Do commercial planes need 'No Smoking' lights anymore?

flazio

Surely at this stage we all know that smoking on a flight is a big no no, so can westop installing No Smoking lights beside the seatbelt lights?
I reckon we probably have pilots at this stage who wouldn't remember a time when smoking on flights was allowed.

Busted Flat.

flazio wrote: »

Surely at this stage we all know that smoking on a flight is a big no no, so can westop installing No Smoking lights beside the seatbelt lights?
I reckon we probably have pilots at this stage who wouldn't remember a time when smoking on flights was allowed.

They need bigger signs for the clowns that can't see the small ones, and there is more clowns out there than you can imagine.

A320

flazio wrote: »

Surely at this stage we all know that smoking on a flight is a big no no, so can westop installing No Smoking lights beside the seatbelt lights?
I reckon we probably have pilots at this stage who wouldn't remember a time when smoking on flights was allowed.

I have been on newer airbus aircraft that dont have them,they had "turn off electronic devices" instead.the no smoking was on a small decal every few rows

murphaph

A320 wrote: »

I have been on newer airbus aircraft that dont have them,they had "turn off electronic devices"

...including e-Cigarettes I presume? :pac:

n0brain3r

Anyone ever on a smoking flight? It must of been a horrible experience. Did they recycle the cabin air more often to make up for it?

MuffinsDa

n0brain3r wrote: »

Anyone ever on a smoking flight? It must of been a horrible experience. Did they recycle the cabin air more often to make up for it?

Yep, up until as late as 2001 you could smoke on some airlines, they used to be quite lenient. I remember distinctly an Emirates flight in 2001 where the back was filled with smokers and smoke - I remember seeing and Indian gentleman smoking a pipe!

I was also on a lot of flights in which smoking was allowed in the 90s.

I think Air France were quite lenient about it up until early 2000s too.

It wasn't nice!

eusap

The new AerArran planes also have the No Electronics lights instead of the no smoking lights

hardCopy

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Yep, up until as late as 2001 you could smoke on some airlines, they used to be quite lenient. I remember distinctly an Emirates flight in 2001 where the back was filled with smokers and smoke - I remember seeing and Indian gentleman smoking a pipe!

I was also on a lot of flights in which smoking was allowed in the 90s.

I think Air France were quite lenient about it up until early 2000s too.

It wasn't nice!

I remember this too. You'd be asked at check in if you wanted smoking or non-smoking. There was no divider or anything, smokers just sat at the back and usually boarded from the back. The same way restaurants used to work, as if the smoke would magically stop at the dividing line between smoking and non smoking zones.

bk

The new No Electronics lights signs are pretty ironic given that the FAA is about to change the rules in the US to allow electronics during all phases of flight and I assume the EU authorities will follow suit.

Dublinflyer

I was on a flight in the US last week and the armrests still had ashtrays in them, sealed shut but still clearly marked with a cigarette sign. I think Ryanair allow e-ciggs and Aer Lingus do not.

I have seen the no electronics sign on a few of the newer aircraft. I suppose they will still need to have them even if the FAA change the rules as the pilot and airline will have discretion on if the pax can use PED's during the flight. In saying that if the FAA, and the others, was to say that PED's can be used on all phases of a flight it would be a brave airline that would ban them as I think it would change the habits of business travelers. It's going to be interesting to watch.

veetwin

n0brain3r wrote: »

Anyone ever on a smoking flight? It must of been a horrible experience. Did they recycle the cabin air more often to make up for it?

Yeah been on several smoking flights. Pakistani airlines used to allowed up to the mid 2000's as did Saudi Arabian. I used to smoke at the time so it was grand for me. Would hate to have been a non smoker on those flights though.

Peregrine

hardCopy wrote: »

I remember this too. You'd be asked at check in if you wanted smoking or non-smoking.

All of the flights I've been on had the No Smoking lights. I think we should still have enough No Smoking signs on the aircraft, be it lights or just signs on the back of seats. I know most people know it's a big no no to smoke on aircraft nowadays but there will still be people who 'forgot' or didn't know

Mister R

I guess for airlines operating in countries that are less used to flying. I went for an interview for Emirates once and they had this presentation before explaining about the company and how when travelling to parts of Asia and Africa a lot of passengers have never flown before, something that is unlikely at European or North American airlines.

billie1b

Dublinflyer wrote: »

I was on a flight in the US last week and the armrests still had ashtrays in them, sealed shut but still clearly marked with a cigarette sign. I think Ryanair allow e-ciggs and Aer Lingus do not.

