Yes, there is a safety risk to a cracked windshield. It’s part of the structural integrity of the car, particularly the roof and cracks in it may compromise the passenger compartment. It also provides the proper backstop for the airbags so they may not deploy properly if the windshield gives way prematurely. Yes, the windshield probably will crack during a major collision, but that initial state is important for safety.
Thank you for that. The boy scout in me makes me carry one of those point-hammer seatbelt-cutter tools but I did not know that part about applying it to the side window.
Some are spring-loaded (better) & some are just a point (can be tough to do). I am trained, I know how to do it & I find the non-spring-loaded ones tough to break a window (in training) sometimes. If you’re going to get one, get a spring-loaded one.
No affiliation but I have a Resqme on my gear & just used one the other night; it worked quickly & easily. Just put it up against the glass & rock/push into the glass, you don’t need to smash the window like a hammer hitting a nail.
I have a window punch in my car but don’t think I’m going to use it to save myself. There are two scenarios where one might use one
- Flooding
- Accident
For flooding, the adage “Turn around, don’t drown” really works; listen to it! If you’re in flood waters your car may be pinned against a tree, guardrail, building, etc. so you can’t open the downstream door & there may be too much water to be able to to push against the rushing water & open the upstream door; also, if you’re in that much water, the electrical system may be dead so you can’t put your window down. You might be able to get out but then it there’s that much running water, you might get swept off your feet. That’s were I, & my colleagues come in. I do water rescue & have the training & equipment to go in after the people who didn’t follow that sentence at the top of this paragraph. The first part of training is self-rescue. I’m not doing anyone any good if I come to drag your (proverbial you) dumbass out & lose my footing & get swept myself & now need to be rescued. Never want to or should be in a situation where you create more victims.
As for an accident, if someone is in a car that is badly damaged enough that the doors won’t open they’re quite likely to be too badly injured to self rescue themselves. Also, unless you have the tool in a secure-but-reachable location it’s probably going to go flying within the car during impact & be unreachable & therefore of no use.
I have one in my car but fully expect if I ever use it it will be because I drive up on an accident scene & use it to get someone else out of their car & not to rescue myself.
I have never heard of someone leaving a crack; yes you may get a crack & not fix it but it won’t pass a safety inspection that way (if mandated in your state). OTOH, a rock chip in not the same as a crack & can be left; however, a chip can be repaired but a crack must be replaced. Depending upon your insurance, chip repair may be free while a windshield replacement after a crack will probably cost your $.
Additionally, they are illegal in many/most jurisdictions; sometimes even a primary offense, meaning you can be pulled over just for that. Also, hit a bump wrong & that crack can spread, possibly in a way that impairs your ability to see out of it.
Thanks. Reasonably priced, too. Ordered. What I had is more like the ResQhammer but without the fancy knuckleguard handle.
Here in Arizona we get a lot of flying rocks so the comprehensive insurance I carry has a no-deductable windshield replacement clause in it. Even so I don’t bother with chips unless they’re too close to the driver. Even so I’ve replaced five windshields in thirty years, mostly for cracks. They don’t even need a jolt to spread, the summer heat manages that just fine.
I will not be taking this trip, hopefully ever.
You’d think the FAA would do more to stop them.
Well, if the FAA was boulder…
I can confirm that in Ontario, a windshield crack will not pass a safety inspection. In fact, even a small chip is unacceptable if it’s anywhere near the driver’s field of view. I had such a chip in a previous car and tried to get it repaired at a place that specialized in such things, and I pretty much couldn’t see any improvement at all. The place that was doing the safety certification took one look and ordered a new windshield, even though the chip was very tiny.
It’s the world’s worst acrobatic team.
Last I heard, Daniel Pettit (the guy who shot at a fire fighting plane) posted bond and was due back in court May 26. I haven’t been able to find anything newer than that.
Anyone have better luck?
Brian
Fresh article with more details Yesm NYP is not my favorite source, but they have the relevant images and audio:
Boston is, like O’Hare used to be, a pick-up sticks mess of crossing runways. That arrangement requires careful timing and no mistakes by anyone; failures almost certainly produce near misses or collisions. It’s a brittle designed-to-fail system.
