Passenger offloaded from Air NZ flight for ignoring safety briefing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: in a cigar lounge smoking a Partagas P2
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If so, how would you handle a "non-disruptive" passenger who refused to put on their seat belt? If they do not put up a fight, but simply ignore requests to do so, what would you do? They are not disruptive passengers by your definition if they are not loud or aggressive or drunk, right?
It was New Years Eve - his wife stayed on behind ignoring her obviously embarrasing d###head partner who had to find alternative travel plans to Europe.
Had him again on board a few years later to PEK - he was extremely cooperative ....
I evacuated a jumbo once as a young Capt - half the pax took their bags off putting all the other passenger's lives in grave danger - in the event of deaths people like this should be done for manslaughter
I was fortunate enough to have been allocated a seat by an overwing exit on a recent flight with Lufthansa. One of their normally horribly cramped A320neo aircraft, but on this occasion I had plenty of room - which was just as well as the chap in the middle seat next to me looked like he could have tried out for the Harlem Globetrotters!
After everyone was seated, the flight attendant came over and gave me a brief on the procedures to be adopted in the event of an evacuation and directed my attention to the instructions affixed to the seat in front and to the exit itself. She did this in a clear, courteous and professional manner.
Quite why anyone would refuse to listen to the instructions for passenger evacuation is frankly beyond me.
After everyone was seated, the flight attendant came over and gave me a brief on the procedures to be adopted in the event of an evacuation and directed my attention to the instructions affixed to the seat in front and to the exit itself. She did this in a clear, courteous and professional manner.
Quite why anyone would refuse to listen to the instructions for passenger evacuation is frankly beyond me.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It certainly appears, on the face, with regard to the incident that started this thread, that offloading an exit row passenger who refuses to answer the crew's questions about preparedness to assist, is a good call.
But that's no longer really what this thread is about.
There are people who, for one reason or another, are dispositionally unsuited to be placed in a position of authority.
The best police departments, understanding the degree to which their officers have the ability to ruin your day (for example, by fatally shooting you), and understanding the importance of good relations with the community they serve, put a lot of effort into psychological screening and supervision, to weed out those who, given any measure of authority, tend to abuse it.
Other organizations, perhaps less well funded or with less astute management, don't do as careful a job of screening or supervision. And so it turns out that jobs that confer low level authority over others, unfortunately, tend to attract people who gain an unhealthy pleasure from exercising that authority. Think "Shopping mall security guard," or "Middle school assistant principal." Which is not in any way to say that shopping mall security guards or middle school assistant principals are universally psychologically damaged or bad people, but, rather, that bullies are drawn to those jobs.
Every single one of us has seen air crew who fit this profile. I'm not suggesting in the slightest that this was the case here, but I think the matter deserves a little more thought than it's being given here.
But that's no longer really what this thread is about.
There are people who, for one reason or another, are dispositionally unsuited to be placed in a position of authority.
The best police departments, understanding the degree to which their officers have the ability to ruin your day (for example, by fatally shooting you), and understanding the importance of good relations with the community they serve, put a lot of effort into psychological screening and supervision, to weed out those who, given any measure of authority, tend to abuse it.
Other organizations, perhaps less well funded or with less astute management, don't do as careful a job of screening or supervision. And so it turns out that jobs that confer low level authority over others, unfortunately, tend to attract people who gain an unhealthy pleasure from exercising that authority. Think "Shopping mall security guard," or "Middle school assistant principal." Which is not in any way to say that shopping mall security guards or middle school assistant principals are universally psychologically damaged or bad people, but, rather, that bullies are drawn to those jobs.
Every single one of us has seen air crew who fit this profile. I'm not suggesting in the slightest that this was the case here, but I think the matter deserves a little more thought than it's being given here.
I would have to say that, Air New Zealand Safety Videos appear to be more interested & designed to promote how good Air New Zealand is, this rather & at the expense of just setting out all the need to know safety aspects of the aircraft. The airline should use a simple, basic video, showing only the need to know aspects of all the safety requirements.
Also, make it absolutely clear to all passengers, if an emergency evacuation is called, any person reaching up for their cabin baggage, will moved out of the way rather boldly!
Also, make it absolutely clear to all passengers, if an emergency evacuation is called, any person reaching up for their cabin baggage, will moved out of the way rather boldly!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion. I think Planemike you are being the devil's advocate somewhat and you are using the passive disobedience of the passenger in this reported case as an example of airline heavy handedness. I disagree with you using this exit row passive disobedience as an example but I don't disagree with the heavy handedness that seems to be the air travelers experience now. Remember that guy they dragged off the UA flight knocking him unconscious in the process?
United Express Flight 3411 incident happened at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago on April 9, 2017
What about the woman who carried her breast milk for her child and when she refused to hand it over for X-ray they impounded her in a glass holding cage in full view of all passengers passing through security, until she eventually missed her flight and they let her go!
Armato was traveling from Phoenix to Los Angeles in 2010 with bottles of pumped breast milk for her 7-month-old son when she was stopped at a security checkpoint at Sky Harbor International Airport.
In both these cases the airlines have settled with the claimants but these events happen daily. This approach pervades both the airline and the airport industry and any of us on this forum could find many other cases that amount to no more than abuse of authority by airlines, airport authorities and/or individual crew members. Post 911, we SLF (a derogatory term that should not be used- that's for another discussion) have become the threat. Within every airport and aircraft cabin is a potential threat to be identified, searched, denigrated, caged and heaved off, arbitarily in some cases with little or no recourse.
As one poster above mentioned, the rules around safety briefings are archaic and have changed little in context over the years. But since 911 the air travel industry seems to have 'relearned' the rules that allow them to do more than they had ever imagined in the name of 'flight safety' or even just operational expedience to put deadhead crew on board.
In most cases we don't have any choice but to travel by air and so must prostrate ourselves to the hassles that go with it including parking, queuing, security inspections, hours of waiting, the exposure to 'duty free' shopping as a captive audience to passively help the airport companies with their profits, the interminable walk to departure gates surrounded by faux plants for 'ambiance' that, when coupled with long haul international transits, brings new meaning to the phrase 'dead man walking on the green mile'. The constant controlling from the parking security guy at the drop off point to the ticket counters, the customs lines, the aviation security indignities, the constant PA calls to action, all pushing you through the system inexorably until finally, without ever seeing daylight or what your aircraft even looks like, you are crushed into it, pressing against other passengers as you maneuver your personal belongings into the overheads, turning your nose away as a passengers bum waves eerily close as they forge their way past you to the window seat. But it's not over is it. You are cramped before you start and another four hours flight time to go. The flight safety announcement ritual is about to start and the bile in your stomach begins to rise. You are captured. In a aluminium battery hen chicken cage. You have no rights at this point. More control, more instructions, more must dos and don'ts or else you may charged under Civil of Federal Aviation Regulations. Sitting in the centre seat, the screens drop down like a spot light being shined on you. You cant leave, you cant excuse yourself, you cant even change your mind about the flight. The only passive response you have left is to turn away, or look down. some decide talking to their neighbor will be their passive disobedience but it is a much more dangerous ploy and risks bringing the unwanted attention of the guards....er crew.....
OK, I'll stop there. That's all a little bit OTT I know, but it is to emphasise the lot of the air traveler today and in particular to bring me to the point of my discussion which is that all of this brings sometimes supercilious crew in contact with tired, disgruntled and overly controlled, disrespected, humiliated and regimented passengers. A small spark like putting your fingers in your ears during a safety brief and not even a fully loaded DC-10 firefighter can put out the subsequent conflagration. Passenger behaviour is undoubtedly becoming worse but it doesn't take much to see that modern air travel is not well designed to keep passengers calm except in the sense that they are so controlled that it is mostly fear that keeps them quiet. Fear of being embarrassed, fear of being found carrying something you had completely overlooked, fear of being complained about by another passenger, fear of missing some instruction and wandering into a restricted area, a 'no go' zone or the wrong bloody seat. Fear of being the subject of crew sternness...fear of being offloaded for no fathomable reason....
Rather than working with the paying passenger,it seems airports, airlines and crews are often working against them. Even if the personal involved exude a formulaic politeness there remains a sense they can easily become the smiling assassin the moment you do something really silly and unthinking like get up to get that book out of the overhead locker while the aircraft is taxing!! Passengers are human. They make mistakes. Often. But they're not terrorists and they generally don't mean anyone any harm. Response to passenger transgressions can be disproportionate.