I have seen the no electronics sign on a few of the newer aircraft. I suppose they will still need to have them even if the FAA change the rules as the pilot and airline will have discretion on if the pax can use PED's during the flight. In saying that if the FAA, and the others, was to say that PED's can be used on all phases of a flight it would be a brave airline that would ban them as I think it would change the habits of business travelers. It's going to be interesting to watch.

I think this is because the A330 fleet are so old that some Airlines allowed smoking on them still

Dublinflyer

You are right about the A330 age but it was actually an MD-80 I was on at the time. Now that was an old bird!

billie1b

Dublinflyer wrote: »

You are right about the A330 age but it was actually an MD-80 I was on at the time. Now that was an old bird!

Ha sorry, I took it up that you said 'I was on a flight TO the US last week' not IN, sorry minor lapse in my concentration, Jeez yeah MD80 is an old bird but a classic

Dublinflyer

Yea the MD80, it's great to see them still flying but holy moly they can be loud on the inside. I was delayed leaving Dublin and so missed my connection and rebooked right at the back about 6 inches from the engine. Even with ear plugs in my eardrums were shaking for a day after!

View Profile

The new 737 still has built in ash trays in the flightdeck.

APM

I flew from Morocco to Marseille last week and we had a passenger arrested on arrival for smoking in the toilets, so I think the signs are definitely still needed.

The passenger in question admitted smoking and claimed he was never told not to smoke.

Different cultures I guess.

To other posters, E-cigarettes are not permitted on Ryanair. Just the smokeless ones they sell onboard, which are not the same thing.

L1011

Dublinflyer wrote: »

I was on a flight in the US last week and the armrests still had ashtrays in them, sealed shut but still clearly marked with a cigarette sign.

You'll get that daily in DUB - the Saab 340s used by Loganair have ashtrays.

BonkeyDonker

And the irony of it is that even though you cannot smoke on a flight any more, if ashtrays were originally fitted, but missing it can cause the flight to be cancelled - particularly in toilets.

Stovepipe

Hi there
people still try smoking in aircraft toilets and we still catch them. they also leave lighters and matches behind. Ashtrays are there because the risk still exists. Tobacco smoke, over time, damaged mechanical instruments. Aircraft were fitted with instrument filters to cope with it.
regards
Stovepipe

flazio

I'm not saying to do away with 'No Smoking' signs entirely, I just mean the overhead lights that sit beside the Fasten Seatbelt sign. Of course I believe that 'No Smoking' should be mentioned as part of every Pre flight safety announcement and that signage should remain around the toilets. (I also believe that a sprinkler should be activated should someone light up in the loo but that's another point)

ProfessorPlum

That might be a bit of a problem when the pax or cc go in to touch up their hair and get drenched!

pclancy

I've been on several 777-300s and 777-200s this year and ALL of them had ash trays in the toilets. Each time I saw one I wondered why there were never taken out or even installed in the first place as most of the aircraft werent very old.

On a trip to China in 2008 with KLM on a 747 there were two passengers caught smoking in the toilets and then on an internal China Southern 737 again the smell of fags eminated from the toilets soon after reaching cruise height. You might have some chance of getting away with it on a 747 but on a 737??? Both times though the stewardess got angry but no further action such as police was taken. Crazy.

keith16

Whenever I go to the jacks on an Aer Lingus Flight, I always marvel at the ashtray in the jacks door. I say marvel, I mean "notice".

rovoagho

Comical that Irish airlines are adding No Electronics signs just as the FAA has abolished the requirement.

L1011

keith16 wrote: »

Whenever I go to the jacks on an Aer Lingus Flight, I always marvel at the ashtray in the jacks door. I say marvel, I mean "notice".

Requirement, so staff have somewhere to extinguish a confiscated smoke

crosstownk

I remember being on an EI flight to LPA in the early '90s that allowed smoking in the rear of the B737.

