Hacker News Reader

Comment by -warren | Hacker News Reader

Story time. Last summer I flew from ATL to SFO on a brand new Airbus. Pretty cool plane! Halfway across the count I had the obligatory restroom break. In the head, I noticed an ashtray. I was confused -- "smoking has been banned in planes doe decades. Why is there an ashtray here?"

I flagged down a flight attendant and asked them. Their answer was that yes smoking is banned, and it's a $250 fine. But EVERY SINGLE TRIP from ATL to SFO, someone decided it is worth it and the ash trays give them a safe place to put it out. The flight attendants wait outside the lav after the smoke alarm goes off with the ticket.

View on HN

It's actually mandated by the FAA that an ashtray be present in the restrooms:

> (g) Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of the airplane, lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays located conspicuously on or near the entry side of each lavatory door, except that one ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavatory served.

And the plane literally cannot fly with an inoperable or missing ashtray.

what makes an inoperable ashtray? full? holes in the bottom?

I suppose the idea makes sense but the wording is amusing - I think of ashtrays as a static object, I can't imagine myself "operating" an ashtray

They are typically a V shaped receptacle that is flush with the wall and flips out.

The hinge jamming or becoming detached would make it inoperable.

Ok now thats wild!

It's counterintuitive, but I've heard an explanation that the alternative - they decide to dispose their cigarette into the bin full of flammable paper waste - is much worse.

Possibly also: in toilets antifreeze such as methanol diluted in water can be used for freeze protection at low concentrations but is flammable and hazardous at higher concentrations.

If you're wealthy enough $250 is just the price of smoking (especially for someone that can afford a 1st class seat). I wonder why they don't have escalating non-monetary punishments?

Jim Simons got so tired of paying these, he bought a private plane to save money. To say he was a prolific smoker is an understatement.

Gross.

I assumed you were talking about who I know as james Simons, but just googled him to make sure there wasn't someone else, and yeah - first pic on Google is him with a cigarette. Also learned it was lung cancer that took him out, though he did make it to 86 which isn't bad.

Then there's George Harrison, who died of lung cancer way too young.

Jim Simons, mathematician and hedge fund manager (1938–2024) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Simons

You'd think they'd just ban repeat offenders.

> ash trays give them a safe place to put it out

ha. i always thought they were remnants from old airplane plans that were too much effort to update to remove them. thanks for that

The ashtrays are there, even today, because it is suspected that this flight [0] went down when someone disposed a cigarette butt in the lavatory trash, causing a fire.

A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_820

> A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood.

It's enormously expensive for an airframe manufacturer to deal with the fallout of a crash.

There aren't any engineers in an airframe manufacturer willing to sign off on a faulty design. Some good engineers are so worried about that they get shifted to working on conceptual projects.

I took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings.

> took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings

I don't believe they convinced the FAA twin is safer, just that it meets the necessary safety margins. Airlines want them to meet that regulation for fuel efficiency, but I'd want a source that they're actually safe-er, instead of simply safe enough

Boeing proved it safer. The reason is the increased complexity of more engines increased the risk of a major problem.

My source is I was told this by the engineers who where involved.

Now see, the worst part is, I believe you. Your username pops up frequently enough, and is recognizable enough, that I consider you a reasonable, thoughtful person. And the rationale makes sense - juggling multiple engines is extremely complex

But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source

> But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source

googling "why are twin engine jets safer than quad engine jets?" should provide the needed information.

Not necessarily safer but safe enough. A modern 4 engine jet should still be safer than the 2 engine equivalent

tldr for the wikipedia article:

this plane did not crash, it made an emergency landing 2 miles from the airport in an onion field. Only 10 crew and 1 passenger survived. The other 123 souls aboard died of smoke/CO inhalation from the fire.

the sole surviving passenger, 21-year-old Ricardo Trajano, disobeyed the instructions to remain in his seat.

Obligatory Admiral Cloudberg blog link (they're strangely hard to google): https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-crash-of-varig-fligh...

Amazing that lighters are allowed in the cabin

They're hardly more dangerous than a lithium battery!

Can a flick of the thumb create a flame with the kinds of lithium-ion batteries allowed on planes?

Mate, are you joking?

Do you seriously think a fag lighter with a self extinguishing flame is more dangerous than a burning lithium battery.

Seriously?

I seriously think that the kinds of batteries (intentionally) allowed on planes are designed to avoid bursting into flame. Even if such batteries store more potential energy than common pocket lighters.

I.e. a lighter is likely more dangerous in practice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com