8 ms·

>>He said they were told the Federal Aviation Administration has a hold on the plane so nothing can move on it or from it. And then they wonder why people try

>>He said they were told the Federal Aviation Administration has a hold on the plane so nothing can move on it or from it. 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

ethanbond 3y ago
Definitely an unfortunate policy but isn’t it possible (at least in some cases) that doing so would taint the evidence of a problem that put hundreds of people at risk?
- wkat4242 3y ago
  But it doesn't really. The bags are nowhere near the gear
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    In this instance yes, but presumably the policy is a general one for all sorts of aviation incidents. You could argue “well they should rapidly diagnose and make a decision” and, sure, but that diagnosis is exactly the question isn’t it?
    - systemvoltage 3y ago
      Than should be at the discretion of the investigators. Why have a blanket policy?
      - tjohns 3y ago
        It literally is at the discretion of the investigators. See 49 CFR 831.12(b): "§ 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.
- dheera 3y ago
  Uh, no. My medications in my carry-on, without which I will have serious cardiac issues, are not related to the problem or "evidence". Agree it is a stupid policy. As long as there is no fire, at least let people grab their carry-ons.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    That’s a good point! I’d be genuinely shocked if the policy didn’t account for a way to solve that.
    - dheera 3y ago
      Yeah my point is, there are a whole lot of other things people tend to have in their carry-ons that are critical for their health. CPAP machines, CGMs, knee braces, allergy-specific emergency food, adult diapers, insulin, epi pens, the list goes on. 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
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        As a general heuristic, I’ve found that people who create policies in a specialized field of expertise tend to think through those policies a whole lot more than internet commentators like myself do. 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.
joshstrange 3y ago
Can you imagine leaving your laptop on a plane? In a situation like this I'd almost certainly grab that and try to take it with me. Airlines are already woefully incompetent in the best of times with your luggage, what's even the timeline for getting this stuff back? I don't buy the whole "we need it for the investigation", buddy if something in my carry-on stopped the front landing gear from opening you've got bigger issues. It's already absurd they still go on about "airplane mode" with phones/tablets. The airline industry is so horrible to deal with.
- vanattab 3y ago
  The investigation is not the primary reason your told the leave your stuff its to avoid delays in an evacuation. Imagine that the plane was less lucky I fire had started in the front nose cone section. Then people trying to get there bags could jeopardize the safety of the passengers in the front of the plane.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    You have completely miss understood the complaint. 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.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      In other words: 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.
graypegg 3y ago
Why do you assume a low-margin high-risk industry implements “stupid policies” just to bother you and steal your laptop? 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.
- TobyTheDog123 3y ago
  OP is saying that the policy of the luggage being held by the FAA is stupid, not that preventing people from taking their luggage in an emergency is stupid. The emergency is over: the plane landed. Everyone got off the plane. Give them back their luggage. 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.
  - marvin 3y ago
    And the policy certainly is stupid, as its second-order effects increase the risk that most of the passengers will die in the explosive fireball-like conflagration that could quickly follow a fire during evacuation.
- belval 3y ago
  I feel like you are taking the worst possible interpretation of the parent comment. 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".
  - numpad0 3y ago
dotnet00 3y ago
I wonder how that's supposed to work with things like government issued devices or even just corporate ones which aren't supposed to leave the possession of the person they've been issued to.
- lxgr 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure "I was on a plane crash and the cabin crew yelled at me to leave my luggage behind, per safety regulations" works as an excuse in most contexts.
- h4ckerle 3y ago
  If your institution hasn't got protocols for this, and you got sensitive documents and your laptop, it's their problem. For the one goverment issued laptop I worked with in my life (a german SINA type system which was qualified up to the german VS-NfD (the lowest goverment security standard equal to US restricted)) getting it into a secure state was as simple as removing a smartcard
sandworm101 3y ago
Zero sympathy. Any passenger who survived such an incident should render the investigation any help they ask for. An airliner suffered a major fault ... and everyone walked away. That only happened because of decades of safety culture. 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.

