Smoking - a question for the Captains out there.
 

Here's a query for the Captains amongst our community. Two years ago, I was flying (as pax) from BHX to Goa on Britannia. Got the standard briefing about smoking - no problem - later reinforced by the Captain in somewhat aggressive style (ex-RAF maybe??)

Halfway through the flight (while crossing Turkey), the inevitable happens when one of the cabin crew smells cigarette smoke in the toilet, and reports it. Captain goes ballistic and makes incredibly aggressive PA speech on what he will do if he finds out who the culprit is - make an unscheduled stop - presumably in Ankara / Istanbul - and drop the guy in to the welcoming arms of the local rozzers ("ever spent a night in a Turkish jail".......) All passengers are invited to inform the cabin crew who the naughty boy is.

My question - would he REALLY have done it, given the implications in terms of delay, schedules, cost, customer relations etc. Frankly I doubt it, but would like to hear your thoughts.

Would have served the guy right though.

Oh yeah, he would have done it. . .depending on how passionate he was about it. The pilots don't care about money or time, they don't pay the bills, so they will hold up a flight. It's their job. (Didn't you notice before every flight the FAs say "Our toilets are fitted with smoke detectors?). But the answer is, that he very well might have. . .I remember last year an AIH A330 was like a day late for a routine check and the captain refused to fly it, causing a 2 day delay for the passengers culminating in a subcharter!!!! The moral is, a captain will do what is safe, really.

[This message has been edited by SFly (edited 08 April 2001).]

SFly, I think you will find that if an aircraft is a day late for a required check that it is illegal to fly it, never mind the other implications involved. Its not the pilot's fault its the company's or the engineer's fault if the check wasn't done. I know the Captain (and FO) is the one on the front line, but there are rules you know.
You might also think that having one of the systems of the aircraft is fine, because there is another one, but again, if the CAA rulebook says the aircraft cannot depart then it cannot depart.
As for smoking on a flight. Well, I think all crew will tell you that they have done the fire and smoke training and have experience of just what a toilet fire is like. I can tell you that I would not want to be flying an aircraft on which there was a toilet fire. Its not so much the smoking as the fact that most passengers dispose of the cigarette in the waste paper bin, which is full of ....paper. Which tends to catch light quite easily. Which creates a big problem.
Now if I said to you, would you like to be in the cruise with a fire on board, you would tell me that is totally unsafe, don't be so ridiculous.
That is why crew get upset about people smoking in the toilets.
It also shows a blatant disregard for the rules and for the instructions of the crew.
Which could lead to other problems.
As for the diversion aspect, I suspect not. Despite your views on pilots most pilots go out of their way to save the company money, arrive on time, etc. and most pilots will at some point fiddle some figures to ensure they are legal for a flight, to avoid a huge delay.
So I suspect that they would not have diverted unless the company wanted them to, or if the passenger got disruptive.
He may have been refused return carriage though.

Blimey, No need to get defensive. I was merely backing up a point I made that the captains will enforce their code and laws. I was stating that flying an aircraft past it's check date is illegal just as smoking in the loos of an aircraft are. I was making a point, not attacking anybody to do with Airtours. I was answering the person's question --- would the captain have landed? Yes. I was backing up my statement. Hope this clears things up a bit. :rolleyes:


[This message has been edited by SFly (edited 09 February 2001).]

(I am a smokin pilot, on the ground!)

You have all made the point about how staggeringly dangerous smoking in A/C toilets is. It is a fact that this would not happen if there were a smoking section on board the A/C.

So please tell me what is best. Do we let a percentage of our flying public smoke in defined areas of the A/C, therefore endangering the health of the other pax/crew on said A/C by passive smoking? Or, do we continue to ban smoking in the sure knowledge that sooner or later some idiot will set fire to the A/C with the subsequent appalling (non-passive) loss of life?

I'm looking forward to the 'politically correct' replies from the SMOKING POLICE who would rather see 400 people die than observe the rules of 'common sense'.

Just off to the shed for a fag. 'She' won't let me smoke in the house I'm paying for either.


