Why would anyone evacuating a
plane waste precious moments
retrieving his Sudoku book
Everyone's heard the Kafkaesque stories of people getting stuck living in airports for hundreds of days  or having to pay huge sums for hotels and different flights out of their own pockets. Not that I imagine that would happen if you fled a burning plane - but who'd be calm enough to reason that through while their plane was on fire?
except for that one time I actually dropped something
(edit: parent was edited to include the part about the "the Kafkaesque stories", so this response seems to duplicate things a bit now)
People don't understand rapidly evolving situations because it is hard to do. They will do whatever they normally do. They will process what is happening in their own frame of reference. Which isn't "smoke inhalation in 30 seconds", but "let's hurry a little bit". I don't necessarily think you should blame people though.
If our plane went down I would definitely be helping them retrieve their carry on as we evacuated the plane because they would die without their medication.
So getting the medication in a timely manner, according to the law, at a price they can afford, and from a doctor that can understand them is a big ask in Moscow in the aftermath of an aviation accident.
If they had to choose between intractable pain, inability to move, destroying the kidney that they got from a cadaver, and risking their death and giving someone an additional 30 seconds to get off a plane then I would wager they would take living. I would tend to agree with them.
Edit: I don't know if this one covers friends, but it does cover family and romantic partners.
Bleske-Rechek, A., Nelson, L. A., Baker, J. P., Remiker, M. W., & Brandt, S. J. (2010). Evolution and the trolley problem: People save five over one unless the one is young, genetically related, or a romantic partner. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4(3), 115.
This is a troll right? Plan for a plane crash but not willing to use proper waterproof storage?
> Plan for a plane crash but not willing to use proper waterproof storage?
Yep. A ziploc bag costs me about a nickel, takes me five seconds to acquire (because I have them in stock), and fits neatly into my pocket, which is a really important feature for this use case. I don't know of any "proper waterproof storage" with those features. It's possible I'm being foolish, but I'm not trolling.
I am fine with losing all tech though, with everything being encrypted and backups with anything important elsewhere that seems like a minor inconvenience.
You'd be lucky to survive, who cares about your hard drive.
The advantage of using providers is that they have paid employee to take care of everyday operations. I'll argue that using 2 different provider protects me from losing all my data if one of them screws up royally, or their business go under. Also, this is my dog-fooding of the solution I recommend to my non-tech family and friends.
Plus you could hedge your bets by just backing up to multiple providers (i.e. Google Drive, Onedrive, Dropbox). What are the chances that all three would fail simultaneously?
I go to the other extreme which is probably also insane. I never use a phone case, put a leather cover on my passport or any of these things. I’ve realized that I have so many years to live and enjoy the products as they’re designed. If I were to buy a Ferrari, you bet your bottom dollar I am driving the shit out of it.
Edit: I want to clarify: I wear seatbelts, safety glasses (even when frying something in the kitchen, yes your kitchen is essentially a chemical lab with a Bunsen burner), sunscreen, regular health screenings, go to the dentist, shower, etc. I think people are totally missing my point if your argument is about ignoring safety, sanitation, etc.
And FWIW when I fly I keep my passport, phone and medicine on my body at all times. While the odds of a crash are low it’s better to spend 15 seconds preparing (especially since there’s barely anything else useful to be doing while in the terminal or airplane).
It resonates with me quite a bit since my parents worry about everything, even trivial things, or would spend a silly amount of time trying to save pennies - not worth it. Given that humans are bad at probabilities/risk assessment, and that people survive way worse disasters, and that SSD probably isn't so important once you gain a different perspective, maybe it is worth worrying less in the long run.
since many mitigations also have tiny costs (like wearing seatbelts), it's reasonable to do them. planning for a car crash is reasonable (30-40K deaths/year in the US, over a million worldwide). planning for a plane crash is not (less than 1000 deaths/year worldwide, usually much less). i share an irrational fear of flying, but i keep my irrational fear in check with this kind of information.
we should individually spend very little time worrying about and planning for plane crashes, terrorism (in the US particularly), child abductions, school shootings, and the like. the calculus can be different on a population level, so that doesn't absolve governments from worry about some of these things.
we should spend way more time worrying about heart disease (exercise & diet), cancer (food & chemicals, sunscreen), respiratory disease (smoking, air pollution/filtration), and accidental deaths (distracted driving, drug abuse) . with guns, worry about suicides and accidental shootings (safe storage/access) more than self-defense.