Lest there be any doubt about where i stand. I am ex military aircrew and was involved in safety briefings and cabin crew management for over 20 years. I fully support Air NZ's stance in this case and the following NZ CAA PDF link https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legac...rs/AC121-6.pdf should leave no one in doubt about why, even you Planemike.
But even so, I think a lot more needs to be done to get what seems like a simple message, targeted properly. If all the issues in this thread are anything to go by passengers take in very little of what they are told in a safety briefing. In fact we know that and you only need to look at this image from a Southwest Airlines emergency to accept there is something wrong with the method of delivery, that leads to execution failure.
A Southwest Airlines airplane suffered a major engine failure. Engine shrapnel pierced the airplane's fuselage, blew out a window, and caused the cabin to depressurize. One passenger died. Some passengers wore their oxygen masks incorrectly during the emergency landing, according to a former flight attendant.
And, no matter how able bodied someone may be , I have instructed new cabin crew on the opening of main exit doors and it can take them several attempts before they literally get the swing of it. How do you think Mrs Jones would do even if she listened intently to everything she was told, with smoke, flames, darkness, screaming, unusual orientation, and the resistance of an armed slide. It would be a pious hope that a 2 min brief would help but in the absence of anything else...it is the best that can be done. I would really like to hear other ideas about safety briefings and how we can be engage passengers in this necessary process. With all the advertorial nonsense and puffery being used by airlines in their safety briefing (Air NZ, I'm looking at you) it has all become form over substance and Miss 'fingers in her ears' is symptomatic of the problem,
By the way Planemike. You several times mentioned passengers as if they were being disrespected in the manner that military personnel might be as C130 passengers. I can tell you right now, nothing could be further from the truth. Our crews showed a great deal of respect to the men and women of our Defence and Police forces. There were rules and there was discipline but as officers and senior NCO's our smiles were genuine and the care and respect for our enlisted charges undaunting. If airport authorities, and airlines and their crews could achieve half the level of respect for their passengers, we might get somewhere.
Apologies for the long post. Gulp!
United Express Flight 3411 incident happened at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago on April 9, 2017
What about the woman who carried her breast milk for her child and when she refused to hand it over for X-ray they impounded her in a glass holding cage in full view of all passengers passing through security, until she eventually missed her flight and they let her go!
Armato was traveling from Phoenix to Los Angeles in 2010 with bottles of pumped breast milk for her 7-month-old son when she was stopped at a security checkpoint at Sky Harbor International Airport.
In both these cases the airlines have settled with the claimants but these events happen daily. This approach pervades both the airline and the airport industry and any of us on this forum could find many other cases that amount to no more than abuse of authority by airlines, airport authorities and/or individual crew members. Post 911, we SLF (a derogatory term that should not be used- that's for another discussion) have become the threat. Within every airport and aircraft cabin is a potential threat to be identified, searched, denigrated, caged and heaved off, arbitarily in some cases with little or no recourse.
As one poster above mentioned, the rules around safety briefings are archaic and have changed little in context over the years. But since 911 the air travel industry seems to have 'relearned' the rules that allow them to do more than they had ever imagined in the name of 'flight safety' or even just operational expedience to put deadhead crew on board.
In most cases we don't have any choice but to travel by air and so must prostrate ourselves to the hassles that go with it including parking, queuing, security inspections, hours of waiting, the exposure to 'duty free' shopping as a captive audience to passively help the airport companies with their profits, the interminable walk to departure gates surrounded by faux plants for 'ambiance' that, when coupled with long haul international transits, brings new meaning to the phrase 'dead man walking on the green mile'. The constant controlling from the parking security guy at the drop off point to the ticket counters, the customs lines, the aviation security indignities, the constant PA calls to action, all pushing you through the system inexorably until finally, without ever seeing daylight or what your aircraft even looks like, you are crushed into it, pressing against other passengers as you maneuver your personal belongings into the overheads, turning your nose away as a passengers bum waves eerily close as they forge their way past you to the window seat. But it's not over is it. You are cramped before you start and another four hours flight time to go. The flight safety announcement ritual is about to start and the bile in your stomach begins to rise. You are captured. In a aluminium battery hen chicken cage. You have no rights at this point. More control, more instructions, more must dos and don'ts or else you may charged under Civil of Federal Aviation Regulations. Sitting in the centre seat, the screens drop down like a spot light being shined on you. You cant leave, you cant excuse yourself, you cant even change your mind about the flight. The only passive response you have left is to turn away, or look down. some decide talking to their neighbor will be their passive disobedience but it is a much more dangerous ploy and risks bringing the unwanted attention of the guards....er crew.....
