Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3193 times:
So why force people to waste money?
If spirits with more than 50% alcohol are allowed on board (and no one, AFAIK, has proposed a ban on duty free liquors), then there is no reason to prohibit other flammable items, such as lighters or matches.
Besides, they are much harder to check for than metallic items. Essentially, the cost of stopping people from bringing them on board would be greater than the safety gain (which, IMO, would be close to nonexistant)
4jaded From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 248 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3191 times:
The lighters and matches are not the problem it is the explosives they are intended to light that are the big hazard to aviation. As a GSC for 2 airlines I remember taking away these items for a long while. All this did was cause huge volumes of trash and a landfill explosion. The only time one of these items can be attributed to brining down a plane was many years ago involving Air Canada. Since that time smoking in Lavs has been banned and smoke detectors have been installed. These items for the most part are a non issue unless they are brought onboard in bulk which should be detected at the checkpoint.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3182 times:
I do not see a good cause to still allow passengers to bring books of matches or lighters onboard of an aircraft. Even more so after that Richard Reid incident.
By the same logic, we should ban shoes / boots.
What is the "good cause" in letting people take anything onboard an aircraft? What's the good cause in letting them carry mobile phones in their carry-on luggage? Or condoms? Or perfumes? Or anything they won't use during the flight?
The burden of proof (that an item endangers the safety of the aircraft) is on the side of the people who want to ban something. Unless it can be proven to be a safety risk, it should be legal to carry pretty much anything a person likes on board.
Bwaflyer From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 685 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3127 times:
To that end, why do we still have glasses, or metal forks on board? A lot of the security is for show - politicians showing the public they are doing something. As a crew member, we have had to remove small scissors from our personal first aid kits that we carry with us, but then have access to scissors (and hypodermics) on the aircraft as well as crash axes etc! At the end of the day, there is a lot onboard an aircraft legally that will do a lot of damage. A pity that the insane actions of a tiny minority affect us all.
Craigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3097 times:
I thought it was the other way round.
Lighters and matches are allowed in the hand luggage and not in the hold luggage. A faulty lighter can do a lot more harm setting light to your suitcase contents, triggering the smoke detectors and causing the plane to divert because of a baggage hold fire.
I may be wrong, since I don't smoke, I don't pay much attention to the warnings about lighters etc..
Andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8352 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3073 times:
Lighters and matches are NOT allowed in your hand baggage, they are supposed to be carried on your person only, for the same reason, they can trigger a fire, which is more likely to be detected immediately in your pocket than in your carry on.
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2968 times:
Thanks for that info. Can anyone else confirm this? I've been quoted that "smoking caused the fire" on that AC plane twice by now, by people trying to convince me that smoking poses a "threat to safety". I still doubt it, and increasingly suspect it's an urban legend created by militant anti-smokers...
So, where can I find out an official version? (www.airdisaster.com lists a fire in the lavatory, but no cause for the fire)
Spike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1170 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2969 times:
I've never unstood why batterieries are allowed on board either. I mean, if a CD player, laptop or mobile can effect the plane, take the damn battery out of it. These things get joged on in flight when you thought it was turned off.
I saw an axe in the last overhead bin of an ATR-72 in China, having even been shoe searched before getting on the plane. You could do a lot of damage with that, and all aircraft carry them.
4jaded From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 248 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2863 times:
Well since I was not on board the AC flight I really don't know if a lit cig in the trash can caused the fire or not however that was the speculation at the time. They even pinned it on a male passenger at some point if I remember correctly, however the result was that airlines everywhere installed smoke detectors in the Lavs which is a good indication that someone felt that was the cause of that blaze.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2820 times:
4jaded - I disagree. Installing smoke detectors in toilets simply indicates that someone thinks a fire could start inside a lavatory - a self-evident fact after this incident. I would argue that banning smoking in toilets is a result of the smoke detectors being installed (and the risk of false alarms), and not because the lavs are likely to self-incinerate in the presence of a cigarette.
UALongHaul From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 227 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2687 times:
I think lighters would be a good item to ban, but who is going to enforce it?
Pleanty of weapons already exist in cabins. I never understand those huge wine bottles always being carried through the cabin either. It is a mystery to me why large pieces of glass are allowed on board. If we ban everything, airplanes are going to look like jail cells with people sitting naked behind bars. Sure it may be the safest, but how well do you think that will go over?