
Crashing, Burning Planes Don’t Stop Passengers from Grabbing Their Luggage - gwintrob
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/crashing-burning-planes-don-t-stop-passengers-from-grabbing-their-luggage
======
vinothgopi
This has been a big discussion point everywhere - about shocking this behavior
is and how people's lives are at stake. But let me offer an alternate
perspective, and maybe some insight into their behavior.

If you lose your ID or any other official documents in India, everyone knows
how much of a hassle it is going to be to get these documents reissued. Of
course the possibility of bribes to move the papers. Insurance claims for lost
baggage? I wouldn't rely on it. It might take them a while to save up to buy
whatever they might have in their bags too. Laptops, tablets etc. They
probably don't earn that much to begin with. This is probably what ran through
their minds.

Yes, lives are more important in the end and every second counts in such a
scenario. But as an individual they might think - hey, it takes a few seconds
to grab my bag and jump out. That would save me SO much trouble. Unfortunately
that's what everyone thinks and in the end everyone goes for their bags and
waste precious time.

~~~
nostrademons
It seems like a more effective social fix for this would be to ensure that any
survivors of a plane crash are immediately met inside the terminal by
representatives of the airline, doctors, and members from the national
consulate, who give complimentary toiletries, changes of clothes, spending
money, etc. and fasttrack any requests for replacement travel documents.

Such a system would be beneficial for other reasons as well: in many recent
plane crashes, survivors have ended up wandering the area, which leads to a
lot of unnecessary stress for loved ones searching for them, administrative
hassles for airlines and first responders, and difficulty for accident
investigators. If there was a clear protocol for where to go, who to receive,
and what you'd receive in the event of a crash, people would be a lot less
nervous about their belongings.

~~~
justratsinacoat
>Such a system would be beneficial for other reasons as well: in many recent
plane crashes, survivors have ended up wandering the area, which leads to a
lot of unnecessary stress for loved ones searching for them, administrative
hassles for airlines and first responders, and difficulty for accident
investigators. If there was a clear protocol for where to go, who to receive,
and what you'd receive in the event of a crash, people would be a lot less
nervous about their belongings

In light of this, the phenomenon of passengers grabbing their luggage makes
objective sense, and has changed my view of people trying to take their carry-
on with them.

FTA:

>> The main reasons passengers gave for grabbing their bags was money,
wallets, or credit cards, followed by work materials, keys, and medication

The individualism 'above' (no particular effort on the part of airline,
airport or first responders to create an environment to receive and help crash
survivors) informs the individualism 'below' (one should grab one's
documentation, money, means of communication etc because no immediate means of
support otherwise exists). Note to self, ALWAYS grab luggage from plane
wreckage.

------
MrFoof
Oh, there's much worse problems at least when it comes to fire alarms in
apartment buildings -- people simply refusing to leave their home.

I live in a (modern, 4-floor, built in 2008, steel and concrete) building with
145 apartments. We have about 2 or 3 fire alarms a year because late-20s
professionals don’t understand that pouring oil into a pan heated on high for
20 minutes does nothing but generate a massive amount of smoke. Though in 7
years, we’ve had 3 actual fires. One serious enough to pop the glycerin disk
of a sprinkler head (and cause ~$1M in water damage from the ~5000 gallons it
pumped out before it was turned off, compared to about $20-30K in fire
damage).

I am the building’s “unofficial first responder”. I try to find it, so I can
direct fire fighters to it when they arrive 8 minutes later, in the hopes of
it being dealt with before a sprinkler head pops and makes the lives of many
of the units' neighbors miserable for the next few months (because water
damage and related insurance claims). Once, management was still here, and we
used the skeleton key to access the unit and I actually put it out myself with
an extinguisher (and killed the breakers to the stove). As I’m running through
the hall, I have to tell people peering out their doors to “get out now, fire
alarm”, and that no, they can’t take the elevator (because they’re now parked)
and they need to take stairs.

When there are firefighters going into the building, with hoses, and putting
up ladders, you have people in neighboring apartments watching... from the
windows inside their apartments. Until the fire department knocks on their
doors and screams at them, through a megaphone, to get out.