Regards
Exeng

Exeng, aside from the fact that the whole "passive smoking" health risk myth has been thoroughly debunked by several studies (including one released last year by the World Health Organization), the fact is that if A/C ventilation standards were set to a reasonable level then there'd be no reason for any non-smoking pax to be exposed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all aircraft send fresh air into the front of the cabin and exhaust it out the back? If that's the case, then a reasonable flow rate and a smoking section in the back shouldn't be a problem.

I believe that if you allow smoking on board again, the number of air rages and agressiveness will be lower. It will benefit all parties.

Greetz, :)

(a smoking pilot though)

------------------
- I hate to wake up and find my co-pilot asleep -

Squawk 8888,

You asked, <Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all aircraft send fresh air into the front of the cabin and exhaust it out the back?>

In my experience (on Boeings) it is not quite as simple as that. In general conditioned air from the airconditioning packs is distributed to all aircraft zones. In addition some of that air is recirculated by means of recirc fans. The air does exit the aircraft via the outflow valve or valves which are situated at the rear of the aircraft.

So I don't think that just putting a smoking section at the rear of the aircraft would completely isolate the smokers from the non-smokers.

By the way the airlines gain a considerable amount financially by their no-smoking policy. This is achieved by lower maintenance costs in the various parts of the aircraft, particularly the outflow valves which can become considerably contaminated by cigarette tar residue. It did make you feel ill looking at that mess! No hope for me as I'm still acomplete addict despite numerous attempts to stop.


regards
Exeng


Regards
Exeng

Exeng, the carriers saved money on more than just maintenance. Back in the 80s the airlines in Canada were given the green light to cut the amount of fresh air coming into the cabin in exchange for the smoking ban, so now cabin air quality is worse than it was when smoking was allowed. Forget the propaganda about HEPA filters for the recirc air- they do nothing about CO2 and only trap a minute portion of the microbes floating around. As a scientist who contributes to another forum wisely says, the solution to pollution is dilution.

------------------
Nuke the rainforest- it's more efficient than logging.

Now I am a smoker......But..... With ETOPS at 204 minutes on twins and longer divert times on a 3 or 4 holer I would not want the increased risk of a cabin fire by being allowed to smoke.

Surely the companies are saving big ammounts of money on the insurance costs by being non smoking?

But if you want to go to Turkey this summer on your holidays and you have to smoke, fly Onur air, they're still smoking.


------------------
-------------------------
You fly em we'll fill em!

Desk driver, your point is well taken; that's why I don't allow smoking when I'm driving a light single. But it only holds if all the pax obey those no-smoking signs. I think the fire hazard would be far lower if ashtrays are provided. Anybody have stats on cabin fires and their causes?

------------------
Nuke the rainforest- it's more efficient than logging.

I'm a smoker. I have been one for years. I can go without for a few hours. Doing so does not make me insult cabin crew, upset my fellow passengers, or a danger to the aircraft and its occupants by trying to inhibit smoke detectors and set light to paper in the waste bins.

Ayone who has a real problem with going without smoking on a long flight is perfectly aware whether or not there is a ban on board. There are legal problems with airlines handing out what could be described as drugs in the form of nicotine patches and gum, but nothing to stop people bringing their own.

Maintenance and insurance are cheaper for airlines if their flights are non-smoking, which savings are passed on to the passengers. If I was a non-smoker I would not be overjoyed to know that my ticket price is subsidising the smokers on board.

Certainly air quality on many airliners could be improved - quantity, humidification, CO2 scrubbers, etc. etc. We all know why they're not done.

For reasons of flight safety as well, I'd be overjoyed if the Duty Free system was changed to the SLF buying their allowance at destination. First, there would no longer be a litre of highly inflammable liquid per passenger directly over their heads ready to shower them in an accident (often complete with highly breakable glass containers) but also there would be fewer problems with the pax tucking in to their allowance en route and getting tiddly and repulsive.

This latter detail is one that features far more often in cases of air rage than not being permitted to smoke.

However, we know that's not going to happen either because then airlines would not be allowed to sell duty-free booze during the flight.

The Captain here would probably not have landed en-route, though there are SOME that would. What has happened before though is the police have been called to meet the aircraft on arrival and lock the offender up.
( and he can probably smoke as much as he likes while behind bars!).

Foxmouth, it would probably serve the offender right if the driver took him to CYYZ. Smoking was banned in Ontario jails a couple of years ago :)

------------------
Nuke the rainforest- it's more efficient than logging.