OK, I'll stop there. That's all a little bit OTT I know, but it is to emphasise the lot of the air traveler today and in particular to bring me to the point of my discussion which is that all of this brings sometimes supercilious crew in contact with tired, disgruntled and overly controlled, disrespected, humiliated and regimented passengers. A small spark like putting your fingers in your ears during a safety brief and not even a fully loaded DC-10 firefighter can put out the subsequent conflagration. Passenger behaviour is undoubtedly becoming worse but it doesn't take much to see that modern air travel is not well designed to keep passengers calm except in the sense that they are so controlled that it is mostly fear that keeps them quiet. Fear of being embarrassed, fear of being found carrying something you had completely overlooked, fear of being complained about by another passenger, fear of missing some instruction and wandering into a restricted area, a 'no go' zone or the wrong bloody seat. Fear of being the subject of crew sternness...fear of being offloaded for no fathomable reason....
Rather than working with the paying passenger,it seems airports, airlines and crews are often working against them. Even if the personal involved exude a formulaic politeness there remains a sense they can easily become the smiling assassin the moment you do something really silly and unthinking like get up to get that book out of the overhead locker while the aircraft is taxing!! Passengers are human. They make mistakes. Often. But they're not terrorists and they generally don't mean anyone any harm. Response to passenger transgressions can be disproportionate.
Lest there be any doubt about where i stand. I am ex military aircrew and was involved in safety briefings and cabin crew management for over 20 years. I fully support Air NZ's stance in this case and the following NZ CAA PDF link https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legac...rs/AC121-6.pdf should leave no one in doubt about why, even you Planemike.
But even so, I think a lot more needs to be done to get what seems like a simple message, targeted properly. If all the issues in this thread are anything to go by passengers take in very little of what they are told in a safety briefing. In fact we know that and you only need to look at this image from a Southwest Airlines emergency to accept there is something wrong with the method of delivery, that leads to execution failure.
A Southwest Airlines airplane suffered a major engine failure. Engine shrapnel pierced the airplane's fuselage, blew out a window, and caused the cabin to depressurize. One passenger died. Some passengers wore their oxygen masks incorrectly during the emergency landing, according to a former flight attendant.
And, no matter how able bodied someone may be , I have instructed new cabin crew on the opening of main exit doors and it can take them several attempts before they literally get the swing of it. How do you think Mrs Jones would do even if she listened intently to everything she was told, with smoke, flames, darkness, screaming, unusual orientation, and the resistance of an armed slide. It would be a pious hope that a 2 min brief would help but in the absence of anything else...it is the best that can be done. I would really like to hear other ideas about safety briefings and how we can be engage passengers in this necessary process. With all the advertorial nonsense and puffery being used by airlines in their safety briefing (Air NZ, I'm looking at you) it has all become form over substance and Miss 'fingers in her ears' is symptomatic of the problem,
By the way Planemike. You several times mentioned passengers as if they were being disrespected in the manner that military personnel might be as C130 passengers. I can tell you right now, nothing could be further from the truth. Our crews showed a great deal of respect to the men and women of our Defence and Police forces. There were rules and there was discipline but as officers and senior NCO's our smiles were genuine and the care and respect for our enlisted charges undaunting. If airport authorities, and airlines and their crews could achieve half the level of respect for their passengers, we might get somewhere.
Apologies for the long post. Gulp!
Last edited by Lord Farringdon; 13th May 2019 at 12:00. Reason: Replace 'each other' with 'their passengers'.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
some years ago I made one of my less frequent short haul flights. Manchester to Malaga and return on Monarch. On our outbound leg safety briefing live by cabin staff I would estimate just over 70% of pax around me we’re apparently paying attention. The return leg a fortnight later it was the pre recorded version which had about 20% apparent attention. Not scientific but apposite I think.
