loss that you are entitled to.

Took a couple of flights in last week on a well known, and well respected 'legacy' airline. Safety briefing did not mention not taking carry-on - I listened carefully for it. The 'briefing card' had a picture of a hand holding a briefcase (from the '50s'?) with an X through it. Not sure if too many people would understand what it was suggesting. From that I'd assume a handbag would be OK to take but according to some on this thread that is forbidden.

[Wageslave]

I can't believe any of you are concerned about "inconvenience" to pax who deliberately and wilfully hazard the lives of fellow travellers by their selfishness.

Arrest the bastards then and charge them with reckless endangerment. A week in a cell and a $5000 fine will give them time to reflect on hazarding other peoples' lives and the furore in the meeja will impress it on others.

Public punishment is the only deterrent until we have locking bins.

Simplest is to do as I said and confiscate the bags as material evidence, a perfectly reasonable stance as they are clearly removing stuff from an investigation scene. Why should they avoid the inconvenience of lost luggage when they risked others' lives to achieve it?

Oh, and post their mugshots and names on the front page of the papers too.

[flydive1]

Simplest is to do as I said and confiscate the bags as material evidence, a perfectly reasonable stance as they are clearly removing stuff from an investigation scene.

Are they removing themselves from an investigation scene when they evacuate?;)

[Planemike]

Arrest the bastards then and charge them with reckless endangerment. A week in a cell and a $5000 fine will give them time to reflect on hazarding other peoples' lives and the furore in the meeja will impress it on others. .

These folk have just suffered the trauma of being in an accident and you want to further traumatise them by putting them in a cell and fining them a large amount of money which they may not have.

Surely it is far more important to reunite the passengers and their baggage with their nearest and dearest. Well if I had been involved any form of accident that is what I would want the transport company, police and other authorities to do for me...... Never mind thinking about putting me in a cell or parting me from my hard eared money.........

Simplest is to do as I said and confiscate the bags as material evidence, a perfectly reasonable stance as they are clearly removing stuff from an investigation scene. Why should they avoid the inconvenience of lost luggage when they risked others' lives to achieve it?

By doing that there seems to a fair chance baggage could become lost. That seems to happen when everything is operating normally never mind when there has been an "incident"..... Not quite sure what would be learned from the passengers bags. Seems to me, wageslave, you just wish to be vindictive for not real good reason.

[+TSRA]

Wageslave,

You've obviously never been at the scene of an aircraft accident. The very last thing anyone wants is a group of people trying to stop the flow of passengers outside the aircraft. What you are suggesting will simply slow an evacuation at a different point - it may even stop it completely. It has a very serious counter possibility of those same passengers now spending more time on board the aircraft trying to hide their baggage from an airport authority. So instead of them getting off with their baggage they become the very ashes ExXB referred.

Also, if you think public punishment will answer the question for us, why has a similar tactic not worked for murder, rape, theft, etc.? Hell, people know that a child porn conviction will get you shanked in prison, yet people get charged for that every day.

The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. This is a result of the marketing people of the world trying to demonstrate that flying is so low risk that when it becomes extreme risk, people don't know how to react.

Locking bins wont work either as there are too many flow on consequences from that during normal line operations to make it a worthy fix.

[Rwy in Sight]

Is "taking the bags with you" a really new phenomenon or we are just being aware because of the availability or easy recording?

[DaveReidUK]

Is "taking the bags with you" a really new phenomenon or we are just being aware because of the availability or easy recording?

Aircraft evacuations have been taking place for as long as they have been carrying passengers, and the ability to take cabin baggage on board is nothing new.

[Piltdown Man]

The only solution is no bags. Anything less (or is it more?) becomes complicated.

PM

[Phileas Fogg]

The problems with punitive actions after an evacuation are manyfold. Someone, presumably with the airline, would have to make positive the identification of the offenders and record the violation.

So taking the recent Birdseed incident in Las Vegas, but let's suggest such an incident were to occur in such a country as Nigeria, whereas most of the passengers would have been British committing an offence in a foreign land.

Any subsequent international legal action simply wouldn't work.

[esa-aardvark]

Cabin crew press a button & the overhead "lockers" LOCK.
Would that work ?

[PAXboy]

The problems of locking lockers has been answered much earlier in this thread and in previous threads on this identical topic.

[Eboy]

OK, let me throw out this idea . . .

In an emergency, leave luggage in the overhead bin. (Phase in electric locks on the bin doors that stay locked in an emergency.)

Let the passenger take the personal item under the seat in an emergency. It's probably soft, small, can contain the passport and other important documents, money. That relieves the passport concern. Near zero time added to evacuation.

[ExXB]

OK, let me throw out an idea.

Let's stop worrying about what some passengers do. If this really was an issue the Regulators (starting with ICAO) would be doing something about it. The airlines would be reviewing their safety briefings (which they don't appear to be doing) and making suitable amendments.

[Basil]

Good! Now we can rest easy in the safe and secure knowledge that our overhead locker baggage is more important than the lives of the passengers behind us.

[ExXB]

Basil,
Show me one case where someone's life has been lost as a result? Just one.

[Shytehawk]

ExXB

Manchester.

[oldpax]

do away with cabin baggage altogether and issue a standard size bag(smallish)to each passenger at check in and say this is all you are allowed to take on board,please put any personal items you want in the cabin in here.Make it an international requirement.

