And then they wonder why people try to take their bags during an emergency off boarding.... Because they know they will not see it for a long time if ever again.
Stupid policy
The complaint is about the FAA hold passenger items after the emergnecy is over while they "investigate"
The process should be
Evac -> Fire Dept clears the plane > Airline gets passengers there stuff
it should not be
Evac > Fire Dept > NTSB Looks at things > FAA Looks at things > Someone 3 years later Passengers get their things
because the FAA as the latter policy, people will be more prone to try to take their stuff, then if they knew once evacuated they would get their belongings before leaving the airport, not at some undetermined time later
FAA Policy increases the danger for everyone.
It's understandable that when confronted with an irresponsible behaviour of one particular person we tend to blame that person for being irresponsible.
But the fact is that there will be a given number of irresponsible people around.
It's also irresponsible to set up rules in such a way to make it more likely that some irresponsible people will do irresponsible things. Especially when there may be other rules that could reduce the chances.
There's also "why are you not giving people their bags promptly, you assholes".
Also important medication can get left behind, as someone else mentioned. It's worth some risk to delay for some seconds in that case, where math can tell you the exact amounts.
It's another thing to claim that the idiots are doing the math.
To describe throwing a ball, you may use calculus.
But if you then reason that people who throw things must know calculus, that's going to lead to incorrect inferences and decisions.
(as you may know it's not allowed to say "correlation != causation" on HN so I'm not saying that)
Did someone say that?
If someone keeps a bag because they don't trust the airline, that's an emotional decision, not a math one.
Do you think the FAA's policy is a problem?
1. If people are worried nobody will get their bags for a long time, they'll be less likely to follow safety protocols and leave them behind.
2. It's bad to take people's things away for a long time.
3. Even if you assume people will obey, it can cause more harm than good in non-dire situations.
None of those reasons require the passengers to be notably logical.
And I have no idea what correlation you're talking about.
People do not worry more or less because of some particular 1 in a billion billion event that happened yesterday. Well, maybe yesterday, but wait a day!
On the other hand, revising rules and regulations would have real costs for you the taxpayer.
> On the other hand, revising rules and regulations would have real costs for you the taxpayer.
I am happy to pay the cost of revising a few paragraphs so that the regulation stops screwing people over! Don't steal people's most important bags! If that needs a rules change, it won't be a complicated one. Once the plane is safe to be on, get everyone's carry-ons within a few hours.
It was an estimate for an individual.
>The premise of this conversation is that this is the regular process, right?
The premise seems to be that if somewhere some policy changes, people will not feel insecure in a (purported) emergency and grab their bags.
But they will, because they don't have a time machine to see it will be ok, and they don't trust the authorities, by assumption.
Approximately nobody in an actual emergency has any idea of the details of FAA policies or is running through their logical implications, come ON.
The reason people do stupid things is they are in shock and they revert to ingrained habits and behavior because it's really hard to do any higher level thinking at that moment.
It certainly occurs to me now. I'm not going to pull an overhead item. But I may be more inclined to grab my laptop if it's already in the seat in front of me.
More productively: if you can honestly say that passengers will get their onboard items within 7 days of an emergency during the in-flight safety message, maybe you'll influence behavior.
You can't honestly say that...that's why it's an emergency.
Everybody knows that, so you can't change behavior.
It's been a couple of hours since the incident. I think calling three years is premature.
Things can move from “ugh this is annoying, where is the truck with the stairs” to “the landing gear caught on fire after all” very quickly.
https://www.insider.com/russian-plane-crash-aeroflot-passeng...
It was quite possibly still an evacuation, in which time is of the essence. There is no "moderate urgency" evacuation protocol, and an important part of the evacuation protocol is "LEAVE YOUR LUGGAGE" (an instruction shouted continuously by the cabin crew until everyone's out).
Would you rather the crew deliberate for a few moments on how likely it is that the plane still catches on fire vs. the inconvenience of not being able to bring baggage? And what if they misjudge it?
You'll live without your laptop for a few days; you might not survive carrying it out of a burning aircraft.
That said, my laptop, being sufficiently valuable, is also automatically and constantly backed up, so I'm not too worried about losing it in an emergency, just like I'm not worried about someone stealing it from me on the subway which I suspect is a more likely occurrence.
The last thing everybody on the plane needs is you fetching that one important small thing from the overhead bin/under your seat/the aisle after you dropped it/...
yes if you did not pay for the items, it will not cost you anything to replace the items then doubt you would think about them...
it will be shocking for you to learn that some times people travel with possessions that are not paid for by other people.
I think the argument was that there aren't enough to make the contrived reasoning why the FAA is stupid for their obscure policies...fly.
There is a TON of intangible loss when property is taken from the owner, does not matter if it is the FAA per policy, or a thief. Just writing a check for the value of the property does not in reality make someone whole
Your original comment expressed concern about people who don't get compensated by the actual owner of their hardware; I'm saying that the airline will very likely reimburse these for the monetary value of what they've lost.
Also, property theft and air travel safety investigations are a slightly different matter in my view.
The goal during an evacuation is to get every one off in 90seconds or less, since it’s possible there’s a fire, which has the potential to become extremely dangerous very quickly. Consider how long it takes to board a plane with luggage.
We’re all really quick to assume this is simply bureaucrats inventing rules to annoy us.
He’s saying that because of policies like those (the FAA holding the plane), people are going to want to take their bags in an emergency situation.
