Smoking in the loo

[radeng]

>We know that smoking in plane bogs kills people. <

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

[denis555]

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

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

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

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

[Load Toad]

Although I totally agree with not smoking on planes (and I'll reiterate that I am a smoker...) are there documented and proven cases of accidents or crashes caused by cigarette smoking or the disposal of smoking materials?

[barry lloyd]

Although I totally agree with not smoking on planes (and I'll reiterate that I am a smoker...) are there documented and proven cases of accidents or crashes caused by cigarette smoking or the disposal of smoking materials?

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

[Load Toad]

Maybe pot.....

Group says pot would calm "air rage" | News | CW2 Colorado | KWGN-TV

Might calm 'em down a bit.

[G SXTY]

Air Canada

Google "Air Canada DC9 fire". Very sobering reading.

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

[PaperTiger]

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

No doubt. And that full info is contrary to what you "seem to remember".

are there documented and proven cases of accidents or crashes caused by cigarette smoking or the disposal of smoking materials?

No. Not one. Zero.

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

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

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

[denis555]

flamed by the cult

???

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

[6chimes]

I think the airports and the law in the UK have a lot to answer for here.

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

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

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

6

[BaronChotzinoff]

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

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

[rjc54n]

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

[Rainboe]

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 707-345C PP-VJZ Paris-Orly Airport (ORY)

Not confirmed smoking, but aircraft lavatory sinks aren't usually known for spontaneous ignition.
Varig Flight 820 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[denis555]

And much kudos to EMA they have added an outside smoking area airside from departures.

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

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

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

[Pax Vobiscum]

Why don't airlines provide/sell nicotine patches or gum? Is it because they don't satisfy the craving to light up?

(Genuine query from a lifelong non-smoker.)

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

[boredcounter]

Airlines will never sell Nicoteen Gum

....................It can get stepped into the carpet..................

[Glamgirl]

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

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

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

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

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

Gg

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Glamgirl

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

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

So for the 50 or so years before smoking in the cabin was banned, aviation had been continually "taking a chance" ?

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

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

[Union Jack]

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

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

Jack

[dazdaz]

I've just done a Google, nowhere have I found a loss of airframe attributed to a person smoking on an a/c. But you dear reader might know more.

Daz

[Load Toad]

If that's the case:

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