Supermatelot From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 8 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1329 times:
Im currently helping somebody research a university project on UK consumer law and one topic is related to smokers and long haul flights.
I have researched around and would like clarification or correction on a few opinions I have formed please.
Have any airlines gained permission to run aircon at a less efficient rate only by imposing a total smoking ban?
The air quality on smoking permitted flights was higher than non-smoking due to the aircon levels.
Could somebody give a few comparisons on the air recirc frequency in both scenarios please?
Passive smoking is a myth because the air circulation is vertical not horizontal therefore would only affect those sat in the same row??
There is a higher possibility of contracting airborne viruses on none smoking flights due to the recirc percentages??
Airlines ban smoking in order to save on maintenance costs and fuel efficiency and are also under pressure from government health watchdogs who oppose smoking??
Smoking and not being able to smoke is a huge factor in recent consequences of 'air rage'.
Corey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2519 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
Smoking has nothing to do with an airline's decision, it's a government regulation... It has nothing to do with health and everything to do with safety (think: fire in enclosed places)
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1301 times:
I think that some of your opinions are just as wrong as it is possible to be.
Quoting Supermatelot (Thread starter): Have any airlines gained permission to run aircon at a less efficient rate only by imposing a total smoking ban?
"Gained" permission? The knobs are in my cockpit. Whose permission do I need? The a/c controls have not changed since the plane was built.
Quoting Supermatelot (Thread starter): The air quality on smoking permitted flights was higher than non-smoking due to the aircon levels.
Absolutely the opposite of my experience (other than recirc having nothing to do with it)
Quoting Supermatelot (Thread starter): Passive smoking is a myth because the air circulation is vertical not horizontal therefore would only affect those sat in the same row??
I could smell the cigarette smoke in the cockpit. I'd come home from a trip with my clothes smelling of cigarette smoke.
Sure did that. The tars in the smoke clogged the sense lines in temperature and pressurization controllers. I've seen brown streaks from the outflow valve clear to the tail of the airplane on a DC-10. Cigarette smoke was very damaging to airplanes.
Quoting Supermatelot (Thread starter): Smoking and not being able to smoke is a huge factor in recent consequences of 'air rage'.
If that is true then clearly we need to test passengers for this dangerous drug and deny boarding to all nicotine users. If they have no more self-discipline that that I don't want them on my airplane.
By the way, scientific research consists of finding out what the facts are and coming to conclusions based on those facts. It sounds like you are looking for quotes from us to support the conclusions you reached before beginning research.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Supermatelot From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1300 times:
Here is one example slamclick..
Surprisingly, alcohol is not the main cause of air rage, with drunkenness only accounting for 25% of all incidents.
Instead anxiety through delays, cramped conditions and restrictions such as banned smoking are the leading causes. http://www.flighthealth.org/air-rage.htm
Im not seeking argument,just informed clarification.No need for the hostility.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1289 times:
You told me that if we don't let people smoke on airplanes they might go beserk and hurt someone. As a person responsible for the safety of passengers I seek to avoid such a thing.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Supermatelot From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1163 times:
Thankyou for the replies anyway folks!
One more-possibly bizarre question if I may?
Could somebody please explain the physics behind the fact that if an aircraft laden with birds that was above mtow could still not take off ieven if all the birds 'flew' at the time of rotation???
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1098 times:
Quoting Supermatelot (Reply 7):
Could somebody please explain the physics behind the fact that if an aircraft laden with birds that was above mtow could still not take off ieven if all the birds 'flew' at the time of rotation???
I may have this wrong but the birds are just transferring their weight from the sticks they were presumably perched on to the air they are flying in. Said air is still carried by the plane, thus plane carries the birds even if they fly in the inside space.
The air in a 744 weighs over a ton and the aircraft has to lift that too.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Tod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1682 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1071 times:
Quoting Supermatelot (Thread starter): Have any airlines gained permission to run aircon at a less efficient rate only by imposing a total smoking ban?
No.
Per FAA regulation 14CFR25.831:
"the ventilation system must be designed to provide each occupant with an airflow containing at least 0.55 pounds of fresh air per minute"
Bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1048 times:
Quoting Supermatelot (Thread starter): Smoking and not being able to smoke is a huge factor in recent consequences of 'air rage'.
The first paragraph of your link seems to otherwise:
"In reality, incidences of air rage are no more common than 20yrs ago, only now there is a heightened awareness within the industry to report such cases."
Smoking was banned on airlines les than 20 years ago.
If smoking restrictions cause air-rage, then that's the sole responsibility of the person who made that choice ... has nothing to do with the fact smoking is restricted. Either don't smoke, or don't fly, if that's how you are.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 8 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2519 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1682 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