[PAXboy]

Not a bad idea, oldpax. But every international agreement requires the USA to agree. The USA is 100% biased in it's own favour. Just like every other country.

Over the last 25 years, we have seen international airline agreements get thrown to the dogs. So I expect that nothing will change. If, one day, it can be categorically proved that:


enough pax
on enough planes
in enough crashes
have died because of hand luggage carried by others ...

Then regulations will change.

[Planemike]

Do away with cabin baggage altogether and issue a standard size bag(smallish)to each passenger at check in and say this is all you are allowed to take on board, please put any personal items you want in the cabin in here. Make it an international requirement. That seems a strange thing to want to do. Most passengers will already have a perfectly serviceable bag available at home which they will pack there. If you want to issue them with a new bag at the airport what do they use to take their belongings to the airport? The selection of suitable travelling bags is a personal choice, they may not like the style you have selected for them: different travellers will have different requirements. Regular travellers will end up with many they bags they have no use for. Good news for bag makers, bad news for the environment. Does not seem a very well thought out plan..... Just seems away of putting up costs for no real benefit..... Can guess who will end up paying for the bags !!!


Think it much better to leave travellers to select their own bag/luggage.....seems to have worked well over the years.

[Rwy in Sight]

Planemike, it wouldn't be much different than the small plastic "evidence" bag for liquids. Once a traveler has acquire the first such bag, he/she can refuse further bags until it is worn out and it can be used to "to take their belongings to the airport".

I still think it is a difficult issue - particularly when one comes out of the airport having left everything behind and facing issues with the authorities.

[ExXB]

Manchester? I believe that was debunked earlier on this thread, or on the other ones in R&Ns.

Requiring pax to check valuables requires the airlines to assume liability for their safekeeping. As they are either unable, or unwilling, (both actually)to do so means I won't.

[PDR1]

OK, let me throw out an idea.

Let's stop worrying about what some passengers do. If this really was an issue the Regulators (starting with ICAO) would be doing something about it. The airlines would be reviewing their safety briefings (which they don't appear to be doing) and making suitable amendments.

Indeed. In fact here's a though - how about we stop the pilots crashing the planes in the first place, and then the problem will never arise...

:)

PDR

[seafire6b]

British Airtours flight 28M :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M


and the AAIB Report regarding the same :

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422efe840f0b61342000277/8-1988_G-BGJL.pdf

Obviously, thirty years ago the amount of cabin baggage hadn't reached the ridiculous quantities now seen as normal on some flights.

However, the report doesn't mention carry-on bags, nor of any evacuation delays caused by passengers with such. Of the total 31 Safety Recommendations (page 171 onwards) it is clear that amongst other things, the seat-pitch at overwing exits definitely was a factor. It's perhaps noteworthy that having remedied that with more "generous" emergency-exit spacing, airlines now sell those seats to higher-bidding fare payers - obviously providing they're fit and able!


.

[lapp]

I think that every country has laws dealing with acts that endanger the life of others. It's up to police and justice to apply these.

[Basil]

Indeed. In fact here's a though - how about we stop the pilots crashing the planes in the first place, and then the problem will never arise...

:)

PDR
You mean like Capt Sully?

[oldpax]

Planemike,what do you need in a cabin with in flight entertainment?Apart from people who need medicines during a flight all other pax are usually sleeping (wish I could!)or reading a book.Some of the cabin luggage looks just like people have packed their hold baggage to avoid 20 mins at a carouselOops forgot those exec types that need to look at a laptop pretending to do something important!!So ok a laptop satchel and a small bag then?

[DaveReidUK]

Manchester? I believe that was debunked earlier on this thread, or on the other ones in R&Ns.

Yes, post #11 in this thread.

We've obviously reached the point (normally only after several hundred posts) where contributors feel free to chip in without bothering to read what has already been discussed. :ugh:

[seafire6b]

However, Manchester is not irrelevant and should not be easily dismissed. Thirty years ago it wasn't common practice for airlines to charge those passengers - probably the majority - who didn't want to take a suitcase into the aircraft cabin. Indeed, taking this further, perhaps it was actually a lack of carry-on bags that allowed many at Manchester to escape with their lives.

Nowadays, airlines financially penalise passengers who wish to take even a mid-size suitcase. Cause and effect: in turn, that's now become a primary cause of the current large quantities of carry-on bags, because monetary benefits will apply. Thus the airlines themselves actively encourage more cabin baggage.

Admittedly this doesn't answer the thread's "fine/prison" question, although I consider both of those alternatives to be unrealistic and impractical.

It's obviously very fortunate that unlike flight 028M, recent events haven't involved the loss of passenger/crew lives. However, bearing in mind "the tombstone imperative", I fear it will take another Manchester before authorities review the current-day actualities.

[ExXB]

Perhaps the regulators are aware there is no evidence to suggest that some passengers taking their cabin baggage increases the risk of death or injury to other passengers.

I agree that it 'just feels right' that passengers shouldn't do so, but they do and will continue to do so, regardless of threats of fine/prison. Perhaps the regulators should focus on that reality and act accordingly.

[paulc]

Oldpax,

people will carry the valuable items that airlines strongly suggest are not put in the hold - laptops, tablets, photographic gear. mobile phones etc. Not that these are often used in flight but there is no way I would check any of those items into the hold.