Hacker News Reader

Comment by ShadowBanThis01 | Hacker News Reader

The announcements are a failure because they DON'T SAY WHY. Nobody is going to take it seriously unless they're given a reason to. People might think it's about their fingers getting pinched or something.

We need a word for uselessnessification. WTF are they afraid of, that they omitted the critical information from the announcement?

View on HN

The reason is that many people have flying anxiety and saying stuff like "this could potentially cause a fire on the plane" will trigger it by having them imagine worst-case scenarios (that are additionally extremely unlikely to happen). I've heard "Well they shouldn't be on a plane if they're so anxious" as a response, but that is not a workable solution.

The safety announcements are already full of worst-case scenarios, like cabin depressurisation, emergency landing and evacuation, and landing on water.

That's not really true: they never say the word 'crash', and even the way that they phrase things make them seem more mundane than they actually are. You do need to know how to operate your mask; you don't need to know every possible way the plane might burst into flame.

And you're pretending that "plane might burst into flame" is the best phrasing available for the danger posed by damaged batteries. Absurd.

It's a way more workable solution than having the plane burn down.

Most recent flights I've been on, it was specifically stated it was a fire hazard in the safety announcement

Reply on news.ycombinator.com