SMOKEHOODS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: bedford, England
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMOKEHOODS
Airlines say that it is too costly to give passengers smokehoods. Does anyone know if any pax have been saved by that bloody whistle or lifejacket that we are all allocated. I can't think of any crash in recent years where passengers were happily found bobbing up and down in the sea. However, I can remember a number of disasters where passengers were killed by smoke on an aircraft. Perhaps Airlines should consider scrapping the whistle and lifejacket and replacing them with smokehoods instead - what do the pro's think?nullnull[img]null[/img] null
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can put all the equipment you like on the aircraft, but if the bloody idiots refuse to pay attention to the safety briefing, it's rather pointless. Perhaps if you journalists were to write an article on how many passengers were killed by their own stupidity instead of whining about the Airlines all the time, it may save some lives!! But nobody would read that would they! 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a legal requirement to carry life jackets on any a/c which may be forced to land on water (ie only crossing a river does not require them). Although self-contained easy-to-use smokehoods are available, unlike crew masks (which require training), there are no standards as regards storage life, a safety device that does not work when you need it is worse than useless.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh.
That reply was the height of ill manners and does you a great disservice. Michelle may or may not be a journalist. If she is, then at least she is seeking the opinion of professionals before publishing. If not, then what exactly is the point of your discourtesy.
A gentleman would apologise!!
That reply was the height of ill manners and does you a great disservice. Michelle may or may not be a journalist. If she is, then at least she is seeking the opinion of professionals before publishing. If not, then what exactly is the point of your discourtesy.
A gentleman would apologise!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally Heck
If you care to press on the 'who' button you will see Michele is a Press an PR officer. This site is littered with journos trying to eek out stories and it has been well debated. I am fed up of seeing ill-informed aviation comment in the press. The industry does not need 'Airlines comprimise saftey by not giving you a smoke hood blah blah.' I was pointing out far more lives would be saved if people listened to the safety briefing. Sensasionalist journalism does a lot of harm - unfortunately it sells papers.
If you care to press on the 'who' button you will see Michele is a Press an PR officer. This site is littered with journos trying to eek out stories and it has been well debated. I am fed up of seeing ill-informed aviation comment in the press. The industry does not need 'Airlines comprimise saftey by not giving you a smoke hood blah blah.' I was pointing out far more lives would be saved if people listened to the safety briefing. Sensasionalist journalism does a lot of harm - unfortunately it sells papers.
I'll mak siccar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Tir nan Og
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is an inescapable inference from your posting, Hugh, that many passengers, or idiots as you classify them, have in fact been killed by their own stupidity. How many? Do you have a source of statistics? I am not a journalist.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idiots I refer to are passengers who simply do not pay attention to safety briefings. A report into a helicopter crash many years ago in the UK actually cited that deaths occured because people had not read the safety card. The only survivors amongst the pax were two old ladies and a young boy, who had read the safety card! Evacuations are always hampered by the clowns that think it is beneath them to pay attention.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: bedford, England
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh, I am not a journalist anymore. I work as a press officer in Local Govt who just happends to have an interest in aviation matters. For the record (and as a 'white knuckle' pax who devours every safety card on each journey) I am always amazed at the lack of attention paid to the flight crew during this time. I was most impressed a few years ago by an attendant on a Ryanair flight who actually told a group of chatting pax to shut up and listen. If the time comes I will be the first one to the nearest exit following that line of emergency lighting - no doubt with that bloody whistle in my hand!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michele
This issue has been considered a number of times most recently by the House of Commons Evironment Transport and the Regions Select Committee who made the following recommendation :
(www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmenvtra/275/27512.htm)
"(x) We recommend that the Safety Regulation Group should again conduct research into smokehoods, and the benefit which they might bring to evacuations of aircraft during fires. They should publish the results of their research within a limited timescale, and, unless there are compelling safety reasons why they should not be carried, the Safety Regulation Group should seek to make the provision of smokehoods on commercial aircraft a mandatory requirement (paragraph 86)."
The Government response was :
(www.aviation.detr.gov.uk/response/safety/index.htm)
"The Safety Regulation Group examined the potential benefits and problems of smokehoods fully after the investigation into the Manchester accident and issued a specification for developing a smokehood in 1998. These specifications were rigorous and were developed with the full participation not only of industry but also of independent experts. To the Safety Regulation Group’s knowledge, no satisfactory product was developed. The Safety Regulation Group subsequently undertook a review of aircraft fire safety, which included examination of the benefits and costs of a range of comprehensive safety improvements, including smokehoods. The conclusions were published in 1991.
The Safety Regulation Group is not convinced that more research into smokehoods can be any better justified than more research into rearward facing seats. Earlier research indicated that the delays in evacuation caused by untrained passengers trying to don smokehoods would cause a greater loss of life from fire than the number saved by reduced inhalation of toxic fumes.
The Safety Regulation Group is firmly of the view that its regulatory priorities should be to continue to research methods of reducing the level of penetration of fire into the cabin and slowing its subsequent spread, thus extending evacuation time, and to provide better exit routes."
