Idiot Smoker Nearly Causes Fire Onboard

[SeatBackForward]

Addiction makes people do stupid things.



you've sort of lost me on this. Smokers are stupid not addicted but shoplifters are hungry not stupid? I don't think the analogy works really. Rather than being stupid I would say that addiction is the reason, same as hunger, that resulted in a stupid act. :?:


Sent from the Throne

<personal opinion>IMO, addicition is an effect of smoking, not a cause. </personal opinion>

 

[medhead]

IMO, addicition is an effect of smoking, not a cause.

True, but once you're addicted the monkey is on your back and it becomes a cause of smoking. The beauty of the tobacco business plan.


Sent from the Throne

 

[boylero]

un or under-educated people need help conforming to our western ways, he may well have been on his first flight and/or not understumbled english. A simple warning and a two strikes you're out policy would be adequate IMO

 

[anat0l]

Rather than being stupid I would say that addiction is the reason, same as hunger, that resulted in a stupid act. :?:

That's probably closer to what I intended to say. But what I wanted to say is that people have ultimate volition to decide whether to do something - whether it be stupid or not (and in these cases, they are stupid). Addiction does make it more difficult, but an addiction is hardly reason to attribute the blame away from one's self IMO (unless addiction can be considered a distant cousin of insanity).

un or under-educated people need help conforming to our western ways, he may well have been on his first flight and/or not understumbled english.

You've got to help me understand this angle. This is smoking we're talking about (with signs everywhere); not applying for an entry visa or telling someone you can only be married to one person at a time.

 

[medhead]

That's probably closer to what I intended to say. But what I wanted to say is that people have ultimate volition to decide whether to do something - whether it be stupid or not (and in these cases, they are stupid). Addiction does make it more difficult, but an addiction is hardly reason to attribute the blame away from one's self IMO (unless addiction can be considered a distant cousin of insanity).

I'm certainly not saying blame can be shifted away from the person or that it isn't a stupid act. (so I agree with you) Just that addiction is the reason for the stupidity in this case.

Even if someone "has" to smoke, putting the butt into the paper bin is the ultimate act of stupidity.


Sent from the Throne

 

[boylero]

@ antal0l - having worked in non-western nations I have experienced people do things that dont constitute what we view as normal, especially safety related acts. With further explanation and reasoning in the local language, the people adopt the new ways and often excel in the area of concern. I would like to think the benefit of the doubt existed for anybody, as we dont know the entire facts, we're merely speculating. End of the day he may well have been an arrogant cough and may well need a readjustment from a sky-marshall, but with anybody I like to give them some latitude. As I said two strikes and you're out policy would suffice in this instance.

 

[browski]

I'm probably a bit older than many but smoking on board aircraft has been around longer than it has not. Maybe someone could look up the reasons why smoking was banned. Was it a flight safety issue or was it a passive smoking health issue? I cannot recall.

I remember that only 10 years ago, I would fly Biman Bangladesh from DXB-BOM just because they still allowed smoking. The after-dinner cigar with a precocious port on a flight is a fond memory of a much more enlightened age (excuse the pun).

 

[freepyjamas]

un or under-educated people need help conforming to our western ways, he may well have been on his first flight and/or not understumbled english. A simple warning and a two strikes you're out policy would be adequate IMO

Pfft. If you genuinely don't understand that smoking is banned on the aircraft, you'd light up in your seat, rather than furtively go into the loo to do it. This is why I'd make a terrible FA. I'd be accidentally pouring hot coffee, juice and milk in his lap for the rest of the flight.

 

[chrisb]

I can't remember where I saw it, but apparently ashtrays are still legally required in or near the toilets to give these people somewhere safe to put their butts.

I've seen this happen on a flight. I assume a silent alarm went off because about 5 FA's surrounded a toilet and knocked on the door. We could all smell it once the door was open but the guy denied it was him and it was like that when he arrived. The FAs poured water into the bin just incase.

 

[simongr]

I'm probably a bit older than many but smoking on board aircraft has been around longer than it has not. Maybe someone could look up the reasons why smoking was banned. Was it a flight safety issue or was it a passive smoking health issue? I cannot recall.

