4 ms·

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

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.
      - getoj 3y ago
        It’s worth remembering that there is often a conflict of interest between the system and the individual. 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.

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.
    - getoj 3y ago
      It’s worth remembering that there is often a conflict of interest between the system and the individual. 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.