Be lucky
David
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not totally relevant to the OP but this thread has digressed a bit.
some years ago I made one of my less frequent short haul flights. Manchester to Malaga and return on Monarch. On our outbound leg safety briefing live by cabin staff I would estimate just over 70% of pax around me we’re apparently paying attention. The return leg a fortnight later it was the pre recorded version which had about 20% apparent attention. Not scientific but apposite I think.
Be lucky
David
Hi David, re your post 13th May. Monarch were rightly, very highly regarded as an Airline & their safety training & procedures were most professional in all respects. It was Company policy, that full manual pre flight safety briefings were completed on a regular basis. As you noted, these received far more interest form the pax & assisted to keep the Cabin Crew fully current with all procedures. Such a great pity indeed that Monarch are no longer operating.
Last edited by kaikohe76; 13th May 2019 at 22:10.
Armato was traveling from Phoenix to Los Angeles in 2010 with bottles of pumped breast milk for her 7-month-old son when she was stopped at a security checkpoint at Sky Harbor International Airport.
In both these cases the airlines have settled with the claimants but these events happen daily. This approach pervades both the airline and the airport industry and any of us on this forum could find many other cases that amount to no more than abuse of authority by airlines, airport authorities and/or individual crew members. Post 911, we SLF (a derogatory term that should not be used- that's for another discussion) have become the threat. Within every airport and aircraft cabin is a potential threat to be identified, searched, denigrated, caged and heaved off, arbitarily in some cases with little or no recourse.
In both these cases the airlines have settled with the claimants but these events happen daily. This approach pervades both the airline and the airport industry and any of us on this forum could find many other cases that amount to no more than abuse of authority by airlines, airport authorities and/or individual crew members. Post 911, we SLF (a derogatory term that should not be used- that's for another discussion) have become the threat. Within every airport and aircraft cabin is a potential threat to be identified, searched, denigrated, caged and heaved off, arbitarily in some cases with little or no recourse.
Pilots and crew also have to go through security, and I have seen their fair share of yoghurts and liquids confiscated. Those including me who sometimes ‘beeped’ the gate have to go back through and remove shoes, belts hankies etc; been there, done that many times - and we have to do it every day or night that we go to work ! Occasionally, frustrated crews have thrown said yoghurt at the security staff or onto the floor and been suspended and had their airside pass confiscated as a result. At some airports, crew are not allowed to have duty free goods, and are subjected to a very detailed search of all their bags and cases to check - much more thorough than the passengers.
But in my nearly 20 years’ as a pilot flying with three (UK) airlines, two of them long-haul, I can honestly say that our airline crews have been polite, diplomatic and respectful to passengers. On my most recent flight we had a chap who was a right pain in the arse for 7 hours but our Purser and No 1 were unfailingly polite and respectful with him, and did everything they could for him - and we contacted Medilink three times - even though it was quite obvious that he was faking it and just wanted freebies.
I don’t know exactly what happened in this OP, but as a passenger myself, positioning on other airlines, I have never experienced any cabin crew being rude to me nor anyone else. Cabin crew do have to TELL passengers to do certain things and ensure they do them, but this is for very good safety reasons. You cannot spend time having a chat and negotiating with each of 320 passengers whether to put their seatbelt on. Passengers are excited to be going on holiday and they are not thinking about safety. The pilots and crew are there primarily to ensure their safety and remind the passengers what they need to do. Safety might be optional on a train or in a bus but it is not optional on an aircraft.
PS; Putting the tray tables away, seat backs upright, window blinds open, seat belts on, earphones off, and many more instructions the crew will give, are all purely done for safety reasons.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PRAM announcements are universally ignored IMHO. They are a curse. One thing we all may forget on this topic is the old adage that always comes back to me, it's never been proven wrong. No matter how smart a passenger is, once they get a ticket, they lose 10-20IQ points, a boarding card takes another 20IQ points off them!
I bet even Albert Einstein would have made a fool of himself flying.....
It really brings the worst out in most folks...