Management commented to me that during the fire alarms with actual fires
(which granted, were small), ~30% of people (~80-90 people) refused to leave.
That's a hell of a potential burden in the event of a serious fire to put on
the firefighters.

~~~
archon
> people simply refusing to leave their home.

This is the same in offices, in my experience. Our shared office building has
a horrible fire system, and gets about a half dozen false fire alarms a year.
My coworkers think I'm crazy for always going directly outside when the alarm
starts blaring.

Sooner or later, one of those "false alarms" is going to be real and people
will still be sitting at their desks while the building is really on fire.

~~~
phkahler
This reminded me of 9/11\. I thought I heard that people in the second tower
were being told by an official to stay at their desks. Why the heck would
anyone advise people to remain with that huge and severely damaged building
burning so close by? Just looking out the windows would have made me want to
get far away from there. Did they really advise people to stay or is my memory
faulty?

~~~
Atheros
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, it turned out, in hindsight, that
the best course of action was for people to say where they were. That memory
and lesson was not lost by 2001.

"Altogether, six people were killed and 1,042 others injured, most during the
evacuation that followed the blast."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing)

------
johnwheeler
It's game theory and herding in effect. We all know it'd be most helpful to
the group to abandon our luggage and exit single file. We also know no one
else will do it. Plus, we witness examples and use those as justification for
similar behavior.

There have been studies done that show if you're in the middle of a crisis
with bystanders, it's important to single them out and call for their direct
responsibility:

"You in the green shirt, call the police now!"

Otherwise, responsibility distributes evenly among the group with no one
player having enough impetus to affect change.

~~~
e40
I could imagine myself saying "You in the green shirt, leave your damn luggage
and exit the plane!" but I have no idea how effective that would be.

~~~
johnwheeler
Less effective when your own luggage is in your hands... :-P

------
openasocket
[WARNING: armchair psychology]

People can act bizarrely in a crisis. In situations like this where there is
panic and the adrenaline starts pumping, rational thought gets tampered down
and instinct and training takes over. Which is actually a great survival
mechanism, but we don't really have any instincts, and very few people are
actually trained for emergencies like this. What we _are_ trained to do is not
forget our luggage when leaving the plane.

Assuming this is the case (see above warning), no amount of fines or
prosecution will really help, because we're dealing with people's
subconscious. People won't internalize that negative reinforcement unless it
actually happens to them, and how often are people in plane crashes? Maybe
having plane evacuation drills would help, but I don't know how practical that
is.

~~~
zeveb
> Assuming this is the case (see above warning), no amount of fines or
> prosecution will really help, because we're dealing with people's
> subconscious.

Yeah, that also bothered me about the article. I don't think anyone in a
crisis is going to think, 'if I grab my bag, I will be fined' — and I don't
believe that the money recouped from fines will do anything to compensate for
lives lost, anyway.

Rather, I think that folks are going to feel, 'my life, and everything I have
is in danger, I must rescue myself and my things or perish!'

------
r1ch
If airlines had a clear policy that they would compensate for lost luggage in
emergencies I think this would be less common. When a small handbag can be
worth $1000 and it takes you 5 seconds to grab it, it's an easy choice to take
it vs leaving it to burn and not knowing whether you'll be compensated.

~~~
white-flame
It's hard to compensate for things like your keepsakes, favorite items, and
personal media & contacts in your devices. There's also the fear of being
stuck somewhere without ANYTHING that makes people grab what they can, to at
least have a change of clothes and their toothbrush or whatever.

~~~
ghaff
I agree that I don't think it's so much compensation. It's more like "But it's
just a little bag and it's right here with my wallet and phone and
medications. If I leave it I'll be at this random airport with absolutely
nothing."

------
jkot
> _The main reasons passengers gave for grabbing their bags was money,
> wallets, or credit cards, followed by work materials, keys. and medication._

Maybe the reasonable thing is to require small separate handbag with all the
valuables.

And there are more things which prevent fast evacuation. Are we going to ban
them as well?:

\- catering trolleys

\- less mobile persons

\- high heels

------
whack
This is a classic tragedy-of-the-commons problem. From one individual's
perspective, you think to yourself that grabbing your bag only takes 1
additional second, and it's pretty unlikely that you'll get hurt just because
of that additional second. Compared to the upside of not losing your precious
belongings, that seems like an understandable cost-benefit analysis.

The problem is, you aren't just delaying yourself by 1 second, you're also
delaying the other 100 people behind you by 1 second. And if you multiply the
risks involved by 100, the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis changes
dramatically.