If you can't separate those two, that's the problem to address - not simply dispensing with all preparation for the worst outcomes because YOLO.
People who are frantic, time-critical, but not immediate life-threatening situations probably grab their bag (ie. the landing gear on plane has failed, but plane has stopped on runway intact and not on fire).
This probably differs significantly if the plane was ripped in half, or people were choking from thick toxic smoke. Those people probably don't even think about grabbing their bag because they are in active severe pain / dying.
Point is, people are making a rational decision that "This is a dangerous situation and I need to get out of here, but I will probably survive", therefore they take their stuff with them.
In moments of total disaster — plane crashes or terrorist attacks — something happens in our brains that affects the way we think. We behave differently, often irrationally. Consider the World Trade Center workers who, on Sept. 11, dithered at their desks, calling relatives, turning off computers and pondering which mementos to rescue from their desks even as the doomed jets burned above their heads.
In The Unthinkable, Ripley cites a National Institute of Standards and Technology study that showed that those who made it out of the WTC waited an average of six minutes after the plane hit their building before heading for the exit and walking slowly — not running — down the stairs.
Ripley searches for patterns in human behavior by interviewing hundreds of people who lived through catastrophes. Quick-witted survivors are surprisingly anomalous. One fellow who made it through a horrific aircraft disaster in 1977 happened to be sitting on the runway reading an in-flight safety instruction card when another plane crashed into his. He grabbed his wife, leapt through a hole in the fuselage, and turned to see his fellow passengers remaining docilely in their seats, immobile. Most of them died within minutes as fire swept through the wreckage.
The author concludes that all of us undergo a three-stage process when we find ourselves in mortal peril: denial, deliberation and the "decisive moment," during which the survivor buckles down and acts. The trick, she says, may be to understand our instincts, which, in a crisis, may betray us. Some people run toward infernos, not away, and even in the face of obvious impending disaster, some people just won't move.
I am not saying that this is a good thing but I think ingrained habits are hard to break.
We live to think we’d do otherwise, but if we are honest with ourselves, we know we’d do the same..
If it's not feasible to train and educate people until the proper behaviour is a muscle memory, then maybe we need to find a way to eliminate choice.
It would also be a quite challenging technical problem: are compartments locked the whole flight? Are they locked only on emergencies? If so: who thinks of locking them when an emergency occurs? I admit I don't know much about emergency procedures for flight attendants.
I mean, if the options are a 20k fine or leaving your bag, then for most people the choice is simple.
Then the choice is also simple, and it sounds way better than fining or prosecuting accident victims.
First, why is there no law or clear punishment against grabbing your luggage in an emergency or otherwise obstructing the safe exit from the plane? If someone were intentionally obstructing others in this or in another situation (burning building) that would clearly be most likely seen as some type of crime. Why not here?
Why no announcement on the plane? (Back up by the 'federal crime' as they do with smoking in the lavatory).
> Psychologists caution, though, against being too quick to judge.
The fact that there should be no judgement or we should not think we would do different does not detract that people might have to get drilled into them not to follow some particular behavior. It's almost as if the psychologists and trying to give the behavior a pass.
> That passenger reaching for the bag with his favorite sweater or maybe a present for his kid? He’s probably just acting human.
Not really. What is human about prioritizing a 'present for your kid' or 'your favorite sweater'? That's irrational. Non adult. And actually child like. People should not get a pass for doing stupid things.
> grabbing for possessions is more common than one might think
Actually what is probably happening is people see other people grab things and then mimic that behavior. You see the same type of thing with traffic. One person does a u turn and then a bunch of people follow.
> “We have in the past publicly commented on the need for passengers to leave carry-on items behind during an emergency,” said Christopher O’Neil'
I wish there were no speeding laws and tickets and the state just gave that type of friendly reminder!
> I wish there were no speeding laws and tickets
I understand what you’re saying, and as a driver and frequent flier, appreciate both points.
Unfortunately, the reality is in absolute numbers:
There are large numbers of people speeding daily, and large numbers of people dying on the roads daily, globally.
There are orders of magnitude fewer numbers of people flying on planes that perform emergency disembarking events, and more orders of magnitude fewer people dying in these instances.
Given the frequency of reminders getting drilled into drivers that speed kills, who continue to speed frequently, how frequent would reminders to not grab possessions in an emergency situation actually have to be in order to be effective?
The base premise of the point to not judge is that in an emergency situation, some people are acting on instinct.
