4 ms·

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 pol

by 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.
      - Sophira 3y ago
        "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I... kind of hate this. I can understand it, but I hate it nonetheless. I don't think it can ever be a universal truth, though. Of course, it does require discipline to know the difference between "the needs of the many" and "the needs of the corporate entity you're working for".
      - nrb 3y ago
        > 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). It could be that people ignore it because the rail network is asking you to break the social contract at no benefit to you whatsoever, only an increased risk of a negative encounter (at best getting cursed out and at worst how long until someone gets shoved for blocking the walking half?) The real win here would be for everyone who is able, to walk down the damn escalator.
xattt 3y ago
The remedy would be to have a rapid replacement of all your belongings.
NamTaf 3y ago
The counter-argument is that in some circumstances, is no certainty that a fire will not break out at some arbitrary time after the plane has landed and come to a stop. And if one does break out, there is no certainty around how long there is between ignition and Shit Going Badly, so the prevailing result is to get the plane stationary, get everyone off as quickly as possible, and then assess the situation. edit for clarity: I understand the issue you face regarding your medication being trapped on the plane and believe airlines should indeed have a duty of care to ensure you have rapid access to replacement medication at their expense, but I'm specifically addressing why they have the policy of telling people to not grab carry-on items during evacuation.

by dheera 3y ago

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.
    - Sophira 3y ago
      "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I... kind of hate this. I can understand it, but I hate it nonetheless. I don't think it can ever be a universal truth, though. Of course, it does require discipline to know the difference between "the needs of the many" and "the needs of the corporate entity you're working for".
    - nrb 3y ago
      > 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). It could be that people ignore it because the rail network is asking you to break the social contract at no benefit to you whatsoever, only an increased risk of a negative encounter (at best getting cursed out and at worst how long until someone gets shoved for blocking the walking half?) The real win here would be for everyone who is able, to walk down the damn escalator.

xattt 3y ago

The remedy would be to have a rapid replacement of all your belongings.

NamTaf 3y ago

The counter-argument is that in some circumstances, is no certainty that a fire will not break out at some arbitrary time after the plane has landed and come to a stop. And if one does break out, there is no certainty around how long there is between ignition and Shit Going Badly, so the prevailing result is to get the plane stationary, get everyone off as quickly as possible, and then assess the situation. edit for clarity: I understand the issue you face regarding your medication being trapped on the plane and believe airlines should indeed have a duty of care to ensure you have rapid access to replacement medication at their expense, but I'm specifically addressing why they have the policy of telling people to not grab carry-on items during evacuation.