I remember that only 10 years ago, I would fly Biman Bangladesh from DXB-BOM just because they still allowed smoking. The after-dinner cigar with a precocious port on a flight is a fond memory of a much more enlightened age (excuse the pun).

I have read here that in fact air quality was better when smoking was allowed as air passed from the outside into the inside of the cabin to assist in clearing smoke and since the banning of smoking the air is now recycled. I am not sure if this is cheaper or more expensive for the airlines.

What year was smoking banned on aircraft

Little bit of info there.

 

[anat0l]

having worked in non-western nations I have experienced people do things that dont constitute what we view as normal, especially safety related acts. With further explanation and reasoning in the local language, the people adopt the new ways and often excel in the area of concern.

That sounds fine, in principle. But saying that and realising there is both safety and legal compliance here are two things. That is also why symbolism helps bridge communication gaps (if English cannot be assumed to be understood).

Australian tourists (or Western tourists, most commonly for that matter) tend to find themselves in trouble (from minor to serious) when overseas for violating local custom. I'm sure with some explanation, most intelligent lay people will understand what they did wrong. They mightn't do it again, though that doesn't help extricate them from the consequences of their current intransigence. (In many cases like these, there's no such thing as a, "two strikes and you're out," policy - this is the law, where there is rarely such provision and often there should be no need to).

This is the case here. Hopefully the offender will not try to do what they did again. But that realised, they should still face serious consequences for violating both safety and legal rules.

I would like to think the benefit of the doubt existed for anybody, as we dont know the entire facts, we're merely speculating. End of the day he may well have been an arrogant cough and may well need a readjustment from a sky-marshall, but with anybody I like to give them some latitude. As I said two strikes and you're out policy would suffice in this instance.

My error here is probably assuming too much (as well as probably taking the presumption of guilt, though I can't imagine how it could be otherwise, except perhaps one remote possibility), so you're taking the other end, which is fine. Mind you, if this person was proven to be competent in understanding English, then there is no excuse and they would deserve the full extent of punishment.

I'm probably a bit older than many but smoking on board aircraft has been around longer than it has not. Maybe someone could look up the reasons why smoking was banned. Was it a flight safety issue or was it a passive smoking health issue? I cannot recall.

I remember that only 10 years ago, I would fly Biman Bangladesh from DXB-BOM just because they still allowed smoking. The after-dinner cigar with a precocious port on a flight is a fond memory of a much more enlightened age (excuse the pun).

When I was much younger, there were still smoking zones on aircraft, so I recall those times (and my father would often retire to the smoking zone after a meal for a social cigarette).

I'm not really concerned about why they banned it - it'd probably be the same reasons why it is banned in restaurants, most public areas (especially enclosed) etc., then add on top of that that this is an aircraft environment. Bottom line is - it's illegal now.

 

[boylero]

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-15-smokefree-environment/15-7-legislation

15.7.1 Commonwealth legislation

While smokefree environments fall primarily under state and territory control, there are three areas of Commonwealth legislation. Regulations under the Air Navigation Act 1920 banned smoking on all domestic flights in 1987.124 This was extended to include all international flights in 1996.125
The Airports Act 1996 prohibits smoking in a part of an airport in which there is a sign bearing the words 'No-Smoking'. While designated smoking rooms are permissible, these have been removed from Australian airports. The Sydney Airport Corporation Limited for example, states that its policy is to "accommodate the needs of smokers by providing designated smoking areas that are located outside."[9]

 

[AVC]

I think we won't see a blanket ban on lighters, matches or smokes any time soon (the first two items can only be limited by quantity, but not completely banned).

Matches already are banned, AFAIK. Lighters should be. Then again lithium batteries are too, technically, but there'd have to be a hundred on board with all the devices these days

 

[juddles]

I'm probably a bit older than many but smoking on board aircraft has been around longer than it has not. Maybe someone could look up the reasons why smoking was banned. Was it a flight safety issue or was it a passive smoking health issue? I cannot recall....).