We could yell at people for being too dumb to do the "right thing", but let's
be honest, this isn't the kind of issue that will filter down to everyone in
society. Unless it makes the front page of NYTimes or CNN, the vast majority
of people will never get to hear your moral lectures and explanations. And
airlines don't want to unduly alarm their passengers on the vast majority of
flights which won't have problems, so they aren't going to spend too much
effort on this either. The best solution here is some simple technology. Equip
all the overhead bins with central locks, so that once a switch is flipped,
it's impossible for a passenger to get them open. This way, people won't even
have the chance to grab their luggage, and we wouldn't have to sit here having
this discussion.

~~~
Falkon1313
>The problem is, you aren't just delaying yourself by 1 second, you're also
delaying the other 100 people behind you by 1 second.

Except for most people, it doesn't take an additional second. Past experience
in crowded areas with narrow aisles and few exits tells you that you're going
to be standing around waiting awhile for a chance to move. What else are you
supposed to do, flail your arms, scream, and panic? Trample the people ahead
of you? Fling your bag randomly, hitting someone else and causing a trip
hazard?

All our lives we are taught that in an emergency you should remain calm and
collected and exit in good order.

Of course you shouldn't waste time going back for unimportant things or things
that are hard to get to, but if your bag is right there and you can pick it up
in the same motion as standing up, that seems perfectly reasonable, rational,
and logical. Or if you're standing around waiting for your chance to exit, it
makes sense to pick it up.

The article uses hyperbole like "Materialism has been winning out over self-
preservation", "when it's your money or your life, money wins", and "leave
your bags behind. Yes, all of them. Laptops and purses, too." But urging
people to panic and act counter to everything they've ever been taught and
everything that they've experienced in life, especially in the middle of a
stressful emergency, doesn't really make sense.

As others have said, fining people for behaving the way that they are supposed
to behave does not make sense. Intercepting people and delaying the evacuation
to remove their things does not make sense. What would make sense would be to
improve egress routes if that is a problem. More exits and wider aisles would
be a lot easier than trying to force everyone to act irrationally and counter-
intuitively during an emergency.

------
marze
The crew announcement should offer a $5000 bonus for everyone who leaves
without a bag. Even if they don't have one.

It would be much more effective than the threat of a fine.

~~~
test6554
Slow clap as everyone stops to slip all their small valuables out of their
bags and into their pockets.

------
roflchoppa
Alternative: shoot out the overhead bins around the plane like a ejector seat,
everyone gets their stuff when they get off. Now you got people scrambling to
get off the plane to get their stuff. win-win.

~~~
roflchoppa
aww man i was thinking about this more, and its going to take a really big
compressed air tank to shoot out the bins. But good thing there was that
recall of millions of airbags, we can just use those instead of wasting them.

win-win-win

------
throw7
Are handbags, like those ladies are carrying in the picture, supposed to be
left behind? I have a hard time imagining women would ever leave something
like that behind even if you "fine" them.

At that point, a compromise is needed... probably smaller bags and packs that
fit under the seat should be allowed and should be incorporated in the safety
tests, but certainly opening up the overhead bins in an emergency should
definitely be fined.

~~~
ghaff
Yes. They're most certainly supposed to be left behind. That picture makes it
pretty clear that even those smaller bags have plenty of opportunity to tangle
ip with people and slow down an evacuation.

------
placeybordeaux
Yes this is terrible and avoidable, but it's also an extremely uncommon event.
The amount of lives saved by properly educating against this is basically
negligible.

------
mianos
The issue is people simply don't trust the airline to take care of them.
Typically airlines place lots of limitations on losses and make it very
difficult to get compensated. Lost identification usually involves fees to get
them replaced. Some might argue, quite correctly, that you are making a choice
between death and inconvenience but many would not assume they are going to
die and weigh up the risk vs return accordingly.

------
ff10
My rationale: Make sure to have IDs, CCs, etc. on you. Grab your small bag
from under the seat. Leave the overhead closed. It should be locked
automatically as suggested in the article.

------
shurcooL
The reason this happens is because it's hard to know the boundary between a
minor problem and a major situation, and people tend to have a lag in their
estimation of severity of the situation. Kinda like a car engine with a
turbocharger has turbo lag.

People end up not wanting to make a stupid mistake where they leave their
passports, money, laptops behind just because of a false alarm.

If they knew what they know later, they'd act differently. But in the moment,
it's hard to predict if it's going to be a big deal or a minor thing.