[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: Cathar ]
This issue has been considered a number of times most recently by the House of Commons Evironment Transport and the Regions Select Committee who made the following recommendation :
(www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmenvtra/275/27512.htm)
"(x) We recommend that the Safety Regulation Group should again conduct research into smokehoods, and the benefit which they might bring to evacuations of aircraft during fires. They should publish the results of their research within a limited timescale, and, unless there are compelling safety reasons why they should not be carried, the Safety Regulation Group should seek to make the provision of smokehoods on commercial aircraft a mandatory requirement (paragraph 86)."
The Government response was :
(www.aviation.detr.gov.uk/response/safety/index.htm)
"The Safety Regulation Group examined the potential benefits and problems of smokehoods fully after the investigation into the Manchester accident and issued a specification for developing a smokehood in 1998. These specifications were rigorous and were developed with the full participation not only of industry but also of independent experts. To the Safety Regulation Group’s knowledge, no satisfactory product was developed. The Safety Regulation Group subsequently undertook a review of aircraft fire safety, which included examination of the benefits and costs of a range of comprehensive safety improvements, including smokehoods. The conclusions were published in 1991.
The Safety Regulation Group is not convinced that more research into smokehoods can be any better justified than more research into rearward facing seats. Earlier research indicated that the delays in evacuation caused by untrained passengers trying to don smokehoods would cause a greater loss of life from fire than the number saved by reduced inhalation of toxic fumes.
The Safety Regulation Group is firmly of the view that its regulatory priorities should be to continue to research methods of reducing the level of penetration of fire into the cabin and slowing its subsequent spread, thus extending evacuation time, and to provide better exit routes."
[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: Cathar ]
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that case Michele - Apologies!! As I said before Journo's rake these pages to find a sensationalist story to frighten the public. The Industry just doesn't need it right now. I take your point about the life jackets, a premeditated ditching is so rare thesedays. However it has to be catered for, if it did happen I think most passengers simply would not know how to use them. It was proved in a TV studio a few years ago when at the start of the program a life jacket demo was done and half an hour later the audience was told to put on the life jacket under their seat. Very few managed. If smoke hoods were on board I suspect a lot of people would be struggling to put it on instead of getting out of the aircraft. The crew have them and will be of far more use because they are trained to evacuate the aircraft and get people moving. Simple smoke hoods are commercially available, if it is your own personal one - you will have read the instructions. Also you are far more likely to use it in a hotel or your own house. People must learn that they have to take some responsability for their own safety.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of Hugh's - potential Idiots- ie: a Fleequent Fryer - unfortunately some of us have flown multiple airlines - and some do give the "spiel" a lot better than others. Also when you have heard a similar text for over the 1'000th time, you can almost recite it with the crew.
I know that there are procedures and that procedures save lives, how ever hats off to the crews who manage to make you look up, like one clown the other day who started off:
" Now just so you frequent flyers spend a second listening up here - this plane just came out of a major check and we have changed some things around here - so listening may save somebody's life even if it isn't yours, if things get bad around here."
All the papers went down ....
Its style - not content guys & gals....
----------------------------------
Fly or walk ? What a no-brainer !
I know that there are procedures and that procedures save lives, how ever hats off to the crews who manage to make you look up, like one clown the other day who started off:
" Now just so you frequent flyers spend a second listening up here - this plane just came out of a major check and we have changed some things around here - so listening may save somebody's life even if it isn't yours, if things get bad around here."
All the papers went down ....
Its style - not content guys & gals....
----------------------------------
Fly or walk ? What a no-brainer !
Paxing All Over The World
Michelle, welcome to the cruise and keep your seat belt fastened at all times, in case of unexpected turbulence 
We discussed smokehoods about two months ago in the SLF/PAX forum (I think) and it should be possible to find it in the archive. I have been a PAX for 35 years and been on many carriers. I always listen to 'the dance' as the cabin crew refer to it. If I know the carrier and the machine well, then I might just double check. For example, I have done more than 30 sectors with easyJet in the last nine months or so!
I have a smoke hood and, as someone else said, I expect to use it in an hotel before I need it on board. If, when time comes, it fails to save my life - then I have taken all possible precautions.
I am not concerned about how long it will take to put on as I am always aware of the aircraft and where we are. I am always amused by pax who are surprised when the machine lands! If the landing is a little 'firm' they get all of a twitter!
We discussed smokehoods about two months ago in the SLF/PAX forum (I think) and it should be possible to find it in the archive. I have been a PAX for 35 years and been on many carriers. I always listen to 'the dance' as the cabin crew refer to it. If I know the carrier and the machine well, then I might just double check. For example, I have done more than 30 sectors with easyJet in the last nine months or so!
I have a smoke hood and, as someone else said, I expect to use it in an hotel before I need it on board. If, when time comes, it fails to save my life - then I have taken all possible precautions.
I am not concerned about how long it will take to put on as I am always aware of the aircraft and where we are. I am always amused by pax who are surprised when the machine lands! If the landing is a little 'firm' they get all of a twitter!