I bet even Albert Einstein would have made a fool of himself flying.....
It really brings the worst out in most folks...
PRAM announcements are universally ignored IMHO. They are a curse. One thing we all may forget on this topic is the old adage that always comes back to me, it's never been proven wrong. No matter how smart a passenger is, once they get a ticket, they lose 10-20IQ points, a boarding card takes another 20IQ points off them!
I bet even Albert Einstein would have made a fool of himself flying.....
It really brings the worst out in most folks...
I bet even Albert Einstein would have made a fool of himself flying.....
It really brings the worst out in most folks...
Overall I think the thread has been very interesting......
By the way Planemike. You several times mentioned passengers as if they were being disrespected in the manner that military personnel might be as C130 passengers. I can tell you right now, nothing could be further from the truth. Our crews showed a great deal of respect to the men and women of our Defence and Police forces. There were rules and there was discipline but as officers and senior NCO's our smiles were genuine and the care and respect for our enlisted charges undaunting. If airport authorities, and airlines and their crews could achieve half the level of respect for their passengers, we might get somewhere.
No more no less . Yes you are correct it is the heavy handedness that I am pointing out. Also the attitude "I am right, even when I am wrong".
Last edited by Planemike; 14th May 2019 at 12:48.
For the avoidance of doubt, here is how the UK ANO sees disruptive pax:
Acting in a disruptive manner
245. A person must not while in an aircraft—
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew of the aircraft;
(b) behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards a member of the crew of the aircraft; or
(c) intentionally interfere with the performance by a member of the crew of the aircraft of the crew member’s duties.
The pax who refuse to comply with crew instructions (issued lawfully under the authority of the aircraft commander, iaw the Chicago and Tokyo Conventions) are usually dealt with under (c) because the crew member can't carry on with the rest of their duties while being delayed by someone who won't do as required. It is also a distraction, which we know is not a good thing when it comes to safety. Matters are made worse if the cabin crew need to contact the commander, whose attention should be on the conduct of the flight, not diverting time and thought to potential delays or diversions.
Other countries have similar laws, for example the USA:
Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 state that "no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."
Acting in a disruptive manner
245. A person must not while in an aircraft—
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew of the aircraft;
(b) behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards a member of the crew of the aircraft; or
(c) intentionally interfere with the performance by a member of the crew of the aircraft of the crew member’s duties.
The pax who refuse to comply with crew instructions (issued lawfully under the authority of the aircraft commander, iaw the Chicago and Tokyo Conventions) are usually dealt with under (c) because the crew member can't carry on with the rest of their duties while being delayed by someone who won't do as required. It is also a distraction, which we know is not a good thing when it comes to safety. Matters are made worse if the cabin crew need to contact the commander, whose attention should be on the conduct of the flight, not diverting time and thought to potential delays or diversions.
Other countries have similar laws, for example the USA:
Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 state that "no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."
Thank you, Fortissimo, for helping us out with that clarification.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a passenger who is generally not in the exit row, I want to be confident that the people in that row have paid attention. Sure, they might not remember what to do in an emergency, but I reckon a person who paid attention is just that little bit safer than one who didn't. So - no attention paid=get moved out of that row. As the old joke has it "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you"
As a side issue, I'd love it if there was some extra fine-print on *why* some things are as they are. It never occurred to me *why* we inflate the life jacket after exiting rather than before, but those drownings made it clear. And how firm IS "pulling down firmly" on the oxygen mask. I'm scared I'll rip it out of its socket/attachment point. and while I'm at it, if those oxygen masks were moulded with an obvious extra nose-shaped bump rather than being round my guess is that everyone would cover both nose and mouth instinctively. But what would I know, that airlines are interested in? Not much I suspect.
As a side issue, I'd love it if there was some extra fine-print on *why* some things are as they are. It never occurred to me *why* we inflate the life jacket after exiting rather than before, but those drownings made it clear. And how firm IS "pulling down firmly" on the oxygen mask. I'm scared I'll rip it out of its socket/attachment point. and while I'm at it, if those oxygen masks were moulded with an obvious extra nose-shaped bump rather than being round my guess is that everyone would cover both nose and mouth instinctively. But what would I know, that airlines are interested in? Not much I suspect.