------
calvinbhai
There are multiple reasons for this behavior

Most of these reasons are listed in these set of storified tweets
[https://storify.com/AnonDesi/conversation-with-peegeekay-
mad...](https://storify.com/AnonDesi/conversation-with-peegeekay-madnavin-
antaryaami-ga)

I urge everyone to please read the tweets in the link I posted, as it gives
you a totally different perspective as to why people behaved this way.

One other reason, is the fact that a plane flying from India is filled with
people who speak at least 10 to 15 different languages (native langauge).

Its possible that those who didnt get the passenger safety instructions in the
language they are comfortable with, just didn't even know what to do under
such distress!

~~~
FabHK
The tweet storm provides reasons (loss of passport/ID very severe problem,
specifically for migrant workers in Gulf states), but not valid ones.

These are, however, good reasons to carry your passport on your person, and
not in a huge suitcase in the overhead bin.

------
kengi76
Have to wonder how much of it is cultural. Flown alot in China and I can only
imagine it being worse while here in Japan we'd politely try to figure out who
went first while burning.

Really the endpoint is the same. Humans panic.

------
ionforce
This is one of those scenarios where of course airline people know how to do
things. But you cannot expect the consumers of your service to have the same
level of fluency. Does everyone on the entire aircraft acknowledge and believe
that evacuating the aircraft in 90 seconds is the number one goal?

I would say no. Despite it being somewhat logical, I think it is unreasonable
to believe that people are rational agents and won't act emotionally in a
state of emergency.

So don't get upset that people aren't following your directions.

~~~
niccaluim
I think it would help if people knew _why_ 90 seconds is the goal: because the
real danger in a plane crash isn't the crash, it's the post-crash fire. I'm
speaking generally of course. For something like Sioux City for example (total
loss of hydraulics/controls), the crash is obviously catastrophic. But even in
that case, the post-crash fire added to the death toll significantly.

I don't think passengers realize this. No sane airline would ever mention it
in a passenger briefing. Can you imagine? "P.S. If we crash, get off right
away or you'll be burned alive." Never gonna happen. But it's the truth, and
it's why getting the f* off the plane as fast as humanly possible after a
crash will save your life—and the lives of all the people who can't get off
until you do because they're stuck behind you.

That's the other thing I don't think people realize. Grabbing your bag may
take you two seconds, big whoop. But what if two seconds is the difference
between life and death for the person thirty people behind you in line out the
door? You just killed that person.

------
AcerbicZero
So get rid of overhead storage. Or have the overhead compartments
automatically lock down in an emergency as suggested.

I can't honestly say I wouldn't grab my backpack from the floor, if the
situation allowed, but I am fairly convinced it won't be delaying my departure
from a burning aircraft. The 82 year old lady in row 8, who had to be
wheelchaired onto the plane or perhaps the mother/father trying to juggle one
or more screaming children might be a more serious concern.

------
Someone
_" The possibility of a huge fine “would stick in their mind” and cause
passengers to leave their bags as directed"_

I'm not sure. There are psychologists who claim that people who have to
disembark start their "leave a plane" program, and that includes taking ones
luggage, because that program has worked well for them zillions of times.

Chapter 7 of the referenced
[https://app.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SS0001.pdf](https://app.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SS0001.pdf)
gives that theory some credence. Quote:

 _" Of the 419 passengers who reported that they carried on bags, 208 (nearly
50 percent) reported attempting to remove a bag during their evacuation. The
primary reason that passengers stated for grabbing their bags was for money,
wallet, or credit cards (111 passengers). Other reasons included job items
(65), keys (61), and medicines (51). Most passengers exited the airplane with
their bags"_

So, urges that normally are top of the list (don't lose your wallet or keys)
seem to get precedence over a directly life-threatening but unfamiliar one
(you're in a burning plane)

Given that, I doubt a technical solution such as a huge fine will have much
effect.

------
gumby
I have some perspective in having been in an emergency landing (fortunately
less fiery than the 777 event). Our plane was in trouble so the flight
attendants had plenty of time to go around and confiscate our shoes, remove
everything from under the seats, make sure our pockets were empty, check our
brace positions, and switch passengers around (this was 25 years ago so I was
put in the emergency row as I was strong enough to open the over wing door).

