Brickbat: Grounded Already

United Airlines received its first Airbus A321neo airplanes in December, and it has already had to ground them. But United wants you to know there were no safety issues—rather, it has to do with a 1990 Federal Aviation Administration rule requiring "No Smoking" signs to be operated by the flight crew, even though smoking on airplanes has been banned for decades. The A321neo has software that keeps the "No Smoking" sign turned on continuously during flights. In 2020, United got an exemption to that rule for all of its planes that keep the sign on continuously. But that exemption only applies to the aircraft it listed at the time. United has since applied for an exemption for the Airbus A321neo, and it says the FAA has agreed to let the airline fly those aircraft while it evaluates the application.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But United wants you to know there were no safety issues
Hey listen, we got the whole smoking light thing under control. Just don't look out your window, OK?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/united-flight-from-san-francisco-to-boston-makes-emergency-landing-due-to-wing-damage/ar-BB1iAQb9
Actually, don't look at the windows at all.
https://nypost.com/2024/01/30/news/united-flight-diverted-as-boeing-jet-had-cracked-windshield/
But hey, fly in comfort knowing you've got the most DiVeRsItY iS oUr StReNgTh folks on the job.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html
Maybe not the most experienced, qualified, or able - but just know that you can virtue signal with absolute satisfaction. Right up until your airplane inexplicably falls from the sky. Or slams into the side of a mountain. OuR StReNgTH!!!!!!
No offense, but neither of your examples up there are Airbus 321 Neos. One was a 737 800 and the other an old 757.
In each case, the flights were terminated safely, as well.
In fact, something like 35 million commercial flights happened last year. Haven't had more than a single fatality in 15 years, accident rates normally are about 25 per year (in the last decade ranging from 10 to 35) and very rarely have injuries or deaths associated. So shit like that is literally one in a million.
NTSB and airline hyper vigilance is why we hear so much about these things. And the fact that Boeing fucked up pretty hard on the 737 program, so it made for spectacular news. But, even with some issues, it's still pretty remarkable how safe flying across the country at 500 mph 30,000 feet in the air is.
It's always my go-to example of the "man bites dog" paradigm: "You never read about the plane that didn't crash."
Of course nowadays actual crashes are so rare the news has to report on much more minor incidents, but the fact remains these things make the news *because* they are so rare.
NotTheBee hyperventilated recently about an unusually fast jet stream which added 230+ mph to airliner ground speed.
https://notthebee.com/article/three-planes-got-pushed-faster-than-the-speed-of-sound-by-freak-jetstream-winds-and-the-videos-gonna-give-me-nightmares-
The ignorance on display amazed me. You could almost forgive the NotTheBee writer, since he quoted a bunch of other hyperventilating ignoramuses, but not really. He chose to believe them.
I just got paid 7268 Dollars Working off my Laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, My Divorced friend has twin toddlers and made 0ver $ 13892 her first m0nth. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less.
This is what I do………> http://Www.Bizwork1.com
You go ahead and sign up for the diversity flights. I'll fly with companies that use a merit-based system.
Note: I didn't talk about the diversity issue. Just the minor damage issues.
All children should be tested for whether they can think like bureaucrats, and those who can should be euthanized.
Most children think like bureaucrats. The desire for conformity/pick on the one that is different, "fairness" being the rule of the day, taking from others due to jealousy, getting physical and throwing tantrums when they don't get their way, and being utterly dependent on someone else to provide for them. Then some (about half the country) grow out of it.
Yes, exactly. Bureaucracy is childishness. The desire to control other people is childishness. Ancient China invented bureaucracy and as a result its culture failed to progress for almost two thousand years. Not because of the people, but because of the bureaucracy that imposed bureaucratic childishness on the people.
The only reason Western Civ isn't in the same boat is because we haven't had individualism beaten out of us. Yet. We're rapidly reaching that point.
An adult is able to run his or her own life without the need for constant government interference.
Orders must be followed to the letter.
An observation, and a new operating principle for liberty:
Children don’t think like bureaucrats – bureaucrats, especially le petit bureaucrats typically think like children.
Citizen, you have crossed the line. You must understand the new principle of liberty – That which is not specifically permitted to you by the state is prohibited!
But that exemption only applies to the aircraft it listed at the time.
If only the crafters of the 2nd Amendment had such foresight.
Same for 1st amendment. “The press” obviously applied only to hand-set movable type printing presses only. No 1st amendment for rolling press printed newspaper, radio waves, TV, cable TV, internet…
I'd like to say this "You just got here and boy are your arms tired!" joke is beneath you but...
Brilliant! But, they should require a "No Hijacking" sign too.
Man, that would have prevented 9/11.
Have they thought about putting signs on the exit doors saying "Do not open while in flight"?
Except for military transports that might carry paratroops or airdrop cargo, exit doors should be impossible to open in flight. That Boeing that recently "blew out a door in flight" was misreported. It was not a door, and the passengers could not open it. It was a plug bolted in to cover the hole where the airline decided _not_ to have a door - but the bolts are missing, and the brackets that also held the plug eventually gave way.
It was my (cursory) understanding that (a) airliners are pressurized to the equivalent of 8,000 feet, not ground level; and (b) the alleged door opening occurred within a few minutes of takeoff.
That could explain how he could budge the door open. But I have seen no real technical discussion of it, just silly speculation and alarmism.
Would that be like an automobile interlock that prevents you from starting the car without passing an attached breathalyzer test when the breathalyzer fails to function properly? If so, no thanks! Imagine not being able to open the freaking aircraft door on the ground because the interlock failed safe!
I know I feel safer knowing that FAA regulators are protecting me from no smoking signs that can't be turned off - don't you? And it only cost travelers a billion bucks to ground those planes over an unnecessary outdated regulation that was never modified by the ossified antediluvian bureaucracy. Thanks, guys!
Only the FAA could require a safety sign to be overridden to allow illegal acts.
And then ground an entire design type because it followed the laws instead of the FAA regulation.
I have an idea where we might balance a little bit of the budget.
Only a bureaucratic agency could mandate overriding a safety sign to permit illegal actions. And then, rather than adapting regulations, ground an entire design type for adhering to the law. I have a notion on how we might restore some budgetary balance.
Comments working?
test