As a smoker I found it horrible. Absolutely horrible. I never booked a smoking seat since.

On an AA flight to BOS (also in the '90s) there were two rows down the back that allowed smoking - it was like a train in Scandinavia.

keith16

MYOB wrote: »

Requirement, so staff have somewhere to extinguish a confiscated smoke

Ah. That makes sense. Do people really try to light up on flights?

billie1b

keith16 wrote: »

Ah. That makes sense. Do people really try to light up on flights?

Jeez yeah, I probably have garda at one of my flights waiting at least 3 out of my 6 shift days

OP:

As an airport worker, I can tell you exactly why the no smoking signs are still there.

People can be stupid.

I mean, really stupid.

Busted Flat.

Deleted User wrote: »

OP:

As an airport worker, I can tell you exactly why the no smoking signs are still there.

People can be stupid.

I mean, really stupid.

They are not stupid as stupid goes, it is selfish arrogant clowns that do it. Hoping decent people will not have the guts to complain.

coylemj

Smokers weren't all shoved down at the back of the plane. When EI used to do business class and permitted smoking in designated rows, the last couple of rows of business class were for smokers so say rows 1-4 non-smoking business class, 5-6 smoking business class, curtain, 7-xx rest of the passengers. This meant that the people at the front of economy class were directly behind one or two rows of smokers with only a flimsy curtain as a screen between them and the clouds of nicotine.

The no-smoking light above the passengers used to go out a matter of seconds after the plane left the ground. By the time the cabin crew unbuckled their seatbelts, most of the onboard smokers were merrily puffing away.

Before duty-free was abolished for intra-EU travel, you could buy a carton of duty-free fags in the airport and another one onboard so it was a nice little earner for Aer Lingus.

Pawwed Rig

Signs have no effect on those who choose to smoke in the toilets anyway so to answer the OPs question they are fairly redundant. People who decide to smoke know they are in the wrong or else they would just do it in their seat.

L1011

keith16 wrote: »

Ah. That makes sense. Do people really try to light up on flights?

Yes. Often. Longer flights, flights which have a higher % of drunk people (Spanish coastal/island) and flights to areas which would be seen as less developed would have a very high rate of attempts at smoking. Drunks and the desperate on long flights often at least try to hide it in the toilets.

Dublinflyer

APM
You can tell I am not a smoker, I always thought they were all just called e-ciggs but now I know!!

murphym7

billie1b wrote: »

Jeez yeah, I probably have garda at one of my flights waiting at least 3 out of my 6 shift days

Whats the story with passengers being caught smoking e-cigs?

Tenger

Dublinflyer wrote: »

I was on a flight in the US last week and the armrests still had ashtrays in them, sealed shut but still clearly marked with a cigarette sign....

This is a holdover from the seats being designed in the 1990's I would assume.

However you will continue to see ashtrays on aircraft as they must have an approved location for disposal when you get the clowns who continue to think they have a right to smoke contrary to the T&C's they agreed to.

rovoagho wrote: »

Comical that Irish airlines are adding No Electronics signs just as the FAA has abolished the requirement.

Not really. The process to install the "no electronics" signs was under way quite a while with the IAA. Any process taking place by the FAA would not impact existing IAA work.

billie1b

murphym7 wrote: »

Whats the story with passengers being caught smoking e-cigs?

I'm not actually sure, I have never come across that problem, in my opinion I don't think there would be a big problem as they can't cause a fire, thats the main reason you can't smoke on any aircraft

Tenger

Negligible content.

bikeman1

I always find it pretty sad that people have let their addiction get so bad that they can't go for a number of hours without having a cigarette.

Yes I do think that the signs are needed.

smurfjed

allowed smoking in the rear of the B737.
As a smoker I found it horrible. Absolutely horrible. I never booked a smoking seat since.

As a staff passenger ons standby, we would get the last seats available which enviably were always in the smoking area, I used to get really pissed off with smokers who would take a seat in the non-smoking zone, but insisted on coming back to the smoking area to smoke. The number of times that i have had people literally sit on me (me sleeping across 4 seats) as they weren't allowed smoke standing up.

