The Truth about In-Flight Announcements

About

May 2013

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Blogs We Like

Links

Blog powered by TypePad

« Witness to 9/11 | Main | An(other) Unintended Consequence of the War on Terror »

The Truth about In-Flight Announcements

The Economist this week has a very interesting and entertaining article on what a truthful in-flight safety announcement would sound like (see here). We all have heard hundreds of times the safety announcement at the beginning of a flight. I often pay no attention to it, although I sometimes wonder if I have missed something new and crucial. But really, it is always about the same thing. What is annoying is not so much that it is repeated in every flight (they have to do so in order to inform passengers including those that have never flown before), but that a lot of it is rather misleading.

My favorite one is the life-jacket under the seat. As anyone who has done some sailing knows—especially blue-water sailing in the Pacific or the Atlantic Ocean—the chances for anyone to survive more than a few minutes in these waters without a special wet-suit (such as the one they wear during the Volvo Ocean Race but even then that’s not enough—check out what they wear here) is ZERO. So when you look at the life-jacket they give you, it would be completely useless in case of a water landing. Moreover, as The Economist points out, in the history of aviation, “the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero.” While this does not mean that none could occur in the future, the chances of a successful water landing are probably super small, which adds to the minuscule chances of surviving in the water with your super tiny life-jacket (even if the detachable inflatable slides operate).

Another myth that The Economist debunks is that of cell phones. They have no effect on the aircraft’s navigation systems. This is what I heard from some pilot too. As The Economist puts it: “if [cell phones] were really dangerous we would not allow them on board at all, if you think about it.”

The really important part of safety on board aircrafts is the seat-belt. Turbulence can cause physical harm and it is important to keep the seat belt fastened at all times. The announcement aboard Veritas Airways in The Economist says: “This is to protect you from the risk of clear-air turbulence, a rare but extremely nasty form of disturbance that can cause severe injury.” I have never experienced such a bad form of turbulence, but during my recent trip back from Auckland-NZ, the plane was hit by a lightning. While it didn’t jolt the plane, I know of cases where lightning has created severe jolting of the aircraft. And in those cases, you want to have your seat-belt on…

Posted by Frederic Sautet on September 12, 2006 at 01:18 PM | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

LaGuardia airport in New York has had at least two planes roll into the water. I suppose the probability is practically zero that life jackets are needed, but so is the probability of most other dangers.

Posted by: a singapore economist | September 12, 2006 at 02:26 PM

What you say about cell phones is true. The FAA has no position on cell phones and leaves it up to the pilot's discretion.

However, the FCC bans cell phone usage in the air because it messes up the cell phone systems on the ground. I heard this explained by someone who works in telecommunications and essentially a cell phone in the air can "see" more cell towers, which effectively makes a cell phone in the air take up more network resources than one of the ground (several times as many resources).

Posted by: a pilot | September 12, 2006 at 03:07 PM

Apparantly The Economist got it wrong - there have been water landings with survivors... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing#Commercial_aircraft

Posted by: AJE | September 13, 2006 at 06:49 AM

I think the ban on using cell phones and other electronic devices is because of interference with ground communication and not because of inerference with navigation system. That is why during takeoff and landing all electronic equipment are requested to be switched off.

Posted by: triya | September 13, 2006 at 07:55 AM

Thanks Anthony for the info on water landings. Obviously The Economist is misinformed and has repeated this wrong information more than once. However, it still is the case that the life jacket is probably useless.
As far as cell phones are concerned, yes the problem is the cell phone towers on the ground, not the aircraft's navigation system. But this is not what they say.

Posted by: frederic | September 13, 2006 at 08:01 AM

Hi Frederic. BBC Radio 4 had a debate this afternoon about whether cell phones do indeed effect navigation systems. Apparently if US and European phones on the same flight are left on, they produce interference on the same frequency as the plane uses for its GPS navigation equipment. A company in the UK is working on a product which "minimises the risk" of interference. I suppose whether alertness to this opportunity proves to be fruitful or not remains to be seen.

Posted by: Nick | September 14, 2006 at 11:45 AM

Interesting point Nick. I guess we should expect airlines crossing the Atlantic to be more severe with cell phones, but they don't seem to be. Strange.

Posted by: frederic | September 15, 2006 at 08:24 AM

Coordination Problem

About

Recent Posts

Archives

May 2013

Blogs We Like

Links

The Truth about In-Flight Announcements

Comments

Search

Our Websites

Our Books