the FAA should get rid of a bunch of now-useless safety regulations

Most of these rules are from the 1970's. That's why they have to show you how to put on the dadgum seatbelt. Hello, it's been law that every car has to come with a seatbelt for how many years now?

It just goes on and on... us frequent fliers have heard the script many times. It reminds me of Dr. Sheldon Cooper on "Big Bang Theory" with his geiger counter, emergency bag, evacuation plans with a quarterly practice LOL.

It's a funny show but this is pretty stupid in real life. The vast vast majority of flights arrive with no need for any of the emergency evacuation equipment or the flight attendants. Ever been on a Beechcraft 1900? There is no flight attendant. The pilot does a shorter version of the safety briefing, and upon arrival, opens the door so you can leave. It's not hard!

Granted, in flight, the cabin employees could be salesman, hawking drinks, snacks, guided tours, etc. (like Allegiant Airlines), or they could be surly and hand out complimentary drinks or just sit there and do crossword puzzles.

All this stuff like you have to have one F/A per 50 passengers (except 19 or less hence the B1900), one door per 110 passengers, be able to evacuate the plane in 90 seconds, can't store anything on the floor under your legs, exit row briefing, life preservers, rafts, blah blah blah, all this stuff is from the 1970's!

Have you noticed that since the 70's, planes rarely crash? And when they do crash, everyone gets killed!

What's the point of all this emergency evacuation if it doesn't happen? It's just a big waste of money. How much of our ticket costs are for this? I'm guessing 20%.

 

Seriously? Or are you just trolling?

What about CO 1404 a few years back where everybody lived, primarily because they were able to get out quickly before the overhead bins melted onto the seats?

 

Ask Sully what he thinks.

 

For the vast majority of the members here, indeed, much of what is announced is redundant. Invariably, however, there are a few folks on a few flights each year who ask for help with their seatbelts. They are slightly different than belts in cars.

In terms of everyone dying in a crash, AF358 is a testament to the contrary as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

 

OK, you found a couple of exceptions to the rule, big deal. Every rule has its exceptions (even in religion, it depends on the church)... anyway, if a few extra people die every now and then, it's not going to impact the overall safety rate of modern airliners in any measurable way. One person doesn't know how to put on an airplane seat belt? Big deal! It's not worth the time it takes to tell billions of passenger-flights something they already know to save that one person from hassling a flight attendant or the seatmate "hey I'm 76 years old and this is my first flight, how do I put on the seatbelt?"

I'll give an example: remember when 737-200's had built-in airstairs? I saw them myself as a kid in the 70's. The plane comes up to the "gate" (just some spot on the ramp), a stewardess in the plane opens the door, pushes a button, and the stairs come out! It's cool!

737's today (and for quite some time) do not have built-in airstairs. If you don't have a jetway, some employee at the airport has to push stairs up to the plane. This is a big problem if the airport doesn't have airstairs and you landed there unexpectedly! Then people are stuck, and the potential for violence and disease in the cabin goes up. So why are those built-in airstairs gone? Because carrying them around adds weight to the plane, and that increases the fuel bill. Gas is expensive, therefore the advantage of flying around with built-in airstairs that are merely a convenience 99.99...% of the time is just too expensive.

Do the same thing for most of the safety stuff on board, and you'll reach the same conclusion. The weight of the stuff and its costs (to buy it, check it, test it, and the fuel to carry it around and never use it) isn't worth those costs. So get rid of it and save gas, which saves money!

 

Going without research I am going with more Air Carrier incidents result in the survival of most/all passengers than accidents that result in the death of all.

 

It is very easy to be cavalier about something that has not affected you. If the one life saved by all the expenditures were yours or a loved one, I don't think money or costs would enter the equation.

I am as fiscally conservative a person as you can get, but I have no problem with the airline expenditures if the possibility of saving one life exists. I don't think there is a price you can put on human life. If my ticket costs more because of that, I have no problem with that and I would bet that I am not in the minority here.[/quote]

 

I say: let's scrap those emergency exits. Sure, I won't get the big legroom seat anymore, but it saves money. Also, why develop special flame-resistant seat materials. It's so rare that a plane catches on fire. While we're at it, that the pilot still walks around the plane before the flight is so arcane. Surely the people who load the bags can give it a quick look-over while they wait for the truck with the bags. And what's with all those fire trucks stationed at the airport... what a waste! All it takes is a guy with a fire extinguisher.

 

Don't forget in winter, since the de-icing staff are spraying the whole plane anyways, they automatically should be doing a walkover too!

Something tells me the OP is trolling .__.

 

Of course money enters into the equation. Would you buy an airline ticket from Dallas to Houston if it costs $500 but it's extra-safe (well maybe you would), but the vast majority of people would drive there and save lots of money and vastly increase their risk of getting killed along the way on I-45.

 

no, not trolling, and there's nothing wrong with the pilot walking around the plane... that's a silly counter-argument... how much does that walk-around add to fuel costs? None, obviously!

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/data/table6_2012.html

In refererence to silly arguments, this is in reply to the " when they do crash, everybody gets killed!" statement.

Fact is in the current "safety culture" accidents are, like you said, very rare, but contrary to what you said about fatalities, the vast majority of incidents are runway overruns, gear collapse, severe turbulence damage and surface area collisions(A380 anyone). And those are exactly the type of accidents where annoyingly redundant seatbelt demonstrations save lives.

Nobody is going to argue that that a seatbelt will save your life on a passenger jet during a CFIT* situation but to change the rules because of that is asinine at best.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain

 

I never said to take out the seatbelts. I'm talking about stuff like life preservers, FAA minimum 6 flight attendants on a 767 with virtually no service in coach (could be done by 4).

Did you know the airplane seats are heavier so they won't come unbolted from the floor in the event of a crash-landing? That feature (which uses more fuel on every single flight) may have saved a few people in the Delta L-1011 crash at DFW in the 80's. Since then, planes never crash like that because they have windshear detectors. Now when the same type of weather hits, the pilots fly through it (or around) and don't crash.

The outside of the plane can have lots of composite materials because they're light. Why not the seats inside the plane?

 

Troll

 

I flew in a handbuilt plane with just seatbelts for safety, and I survived just fine. I sat in the co-pilot seat, and the plane builder/pilot flew the plane. Scary!!!!

 

Yes, every time I've been diverted I curl up into a fetal position, start sucking my thumb, and repeat over and over in my mind "Please no violence or disease this time! Please no violence or disease this time!"

 

ROFL