These days, 3000 feet "No smoking sign off", and we get to lovely smell of Montecristos

coylemj

billie1b wrote: »

I'm not actually sure, I have never come across that problem, in my opinion I don't think there would be a big problem as they can't cause a fire, thats the main reason you can't smoke on any aircraft

Don't think it has anything to do with the fire risk, if it was then smoking would have been banned on planes long ago, especially in the era when most of the internal fittings were made of flammable material.

The ban on smoking in planes was an extension of the international trend to ban smoking in public places which started I think in offices in the US, then got rolled out to bars and restaurants in NY and Florida and was adopted here by law to apply to most enclosed public places in March 2004. Can't remember when the airlines in Europe banned smoking but I don't remember that safety was the driving force, it was more a democratic decision based on the fact that most passengers were non-smokers. What clinched it was when opinion surveys revealed that even a majority of smokers were in favour of the ban, especially on short-haul flights.

A modern day analogy is the preference to ban mobile phones on planes, even by people who rely on a mobile for their work i.e. 'I can do without it (a fag/my mobile phone) for a couple of hours and don't want the guy beside me at it all through the flight'.

Dublinflyer

Another reason was a non-smoking flight uses less fuel, albeit a small bit less but every drop counts!

Foggy43

Dublinflyer wrote: »

Another reason was a non-smoking flight uses less fuel, albeit a small bit less but every drop counts!

I remember this. Particularly the Boeing 747-100/200 and the 'issue' we only need run 2 air conditioning packs instead of 3 since there is no smoking. The airlines denied this but there was silence if the subject was ever brought up on the flight deck.

One thing I do not miss is cleaning off the thick yellow/black tar around the cabin out flow doors. Trying to get that crap off yourself and your tools afterwards.........:mad:

billy few mates

I was an apprentice aircraft mechanic back in the days when smoking was allowed onboard, the air in the cabin gets drawn towards the rear of the aircraft and I can still remember the brown sticky tar-like substance that would build up on the insulation and components in the area of the aft pressurisation outflow valve. We used to overhaul these valves in the workshops and it was a real eye opener to see how they would be destroyed by the build up of tar clogging up the mechanism causing them to seize solid, it really was an effective deterrent to smoking when you saw the damage it caused.
As said above it was also common in those days for staff travelling on standby tickets to be dumped in the least desirable seats in the smoking zone or just behind it.

Some comedian once said that having a smoking area on a plane was like having a peeing area in a pool.

stevenmu

Apparently the FAA require all airliners to have an ashtray in the loo on the basis that people will probably try and smoke anyway

http://www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2012/05/engineeringinfrastructures/

murphym7 wrote: »

Whats the story with passengers being caught smoking e-cigs?

I've used an e-cig on several flights at my seat. It's very easy to "stealth vape" by holding in the vapour for a few seconds so it doesn't blow out in a cloud

keith16

Absolutely mad to think, that smoking on board should have saved this aircraft:

One piece of evidence of the metal fatigue is contained in pictures that were taken during a routine inspection of the plane years before the crash. The photos showed visible brown nicotine stains around the doubler plate. This nicotine was deposited by smoke from the cigarettes of people who were smoking about seven years before the disaster (smoking was allowed in a pressurized plane at that time). The doubler plate had a brown nicotine stain all the way around it that could have been detected visually by any of the engineers when they inspected the plane. The stain would have suggested that there might be a crack caused by metal fatigue behind the doubler plate, as the nicotine slowly seeped out due to pressure that built up when the plane reached its cruising altitude. The stains were apparently not noticed and no correction was made to the doubler plate, which caused the crash to happen.

Wibbs

Even further back in the day in WW2, some fighter pilots had ashtrays made up for their cockpits. The German ace Adolf Galland had one in his BF109 so he could puff on his cigars on missions. And he was sitting on a petrol tank. :eek: Then again the dose of radium he was getting from the lume on his instruments probably did more harm and the risk of alliedbulletitis was very high.

On the less fuel required for non smoking flights, I do recall reading a theory where there appeared to be an increase of deep vein thrombosis on long haul flights after the airlines went smoke free and this may be down to the idea that the air while visually cleaner and obviously safer from secondhand smoke, the air was less fresh because it was circulating for longer.

I don't see why e cigs would be banned mind you. No risk of secondhand anything involved and "smoke" such as it is dissipates almost instantly leaving no residue.