Thanks for all your thoughts - it's good to hear some different views on this. I'm inclined to agree with foxmoth - an extra stop would be a pretty bold statement to say the least. For all that, I got the impression that the Skipper concerned might just have been one of foxmoth's "SOME". And my all-too-short week in Goa would have got a little bit shorter.

Maybe the real danger would have been the lynching of our smoking friend by his 250 peeved co-SLF on the descent through Turkish airspace. Perhaps a case of air-rage caused by smoking rather than air-rage caused by non-smoking. Passive air-rage, even. Now that would have taken some explaining.

I wonder what would be the financial cost involved in an extra stop, in terms of fuel etc etc. Just interested. The a/c type was B767.

Thanks again. Keep 'em coming! And FWIW the Almirante's a non-smoker.....

Paramount used to land and discharge passengers who refused to put out cigarretes.
It used to get them a lot of column inches in the newspapers round here.

------------------
Fly the green fin

A very good friend of mine (now retired TWA) mentioned that on one of his trans-Atlantic flights the smoke alarm went off in one of the aft toilets. The hostie whipped the door open and "extinguished" the cigar the old boy was smoking while seated on the throne.
Hmmm, also managed to ah.....slightly extinguish a bit of his anatomy in the process.

I bet THAT got some "column inches" in the press (fnarr, fnarr)!

Well, knowing this will probably give me a lot of heat, I'll have my say anyway.

It's all about money, as is everything else in this day and age. However, I'll put forward the idea that an airline bold enough to introduce confined smoking areas on their long-haul fleet would see tremendous business. As european travellers will know, unless you are exiting via LHR, FRA or CDG you are probably in for a stop if going to a far away place that's not a major hub (Like JFK / LAX / NRT etc). Now, if had a choice of going via, say, FRA and connect on a smoking flight I'd do that rather than, say, LHR on a non-smoking. I'll bet that a lot of smokers would do the same, based on what people are telling me.

But, and here's the real bugger, installing confined smoking areas would entail the removal of revenue generating seats. Would I pay a premium for a smoking flight ? Yes, absolutely. There is nothing worse than a + 10 hour non-smoking flight !

Alternatively, maybe a confined area could be installed in the lower deck (similar to the lower deck toilets on A330's) which would "only" reduce the amount of cargo an aircraft is able to load.

So, where is that bold airline to be found ? Former CEO of SAS, Jan Carlzon, once said that if he was to venture into aviation again, it would be for starting up a smoking airline and he would probably make a lot of dosh doing so.

Finally, I have not heard of an accident that could be attributed to legal smoking. Alas, claiming that smoking is inherently dangerous is, in my opinion, unsubstantiated. Indeed, allowing smoking in a confined area, properly insulated and with extinguishers (and a few ashtrays for good measure :) ) would most likely increase the safety level, as pax would not sneak off to the toilets for a smoke and drop the butt in the bin with possible disastourous consequences, should the bin extinguisher fail.

Comments ?

You're right, JN - it's all about money.

It's about the money required to clean the air conditioning ducts, the outflow valves, the innards of the air conditioning controls...

It's about the money the insurance companies want...

It's about the money the passengers have to pay for their tickets, and how much money your competition want...

It's about how much money your non-smoking passengers will take to your competition when they find out that people will be smoking on your flight...

It's about the cost of making the modifications you suggest to make it remotely tolerable for non-snokers aboard your aircraft...

The bin extinguisher - yes. Perhaps it can cope, bravely does it's duty and puts out the fire. What then? Close a toilet for the duration of the flight. Inconvenience everyone else because some smoker is too self-centred to obey the rules.

No accident due to legal smoking? Perhaps not. However, the anti-smoking brigade, insurance companies and airlines all discovered that, provided passengers behaved themselves, it costs a lot less to operate aircraft all non-smoking than allowing it. The dangers and accidents then followed because people are incapable of restraining themselves, or planning ahead by bringing nicotine gum or patches or inhalers, and were that selfish that they'd endanger an aircraft full of people for a quick drag.

I hasten to point out that I am a smoker. However, I am a smoker who can contain himself, or plan ahead. Why can others not do so?