In the 80´s flying Lan Chile across the Pacific they used to give you a ten pack of smokes on each meal tray. Times have changed.
The ban is I believe totally about work place standards. Millions of flights flew trillions of pax, all merrily smoking and getting pissed at the back of the plane, for decade after decade, without it proving a danger to the safety of the aircraft. I suspct the ban on smoking that forces idiots to light up furtively has increased the danger. Having said that, I totally agree that no non-smoker should ever be forced to sufffer the poison from cigg smoke. But we have to recognize that there are still many smokers, and that the power of the addiction of nicotine is going to make a few of them take enormous risks.

 

[milehighclub]

Matches already are banned, AFAIK. Lighters should be. Then again lithium batteries are too, technically, but there'd have to be a hundred on board with all the devices these days

Lithium batteries are not banned at all and your allowed 2 spare in your cabin baggage. Lithium batteries cannot be in your checked baggage unless the battery is in the device. Your allowed safety matches too (and lighters) provided they are kept on one's person.

Qantas has a rule in regards to book matches which are stricter than what the regulator requires. Book matches are not permitted onboard Qantas aircraft.

 

[browski]

In the 80´s flying Lan Chile across the Pacific they used to give you a ten pack of smokes on each meal tray. Times have changed.
The ban is I believe totally about work place standards. Millions of flights flew trillions of pax, all merrily smoking and getting pissed at the back of the plane, for decade after decade, without it proving a danger to the safety of the aircraft. I suspct the ban on smoking that forces idiots to light up furtively has increased the danger. Having said that, I totally agree that no non-smoker should ever be forced to sufffer the poison from cigg smoke. But we have to recognize that there are still many smokers, and that the power of the addiction of nicotine is going to make a few of them take enormous risks.

Thanks for clarifying that up Juddles. It is ironic that many people mistakenly believe smoking was banned because it was an aircraft safety issue..........when in fact the consequences of banning smoking has made the aircraft less safe. Probably best to put that urban myth in the same category as standing up on aircraft (when taxiing after landing) where many people believe it is an aircraft safety issue. (Makes you wonder why they don't hiss at pax who are standing on the bus which collects them from the plane)

 

[juddles]

....many people mistakenly believe smoking was banned because it was an aircraft safety issue..........when in fact the consequences of banning smoking has made the aircraft less safe...

IIRC there was only ever one crash attributed to a legal cigarette, and that was in China in the 70´s or 80´s, and most of the people survived the landing. Apart from that there have been a few fires that started in lavatories, and they may or may not have been cig sourced. I am not an expert on the history of aviation disasters so someone else here may have more info.
Aviation is just the same as any enclosed public venue such as niteclubs, restaurants, etc. It is a health/comfort issue, not safety based.

 

[medhead]

Probably best to put that urban myth in the same category as standing up on aircraft (when taxiing after landing) where many people believe it is an aircraft safety issue. (Makes you wonder why they don't hiss at pax who are standing on the bus which collects them from the plane)

Standing up is a passenger safety issue.


Sent from the Throne

 

[browski]

IIRC there was only ever one crash attributed to a legal cigarette, and that was in China in the 70´s or 80´s, and most of the people survived the landing. Apart from that there have been a few fires that started in lavatories, and they may or may not have been cig sourced. I am not an expert on the history of aviation disasters so someone else here may have more info.
Aviation is just the same as any enclosed public venue such as niteclubs, restaurants, etc. It is a health/comfort issue, not safety based.

So has anybody ever been imprisoned (or even arrested) for smoking in restaurant? I'm guessing it has to be treated with the same trivial nature by the authorities.

 

[medhead]

So has anybody ever been imprisoned (or even arrested) for smoking in restaurant? I'm guessing it has to be treated with the same trivial nature by the authorities.

Imprisonment is not the only form of punishment. Generally they deal with offences like this by the application of fines. eg NSW $250 for an individual upto $10000 for a business. Victoria $122 upto $6100. Those are far from trivial numbers for the business.


Sent from the Throne