safety demo

Just out of interest, does anyone actually take heed to any of the
information on the safety demo given befiore take off.

On the majority of flights I have been on people keep talking and dont
listen to them. And once when I my flight was due to have an emergency
landing they done the demo again. Which we ALL paid attention to lol.

Paul
x

Da Man wrote:
Just out of interest, does anyone actually take heed to any of the
information on the safety demo given befiore take off.

On the majority of flights I have been on people keep talking and dont
listen to them. And once when I my flight was due to have an emergency
landing they done the demo again. Which we ALL paid attention to lol.


I would guess new and not so frequent flyers might be interested.
It's not really an issue. The mask drops down and you are supposed to
"breath normally". White lights lead to red lights. The seat belt design
is nothing new. There are always exits in front of me or behind me,
unless I am in FC.

As one Southwest airline attendant put it (when they can still do jokes),
"if you've been living in a cave the last 30 years, here is how to put on
your seat belt." (or words to that effect.)


"Da Man" wrote in message
...
Just out of interest, does anyone actually take heed to any of the
information on the safety demo given befiore take off.

On the majority of flights I have been on people keep talking and dont
listen to them. And once when I my flight was due to have an emergency
landing they done the demo again. Which we ALL paid attention to lol.

Paul
x

In article ,
"Da Man" wrote:

Just out of interest, does anyone actually take heed to any of the
information on the safety demo given befiore take off.

On the majority of flights I have been on people keep talking and dont
listen to them. And once when I my flight was due to have an emergency
landing they done the demo again. Which we ALL paid attention to lol.

This topic has come up a few times in the rec.travel.air group. You
might want to check the archives for that group.

Me? I fly on commercial airlines an average of about three times a year.
I have been flying since I was a little kid some 30 years ago. I know
the safety drill inside and out so I don't pay attention. Those who are
not experience airline passengers should probably pay attention.

"Da Man" vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

Just out of interest, does anyone actually take heed to any of the
information on the safety demo given befiore take off.

On the majority of flights I have been on people keep talking and dont
listen to them. And once when I my flight was due to have an emergency
landing they done the demo again. Which we ALL paid attention to lol.


Once, a long time ago, circumstances dictated that being sure where the
Hell the exit was in the dark was of some import to me. Fortunately, the
light from a nearby outburst of flames made it quite visible and stimulated
my movement toward it no little bit. Fortunately, the aisle in a Twin
Beech SNB/C-45 is very short.

These days, I'm frankly appalled by most of those whom I see the airlines
put in the exit rows, confident that they not only don't know how to
operate the exits but would be physically unable to handle pulling the
hatch inboard as some types of a/c require.

As the old rabbi said when the priest seated adjacent questioned the
rabbi's crossing himself after a rough landing...."Spectacles, testicles,
watch and wallet..."

TMO

"Da Man" wrote in message
...
Just out of interest, does anyone actually take heed to any of the
information on the safety demo given befiore take off.

On the majority of flights I have been on people keep talking and dont
listen to them.

The reason? It's boring and long-winded. Why? Blame the FAA. The
following article explains things.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/sm...askthepilot10/

Sept. 13, 2002 | Readers have come forward with some amusing, if cynical,
comments regarding the preflight safety briefing offered by the cabin crew.
The style of these briefings has always been a pet peeve of mine -- their
importance betrayed by turning a few minutes of important information into
several minutes of profligate banality. The speech has become, at this
point, pure camp -- legal fine print turned into (bad) performance art and
honed to ludicrous perfection.

Some background: In America, those of us involved in the day-to-day
operations of commercial flying work under the jurisdiction of a vast web of
rules known as the Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs. Commercial
aviation has grown tremendously both in size and complexity, which naturally
has increased the size and scope of applicable regulation. However, while
size and scope are one thing, decipherability and practicality are something
else.