ethanbond 3y ago

Definitely an unfortunate policy but isn’t it possible (at least in some cases) that doing so would taint the evidence of a problem that put hundreds of people at risk?

wkat4242 3y ago
But it doesn't really. The bags are nowhere near the gear
- ethanbond 3y ago
  In this instance yes, but presumably the policy is a general one for all sorts of aviation incidents. You could argue “well they should rapidly diagnose and make a decision” and, sure, but that diagnosis is exactly the question isn’t it?
  - systemvoltage 3y ago
    Than should be at the discretion of the investigators. Why have a blanket policy?
    - tjohns 3y ago
      It literally is at the discretion of the investigators. See 49 CFR 831.12(b): "§ 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.
dheera 3y ago
Uh, no. My medications in my carry-on, without which I will have serious cardiac issues, are not related to the problem or "evidence". Agree it is a stupid policy. As long as there is no fire, at least let people grab their carry-ons.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  That’s a good point! I’d be genuinely shocked if the policy didn’t account for a way to solve that.
  - dheera 3y ago
    Yeah my point is, there are a whole lot of other things people tend to have in their carry-ons that are critical for their health. CPAP machines, CGMs, knee braces, allergy-specific emergency food, adult diapers, insulin, epi pens, the list goes on. 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
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      As a general heuristic, I’ve found that people who create policies in a specialized field of expertise tend to think through those policies a whole lot more than internet commentators like myself do. 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.

joshstrange 3y ago

Can you imagine leaving your laptop on a plane? In a situation like this I'd almost certainly grab that and try to take it with me. Airlines are already woefully incompetent in the best of times with your luggage, what's even the timeline for getting this stuff back? I don't buy the whole "we need it for the investigation", buddy if something in my carry-on stopped the front landing gear from opening you've got bigger issues. It's already absurd they still go on about "airplane mode" with phones/tablets. The airline industry is so horrible to deal with.

vanattab 3y ago
The investigation is not the primary reason your told the leave your stuff its to avoid delays in an evacuation. Imagine that the plane was less lucky I fire had started in the front nose cone section. Then people trying to get there bags could jeopardize the safety of the passengers in the front of the plane.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  You have completely miss understood the complaint. 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.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    In other words: 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.

graypegg 3y ago

Why do you assume a low-margin high-risk industry implements “stupid policies” just to bother you and steal your laptop? 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.

TobyTheDog123 3y ago
OP is saying that the policy of the luggage being held by the FAA is stupid, not that preventing people from taking their luggage in an emergency is stupid. The emergency is over: the plane landed. Everyone got off the plane. Give them back their luggage. 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.
- marvin 3y ago
  And the policy certainly is stupid, as its second-order effects increase the risk that most of the passengers will die in the explosive fireball-like conflagration that could quickly follow a fire during evacuation.
belval 3y ago
I feel like you are taking the worst possible interpretation of the parent comment. 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".
- numpad0 3y ago

dotnet00 3y ago

I wonder how that's supposed to work with things like government issued devices or even just corporate ones which aren't supposed to leave the possession of the person they've been issued to.

lxgr 3y ago
I'm pretty sure "I was on a plane crash and the cabin crew yelled at me to leave my luggage behind, per safety regulations" works as an excuse in most contexts.
h4ckerle 3y ago
If your institution hasn't got protocols for this, and you got sensitive documents and your laptop, it's their problem. For the one goverment issued laptop I worked with in my life (a german SINA type system which was qualified up to the german VS-NfD (the lowest goverment security standard equal to US restricted)) getting it into a secure state was as simple as removing a smartcard

sandworm101 3y ago

Zero sympathy. Any passenger who survived such an incident should render the investigation any help they ask for. An airliner suffered a major fault ... and everyone walked away. That only happened because of decades of safety culture. 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.