Anyhow, the Flightaware image and radio transcript makes the big picture pretty clear even though some crucial details are missing.
From the article:
“Delta 2351 going around because of American,” the pilot said in the audio obtained by
LiveATC.com
“American 3161 where [are] you going?” a controller interjected.
“You cleared us for take off 3161,” the American Airlines pilot said.
“Delta 2351, turn right heading of 360, maintain 3,000,” the controller instructed.
Now we don’t know whether the AA pilots mistakenly thought they were cleared for takeoff but were not, or the controller had mistakenly cleared them and didn’t notice / remember / mention their error. I don’t know about the weather right then, but cleared or not the AA crew were in a position to see Delta coming in … if visibility permitted and if they looked carefully. What AA’s clearance really was and what the weather really was will be matters of indisputable record.
There are a couple Youtube videos on the Delta/American close call:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_YdtPqAgsE&t=6s/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPwlOjNs9IA&t=1s/
Note a big question is about the automatic runway status lights system which is installed at Logan. Didn’t it operate correctly?
Seems not to have been an issue here. If I correctly read the second video, American 3161 did have clearance, but what the controller did not expect was that they did not start their takeoff roll on getting clearance but only about 50-55 seconds later.
That’s similar to the FedEx / Southwest close call at Austin. The controller in that one made a very unrealistic assumption about SWA’s time to get rolling. Then didn’t keep tabs on the situation.
That guy was also grossly overtasked at the time. So IMO more of a systemic than individual error.
Today was the last day of scheduled air service to Lethbridge, Alberta (YQL). For decades, Lethbridge has been served by Canadian air carriers, but now? Nope.
Air Canada served the city until Covid, then quit. Westjet carried on, and its last service was today. Both carriers cited cost as the reason. Having flown on both between Lethbridge and Calgary (YYC) many times, and paid dearly for the privilege (like, $300 round trip on a Beechcraft 1900D), I’m skeptical that cost is the reason. How can you ignore a city of 100,000 plus who want to go places?
Air Canada boasts about how it serves Canadians. Well, Air Canada seems to feel that the only Canadians worth serving are those who live in Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax, and a couple of other places the same size or smaller than Lethbridge. Air Canada would rather boast about how it flies overseas to Sydney, Frankfurt, and London, than how it serves Canadians who do not live in the cities listed above.
The rest of Canada wonders why Albertans love their cars. The answer is simple: because without air service, train service, and the removal of Greyhound buses, we have no other choice in getting anywhere out of town!
Air Canada and Westjet, hang your heads. You are not serving Canadians, if you cancel air service to Canadian cities that may not be Toronto or Vancouver, but are Canadian cities nonetheless.
The USA long ago noticed that small cities can’t be profitably serviced by major (or minor) airlines. One of the very few holdovers from the regulated era is the Essential Air Service - Wikipedia. Wherein the US Federal government pays various commercial airlines to operate otherwise-unprofitable flights to small cities. I can recall from the early 1990s bringing 146-seat 727s through Pueblo Colorado with 10-15 people aboard. Nowadays it’d be an 35-seat RJ at best or a turboprop at worst.
I don’t know if Canada has a similar system, but if not it should. And if it exists, but Lethbridge isn’t included, your local federal MP deserves an earful pronto.
What’s the limiting factor for why they can’t? There’s a small airline that flies out of Boston to Provincetown, Nantucket, Rockland Maine, Rutland Vermont, and quite a few other small towns in New England. They have operations in Montana and the Caribbean, and have expanded their fleet recently. Their planes are mostly in the 9-11 seat range.
What are they doing that other airlines can’t? Their routes are mostly pretty short, which would keep fuel costs low. Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and Provincetown are popular hard to get to by car. The northeast is reasonably affluent, so locals can afford high ticket prices. I see a few of their destinations on that page you linked, but not all; they’re getting some payment from the government to serve those communities, but a few are expiring this year.
So what’s the biggest factor that determines which cities can support scheduled air travel at a profit?
Cape Air, per Ai, is subsidized on some routes (cough, Rockland). I’m sure MV and Nantucket are profitable, but this is a good example of Essential Air subsidies.