The FARs are an enormous, frequently unintelligible volume. Their fatty
babble shows off aviation's flair for the arcane, and there is no more
glaring example of prolix rigmarole than the dreaded safety briefing. Any
frequent traveler will tell you that the best sleeping pill for an anxious
flyer is the rote recitation covering seat belts, life vests and oxygen
masks -- so weighed down with extraneous language that it's completely
without impact.

The briefing card outlining the requirements for seating in exit rows has
set a new standard. Those requirements were controversial for some time. The
result: an interminable, bafflingly verbose card packed with enough
technobabble to set anyone's head spinning. Exit-row passengers are asked to
review this card before takeoff.

On one recent flight passengers were subjected to the phrase "at this time"
repeated on thirteen occasions. "At this time we ask that you please return
your seat backs to their full and upright positions." Why not, "Please
straighten your seat backs." Meanwhile almost every airline includes the
following: "Federal law prohibits tampering with, disabling, or destroying
any lavatory smoke detector." Aren't tampering with, disabling, and
destroying essentially the same things? How can you destroy something
without having tampered with it?

With a pair of shears and common sense, a typical briefing can be trimmed to
about half its length with no sacrifice of information. The result is a
cleaner oration that people will actually listen to. As part of a college
paper on air safety, I once turned a typical 6-minute briefing into 2.5
concise, polite minutes of useful instruction.

--
Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/

How is that different from any other bureaucracy? I work in human resources
and you should see the offer letters we send out to applicants, a whole page
full of information required by various federal and state laws.


"James Anatidae" wrote in message
...
"Da Man" wrote in message
...
Just out of interest, does anyone actually take heed to any of the
information on the safety demo given befiore take off.

On the majority of flights I have been on people keep talking and dont
listen to them.

The reason? It's boring and long-winded. Why? Blame the FAA. The
following article explains things.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/sm...askthepilot10/

Sept. 13, 2002 | Readers have come forward with some amusing, if
cynical,
comments regarding the preflight safety briefing offered by the cabin
crew.
The style of these briefings has always been a pet peeve of mine -- their
importance betrayed by turning a few minutes of important information into
several minutes of profligate banality. The speech has become, at this
point, pure camp -- legal fine print turned into (bad) performance art and
honed to ludicrous perfection.

Some background: In America, those of us involved in the day-to-day
operations of commercial flying work under the jurisdiction of a vast web
of
rules known as the Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs. Commercial
aviation has grown tremendously both in size and complexity, which
naturally
has increased the size and scope of applicable regulation. However, while
size and scope are one thing, decipherability and practicality are
something
else.

The FARs are an enormous, frequently unintelligible volume. Their fatty
babble shows off aviation's flair for the arcane, and there is no more
glaring example of prolix rigmarole than the dreaded safety briefing. Any
frequent traveler will tell you that the best sleeping pill for an anxious
flyer is the rote recitation covering seat belts, life vests and oxygen
masks -- so weighed down with extraneous language that it's completely
without impact.

The briefing card outlining the requirements for seating in exit rows has
set a new standard. Those requirements were controversial for some time.
The
result: an interminable, bafflingly verbose card packed with enough
technobabble to set anyone's head spinning. Exit-row passengers are asked
to
review this card before takeoff.

On one recent flight passengers were subjected to the phrase "at this
time"
repeated on thirteen occasions. "At this time we ask that you please
return
your seat backs to their full and upright positions." Why not, "Please
straighten your seat backs." Meanwhile almost every airline includes the
following: "Federal law prohibits tampering with, disabling, or destroying
any lavatory smoke detector." Aren't tampering with, disabling, and
destroying essentially the same things? How can you destroy something
without having tampered with it?

With a pair of shears and common sense, a typical briefing can be trimmed
to
about half its length with no sacrifice of information. The result is a
cleaner oration that people will actually listen to. As part of a college
paper on air safety, I once turned a typical 6-minute briefing into 2.5
concise, polite minutes of useful instruction.

--
Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/

In a similar vain on a United flight I heard "The seat belt fastens and
unfastens like this, if you haven't worked that out already are you safe to
let out on your own?"