Meanwhile people who speed are more often making a conscious decision to do so based on their own view of road conditions.
So what punishment would keep people from speeding? The best I can think of that would be effective on me would be to immediately suspend my license for some period of time, and potentially immediately impound my vehicle too. Maybe 1 week per % caught over the speed limit? The current system doesn't stop me speeding (as demonstrated earlier today) when there's a nice big gap between me and the car in front. Plus I'm gonna learn those repercussions faster than my car's going after that's impacted me, anyone I know, or even seen on the news that it's actually being enforced. It's in my interests to now learn this and stop misbehaving, as it's something that impacts my day to day life.
Meanwhile, how do you now find a way to educate people about a punishment that has a tiny percentage chance of being relevant to them twice a year? And how do you hold it up in court, when the entire defence is then predicated on "they weren't thinking, it wasn't a conscious decision, they were in a state of fear?"
Edit: even if it meant that I'd be taking considerable risk.
Poor? If you are flying on an airplane you aren't rich but you also probably aren't so poor that your worldly possessions lost are worth another person's life.
> Would you be okay with those people staying on board until everyone else has gone and then grabbing their stuff?
Makes no practical sense. For one thing you have people that are on inside seats and 2nd the idea is it's an emergency and everyone has to get out.
> I would probably be willing to be the last to leave if it meant I could take my stuff.
So you think you are in a position to evaluate the risk from some unknown in most if not all situations sitting on the inside of the airplane? And what about the risk to first responders? You think they should have to risk their life because you or someone needs to get out their personal belongings? Even if you have medication that can be replaced and if it's so critical carry it in a fanny pack.
>Poor? If you are flying on an airplane you aren't rich but you also probably aren't so poor that your worldly possessions lost are worth another person's life.
Of course worldly possessions aren't worth another person's life, but I have flown before when I had $10-20 to my name (somebody else paid for the plane ticket). Having nothing in a foreign country isn't simple nor are all the things replaceable even if you do have some money. Even then, if you have next to nothing then the contents of your baggage might be very important after "life goes back to normal". If you have very little money and most of your clothes burn then you can't really remedy that situation.
Of course I don't think first responders should risk their life for someone life me, but it's not possible to opt out from that.
Nor do I think that I would be able to tell the severity of the situation, but there have been times where I would consider it worth risking my own life for it.
I'm not sure how these would add up. Perhaps the best idea for someone like me would be to not fly.
Plenty of people live paycheck to paycheck (tragically in the USA, this applies to the majority), depend on their ability to drive to and from work in order to make a living, and have little to no job security. If they've made the effort to scrimp and save for long enough to be able to finally afford a holiday and now that plane goes down, losing their drivers license and car keys is going to impact their ability to get to work. Even if it's just a day or two extra, that can be the difference between having a job and not having a job. Which can be the difference between having a meal and not having a meal, having a roof over your head and living on the streets.
"Those people should keep their vital possessions on their persons" is all well and good, but see plenty of sibling comments to people who do make an effort to plan for the worst case scenarios, about how ridiculous it is for them to be wasting that effort.
We are humans. We don't follow exact scripts in the moments that we're able to enjoy our lives, we just live, and sometimes things don't always go to plan.
So I suspect in a similar disaster I might be one of those people grabbing their luggage, just because in a panic I can see myself mindlessly "defaulting" to my usual routine as I get up to try and escape.
That said, of course that's a microscopic sample size in a vast empire. No doubt it's not representative.
In the case of this story, people might be willing to help you find a place to sleep and even help you get home, but the stuff you lost is your business.
But doesn't Russia, historically, as a tough place to make a living, had that behaviour before communism ?
I have had the chance to live in a post-Sovietic place and travel constantly to the USA. I felt the Ex-soviet place has more a culture of helping others than the USA.
(East Germany vs California).
And then there's capitalism, which teaches you "to always prioritize your own stuff", because not only "nobody else will care about it", some of them actually have a financial interest in making you lose your stuff.
My point is: each era and each system has plenty of selfish assholes for its own reasons, boiling down to humans being humans. There's nothing here that's specific to Soviet culture, or American culture.
Having lived there, I can say this is a myth.
Having being born and lived in a post-Soviet state, and having still living family remembering these times, after many conversations with them I conclude that humans are humans, and there's no specific extra level to selfishness (or selflessness) that's specific to the Soviets.
I'm going to be more useful if I take my bag, and I can have it out from under the seat in front of me and around my body in seconds.
So yeah, I'm taking my bag.