Letters to the Editor
-
Train Wreck
You should have heard, seen the way our local empty haircuts on TV handled a passenger train collision a few years ago. They knew even less about railroads than they know about airplanes.
-
Ignorance
Yup. Of airplane operation. Train operation. The mechanics of an automobile.
Science as a process. Physics as a whole. The Constitution. Reality in general.
I don't know why reporters are allowed to have no education whatsoever, but it seems true.
Of course, I don't know anything about being a reporter, so I could be wrong.
I do know that no reporter would ever use that last statement, though. Bluffing is the only science.
-
Reporters
Mr. Smith states "If nothing else, was it asking too much for her to specify that one of the pilots could be seen jumping from the window?" I work in the medical field and I cringe every time I hear a reporter (even the "medical correspondent") refer to a ventilator (the machine that pumps air into and out of a critically ill patient's lung) as a respirator (a device to filter out pollutants, such as a gas mask). Since they never get this one right, it is safe to say it is too much to ask for them to get other details right as well.
-
In case of an emergency
I'm taking my laptop in order to swing it at people to clear a path. My footprints will be all over the back of your head.
That is all.
-
I'm Asking the Pilot about my confusion
"This is the reason, by the way, for the litany of prohibitions during taxi, takeoff and landing: [...] laptops and iPods put away. It's not about electronic interference..."
It was my understanding that electronic intereference was an actual possibility and slight danger and, further, that you've acknowledged as much before... am I going crazy?
-
Contributing to your own safety
One area that is related to their personal safety that I suspect many air travelers never consider is what they are wearing. I am old enough to remember when we used to get dressed up when we traveled – although I suspect it had more to do with wanting to look good when we met Uncle Bert and Aunt Dove upon our arrival than any thought of trying to make a good impression on our fellow travelers.
My point is that today one often sees passengers wearing such items of clothing as shorts, tank tops and sandals or high heels. I can understand their desire to be comfortable, but I wonder if it has occurred to them that if by some slim chance it became necessary to escape from a burning and/or seriously damaged aircraft they might not want to have at least the protection that could be afforded by closed shoes, long pants, and long sleeves. I know this sounds paranoid but some how the thought of climbing out on a wing and jumping to the ground, or walking across a debris strewn runway wearing shower sandals or bare footed doesn’t seem like a good idea.
I have also heard that the choice of fabric should be considered, natural fibers such as wool and cotton that won’t melt when subjected to high temperature. And going one step further, I understand that smoke is one of the major contributors to loss of life in aircraft mishaps and that individual smoke hoods are provided for all passengers flying on U.S. Navy transport aircraft, humm. Even thought commercial carriers don’t provide them, you can purchase your own and carry it when flying.
If you think this is over the top, I have a friend that is an amateur car racer and wears a Nomex (fireproof) drivers suit and carries his helmet in a bag with him whenever he flies!
-
Not To Be Picky, But...
If you're going to hold journalists' feet to the fire (and rightly so) for calling China Airlines "China Air," would it be too much to ask you to abandon the term "pre-planning"? "Planning," by definition, involves doing something prior to the event. "Pre-planning," then, would mean "preparing to plan," but that is not what people mean when they say it--as evidenced by the fact that there is no such thing as "post-planning." I will shut up now.--tracy thompson
-
Bizarre
I flew to Japan on the 26th of last month on JAL and was astonished to see Japanese coverage of the airplane fire on the main screen of the economy-class cabin! I thought that airlines tended to scrub any airplane disaster news from in-flight television, but it showed on this flight for at least 10 minutes. It didn't bother me, but I'm sure there were some people on the flight that were very upset by this. When it showed, we still had a good 10 hours in the air left. Fortunately, it was a non-stop from JFK to Narita, so no-one had to make the choice of boarding a connecting flight after watching that, but then there probably were some people continuing from Narita. I wonder if anyone changed their plans.
-
You need your what?
I'm glad someone else has mentioned what to wear and what not to wear as a passenger.
Now if only the airlines themselves would take note and stop issuing uniform components that are made of polyester blends that melt in high heat. Those nylons they like their female employees to wear? Melt. Scarves? Melt. Jackets, pants and skirts? Melt. But at least the food and grime just wipes away!
I still remember the commands that were ingrained in me at my first FA job over 25 years ago as well as each carrier since - and one of the lines was always a variant of "LEAVE EVERYTHING BEHIND!". I actually had the opportunity, or misfortune depending how you want to look at it, to put them to the test twice since.
One time (September 1986) involved an evacuation using the stairs. Yes, people still started reaching for their carry ons... though some relented when they heard us and saw us turning purple from screaming at them so loudly.
I then noticed some people coming back UP the stairs trying to get back in the plane we were evacuating due to a tire fire.
Why?
Seems the authorities on the ground were asking our evacuees for their passports.