It's a long story but the relevant parts are:

1 - I broke the rules and pocketed my passport with 200 US dollars folded into
it. Which meant when the plane was on the ground and they were figuring out
what to do with all these passengers I was able to get out, get someone to let
me _back onto the plane_ for my stuff, and get myself on another flight. I'd
do that again, but I would _not_ bring my phone (too dangerous when whizzing
down that slide).

2 - Most people don't realize that the flight attendants are mainly there for
safety and all that drink crud etc is just to keep the swells distracted and
under control. I think the very safety of flight and the rareness of incident
means people don't bother to consider what they'd do in an accident and so kid
of go into autopilot.

There were many years when I worried what to do about my computer, but these
days everything is backed up into the cloud so I can afford to lose it in a
fire.

BTW despite all the excitement the amount of view was minimal and I (as a
total non-expert) think they could have skipped the evacuation. I have read
that the FAA is satisfied if you slide down and break your ankle -- but don't
burn to death.

~~~
dingaling
> Most people don't realize that the flight attendants are mainly there for
> safety

Airlines like to say that safety is priority but then dress their attendants
in high heels and tight poly-cotton skirts.

On the occasions that I flew with UK armed forces, the 'flight attendants'
wore stout boots, flame-resistant olive drab coveralls and gloves. Depending
upon aircraft, some wore helmets too. I had no doubt they were there for my
safety, there was even a story at the time about a helicopter crew throwing an
Admiral out the door of a helicopter in an emergency.

------
test6554
A slow passenger is only a problem because of the low number of exit hatches.
The bottleneck is the number of exits, not the slow passenger.

~~~
tfnw
manual upvote (site won't let me upvote normally, this is probably frowned
upon, but then you should let people upvote normally)

~~~
colanderman
Please don't do this. You can't upvote until you reach a certain (rather low)
karma threshold.

------
k-mcgrady
There is a video on a BBC story [1] about the Emirates crash landing. First of
all the video is appalling - everybody is going for their bags in the
overheads instead of moving to the exits and it looks way more chaotic than it
would if they followed the procedure. Secondly, and even more shocking, is
that some idiot videoed this. Considering the fireball this plane became soon
after everyone got off the delays all of these people were causing to the
evacuation is incredibly dangerous. Particularly for crew members who are
going to be last off. I feel like there needs to be a pretty heavy punishment
for anyone who comes down that slide with a bag.

[1]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36977903](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36977903)

------
tfnw
(In this article): The same people who are condemning taking your bags, citing
it as an impediment to evacuation, are suggesting an additional movement
restriction, passenger bag checks at the exit.

Personally, I think treating this issue in a black and white manner is a
mistake. I think that each individual's judgement should be better respected,
acknowledging the limits of central control.

------
throwaway201607
Why not design a process that is fast enough _and_ assumes people will take
their bags? Ex: quadruple the number of exits.

------
dmalvarado
Pretty much every time I board a flight I just look for the closest exit, then
go back to reading.

Then I have a vision of scrambling over the tops of seats to get out of a
crash incident. Luggage isn't a part of that vision.

Then I go back to reading.

------
zeveb
> “Smoking is not allowed because it can jeopardize the lives and the health
> of other passengers and the lives and health of the crew,” she said. “And
> carrying your bag could have the same consequence.”

No, smoking is not allowed because people like to have an out-group they can
hate, and it is currently politically-correct to hate smokers. Inhaling a
little smoke on a plane ride is annoying (so, too, body odour …), but it
doesn't negatively impact anyone's health. So-called 'secondhand smoke' is
junk science, pure and simple: no more factual than phrenology.

------
sytse
Proposal for a new FAA rule: all luggage taken from the plane during an
emergency evacuation will be destroyed. Incentives matter.

~~~
jkot
Great, now passengers will get their luggage, unpack it, and stuff valuables
into their pockets.

------
gwbas1c
Yesterday, I sat in an exit row on a plane. I remember looking at my bag at my
feet and deciding to grab it in an emergency so that other people won't trip
on it on their way out.

~~~
eridius
If it's stowed properly under the seat ahead of you, it's not in the way. If
it's not stowed properly, then you're already breaking the rules.

~~~
gwbas1c
It's a laptop backpack with straps that can move around a bit. All it takes is
someone to hook a toe on a loop, and then that person would go headfirst down
the slide.

~~~
debeggar
One of the first things crew does after emergency is to make sure that the
exit rows are clear. If your bag does move around during the crash landing and
blocks exit, it will be removed out of the way