No the airline/FAA won't steal your stuff, that's not the concern. The problem is whatever you leave on the plane will remain there until the end of the investigation, which means that you can basically write all of it off for a month. Have the rule say that the airline will be on the hook to return all belongings within 48 hours and people would likely be much more comfortable leaving their things on the place.
It's not rational to try and save "things" in an emergency situation, but neither is a company/FAA just shrugging and saying "you'll get your belongings when you'll get your belongings".
Now their driver’s licenses and their credit cards are all in handbags around seat 34A/B. They won’t be able to rent a car, make calls, or even prove their lawful entry to the soil they’re on.
I almost always have my wallet and a phone in trousers and/or jacket pockets anyway, so this is likely never be a problem for me, but not everyone even has a pocket on their clothings.
Reasons they may need the bags: Possible interference (bombs, sabotage and such). Weight and balance of the aircraft. Possible fires. Possible crash-related evidence in those bags (ie bags exposed to G/chemicals/fires etc). There are any number of scenarios where the bags might be useful to the investigation. Until those are ruled out, and ruled out properly though the process, the survivors can wait.
Just be glad the FAA isn't confiscating clothing. They can do that. In cases of fire or chemical exposure they very well can confiscate clothing that might contain useful evidence. In some circumstances even blood samples could be taken (chemical exposure etc). Got a cellphone video of the landing? It is in their power to take that too. Planes are as safe as they are because crash investigators have carte blanche. Passenger inconvenience should never trump that proven process.
You could argue “well they should rapidly diagnose and make a decision” and, sure, but that diagnosis is exactly the question isn’t it?
"§ 831.12 Access to and release of wreckage, records, mail, and cargo
(a) Only persons authorized by the NTSB IIC may be permitted access to wreckage, records, mail, or cargo.
(b) Wreckage, records, mail, and cargo in the NTSB's custody will be released when the NTSB determines it has no further need for such items. Recipients of released wreckage must sign an acknowledgement of release provided by the NTSB."
So if the NTSB decides they don't need a piece of cargo, they have the option to release it from custody.
Agree it is a stupid policy. As long as there is no fire, at least let people grab their carry-ons.
If there is actually an imminent threat to life, such as a fire, of course all of these things should be left behind. But I'm of the opinion that in no event should anyone's health be compromised in the name of a blanket policy to collect "evidence".
In short:
save lives >> protect health >> collect evidence
Especially when those policies will obviously piss off a bunch of people, I can either assume those people who spend decades thinking about X don’t know what they’re doing, or I can say “hey, I probably know way less than they do.” That doesn’t mean I don’t inquire/don’t question, but I think jumping from an unattributed off-hand remark in a CBS article to “FAA is dumb and they’d have let me die on the tarmac” deserves some skepticism too.
I am genuinely curious about what exactly this policy is, why it exists, and how they handle cases like yours. I don’t think “assume the people who investigate aviation incidents aren’t aware there might be medicine onboard” is a good starting point for that type of inquiry.
An example where I’m from is train station escalators. There is an unwritten social rule that you stand on the left, and let anyone who is in a hurry walk down on the right. This benefits the individuals because if you’re in a hurry you can get through faster, and if you’re not you don’t care. But the rail company has constant announcements telling people not to do this, and to stand on both sides of the escalator, because a full escalator clears the platform much faster.
These announcements are largely ignored. No individual cares about clearing the platform, even though it is the best thing for the rail network as a whole (crowded platforms cause delays). I would also argue that the needs of the few people running to get to work are more important than improving network efficiency. But the job of the very intelligent, well informed boffins who make the announcements is to make the trains run on time, so the announcements continue.
In this case too, I think the FAA have a different set of priorities to the passengers, and they really don’t care about your medicine. Probably if there is an emergency they will send an employee back into the plane to grab your bag, as a one-off exception. If they’re too slow and you die, too bad—-should have had extra medicine in your shoe.
Policy is created to achieve institutional goals; individual needs are an afterthought at best.
I... kind of hate this. I can understand it, but I hate it nonetheless. I don't think it can ever be a universal truth, though.
Of course, it does require discipline to know the difference between "the needs of the many" and "the needs of the corporate entity you're working for".
It could be that people ignore it because the rail network is asking you to break the social contract at no benefit to you whatsoever, only an increased risk of a negative encounter (at best getting cursed out and at worst how long until someone gets shoved for blocking the walking half?)
The real win here would be for everyone who is able, to walk down the damn escalator.
That won't happen. The OP clearly lives in Japan, probably Tokyo. That kind of thing never happens here; it's an American phenomenon, and probably various other not-so-civilized nations. Here, breaking the social contract in this way just makes people annoyed and gets you mean stares at the very worst.
Also, he's mainly talking about people walking up the escalator, not down. Many stations only have one escalator to the platform, and it's usually going up, since it's easy to walk down stairs.
Finally, it's only certain rail companies that have this policy; there's a bunch of different train operators.
I've found the opposite, actually. Specialized fields of expertise are the less able to make policy because, in general, they fail to consider the big picture. It's all tradeoffs for everything and more than just one "expert" should have a say at any policy.
It would be like letting somebody with a specialized expertise like corporate law design a product. They are an expert at not getting sued, so we should totally listen to only them, right? Could you imagine such a product? It would be nothing but legal disclaimers and would be so watered down that it is completely useless.
edit for clarity: I understand the issue you face regarding your medication being trapped on the plane and believe airlines should indeed have a duty of care to ensure you have rapid access to replacement medication at their expense, but I'm specifically addressing why they have the policy of telling people to not grab carry-on items during evacuation.