This issue regarding the abandoning of carryon luggage in an emergency is worth thinking about a little bit. For the reasons Mr. Smith has noted, plus many more, it is almost certain that people will be grabbing their valuables prior to heading for the exits, unless they are already themselves in extremis. Human greed is as instinctive as self preservation. I’m surely not exaggerating to say that it is certain that a statistically significant fraction of our fellow air travellers will value their own property over that of the (abstract) lives of the anonymous co-passengers surrounding them. This is especially true if the need for immediate evacuation is not obviously apparent to them. And given the propensity for many passengers to even push the limits for allowed carryon in the first place, it’s virtually certain that a chaotic fracas will ensue at the first hint of the need to leave the apparent comfort of the cabin. The strongest motivation isn’t limited to the mere monetary value of laptop computers. For some employers, the value of the data on those computers rivals the value of the actual employee carrying it. Thus it is not surprising that even the most genteel professional would wantonly ignore the screams of a most determined flight attendant while clutching his or her valuable tote bag like a halfback heading for the line.

Airlines are being unrealistic to assume in their emergency egress tests, as I’m sure they do, that people will actually abandon their valuables prior to exiting. I’m not sure that even implementing a “shoot violators on sight” edict would be a sufficient motivator to stop it from happening..., although it may be worth a try.

I would hope that such a mandated universal healthcare approach, where individuals are required to have health insurance, will also include incentives to 1) reduce the obesity epidemic, and 2) eliminate smoking.

Given their flammability and potentially explosive nature, I think you may have uncovered a major in-flight security risk!

You know, the dog hair thing is interesting. My guess is it was radiation that removed the static. But not from an X-ray machine; it was rather cosmic radiation received during the flight. Where did the hair go? It just fell off the case in the luggage hold. The short article below lends this theory some credence.

http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/pm25/qa/static.pdf

that there is a difference between dog fur and cat fur in the triboelectric series? Curiouser and curiouser indeed!

It is my understanding that the original decisions regarding the 747 cockpit placement involved a bit of serendipity as well as a couple of technical driving factors. Firstly, one of the premier envisioned uses for the 747 was to carry large cargo, thus providing incentive to have the possibility for a large entry access at the nose of the aircraft. With the cockpit placed high, the nose could be articulated to flip either to the side, or straight up thus providing unrestricted access to the fuselage. Secondly, the 747 was designed prior to the advent of computer aided design (CAD) tools. Certifying a new windscreen design would have been especially problematic given the larger surface area needed to support a lower placement of the flight deck. With the cockpit mounted in the “hump” the 747 was able to mount the same windscreen as was already certified for the 707. Thirdly, the hump actually provides a slight aerodynamic advantage, allowing the 747 to have a slightly larger airspeed than other heavy and midsize jets. Aesthetics probably had little if anything to do with the choice. It would be interesting to know the reasoning of the Airbus engineers regarding the lower cockpit placement used for the A380.

One question: How well does this bode for the security, command and control infrastructure for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?

she divorces slick Willy first.