Travel...(Airplane and Customs ?)

[rayray5884]

I just recently did some traveling by Air and by Sea. My questions here are…Why must the window shades in an airplane be in the upright position when taking off??? And on my way through the terminal off the cruise I was on there was a sign that said, “This is a secure area. No Photography allowed.” Why no pictures???
Thanks!

[Coriolanus]

*Originally posted by rayray5884 *
Why must the window shades in an airplane be in the upright position when taking off?

I was going to WAG the answer is “so the passengers can see out the windows in case of problems…” yet tried the FAA and googol:

FAA document (*.pdf)

opening a window shade panel during an aircraft emergency evacuation is necessary to allow one to look out the window of the exit to determine whether that exit is safe to use. If a shade is effective and cannot be opened, the crew or a passenger might not be able to determine if there is a fire outside the aircraft.

http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/perrin/index.ssf?1101holiday.html

Matthews advises. During takeoff and landing, he adds, do three things: “Make sure the window shade is up—should any unusual situation occur, you’ll have a better appreciation of what’s going on if you have an external reference. Keep your shoes on, in case you need to get out amid fire or jagged metal. And turn off any lights around you—in the event of an incident, you’ll see better if no bright light was shining in your eyes immediately before.”

So pretty much my WAG was right. I didn’t find any particular FAA rule so this might be an airline policy. I’d add that open window shades also allows the tower and security to see into the airplane as the case may be.

*Originally posted by rayray5884 *
Why no pictures?

I’ll just wing this answer: They don’t want people to take photos of the area - its exits and entries, security personnel, devices and machines in use.

[Una_Persson]

Window shades opened or closed are not an “FAA Regulation”, no matter how many times the stewardesses lie to you and tell you that it is.

It is a Regulation to obey the instructions of the flight crew (within reason) for the safety of the aircraft. I guess they would have to prove that having your shade down made the aircraft unsafe to operate. But it would be crass to argue with them. over that point.

What pisses me off about this subject are the lies. I have been “ordered” at least once to raise my shade because it was an “FAA LAW!!!” and at least once to lower my shade because it was an “FAA LAW!!!”. :rolleyes:

I have no problems obeying flight attendant requests, regardless of how innane. But I am so tired of them falling back on the old “it’s the law…do what we say, or you go to jail” routine.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
**

What pisses me off about this subject are the lies. I have been “ordered” at least once to raise my shade because it was an “FAA LAW!!!” and at least once to lower my shade because it was an “FAA LAW!!!”. :rolleyes:

I have no problems obeying flight attendant requests, regardless of how innane. But I am so tired of them falling back on the old “it’s the law…do what we say, or you go to jail” routine. **

Maybe you should ask them for a cite?

[Johnny_L.A]

I like looking out of the window (such as it is – why can’t they put them higher? Who the hell wants to look at the ground all the time?) so I keep the shade open. But this thread makes me want to carry my copy of the FARs so if the stew claims something is a regulation I can say, “Show me.”

[Duckster]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
Window shades opened or closed are not an “FAA Regulation”, no matter how many times the stewardesses lie to you and tell you that it is.

How do you reconcile this opinion with Corbomite’s post citing an FAA rule?

[Johnny_L.A]

I’ve only skimmed the linked document, but it looks like the rule is a requirement to report defects. Here is the argument and response:

Southwest Airlines states that “changes added to §121.703(a)(11) included all exit door defects, malfunctions, or failures. Additionally, this includes door trim, window shade panels, and other cosmetic and or secondary structure on doors.”

FAA Response: Some items may have been installed for “cosmetic” reasons. However, using the commenter’s example, opening a window shade panel during an aircraft emergency evacuation is necessary to allow one to look out the window of the exit to determine whether that exit is safe to use. If a shade is defective and cannot be opened, the crew or a passenger might not be able to determine if there is a fire outside the aircraft. Similarly, a door trim item that is defective may jam the door in an emergency. For these reasons, defects of these items must be reported as part of the SDR program.

So the FAA is saying that structural defects must be reported. Southwest Airlines said that the rule is too broad and that the rule will cover non-structural items such as door trim and window shades. The FAA responded that a window shade must be able to be opened so that the crew or passenger can look outside in case of an emergency.

Corbomite’s quote is just the FAA’s response that defective “cosmetic” items should be reportable to the FAA and the FAA is giving a reason why a defective window shade should be reported. It does not say “Window shades shall be open during takeoff and landing.”

The second quote is a recommendation by Stuart Matthews, who heads the Flight Safety Foundation – not the FAA. The link is advice on, according to the title, “Adapting to Travel’s New Demands”.

[AmbushBug]

*Originally posted by Duckster *
**

How do you reconcile this opinion with Corbomite’s post citing an FAA rule? **

Was that the post containing the text (bolding mine)
“opening a window shade panel during an aircraft emergency evacuation is necessary …” ?

Actually, if you were to read the FAA .pdf file referenced in the Anthracite for context, you’ll see that even this text isn’t a regulation, rather it’s more like the FAA’s advice that it’s a bad thing to have a broken, inoperable windowshade.

AmbushBug

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Duckster *
**How do you reconcile this opinion with Corbomite’s post citing an FAA rule? **

I think you might be little mistaken here, Duckster. Look again at his post, and the .pdf - neither say anything to disagree with me.

[Duckster]

Note to Anthracite

Duckster inserts foot in mouth …

:smack: