On: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front land...

[ithkuil]

In other words:

It's understandable that when confronted with an irresponsible behaviour of one particular person we tend to blame that person for being irresponsible.

But the fact is that there will be a given number of irresponsible people around.

It's also irresponsible to set up rules in such a way to make it more likely that some irresponsible people will do irresponsible things. Especially when there may be other rules that could reduce the chances.

[Dylan16807 → ithkuil]

That's the pure safety analysis.

There's also "why are you not giving people their bags promptly, you assholes".

Also important medication can get left behind, as someone else mentioned. It's worth some risk to delay for some seconds in that case, where math can tell you the exact amounts.

[vba616 → Dylan16807]

It's one thing to do the math to estimate how many idiots there are.

It's another thing to claim that the idiots are doing the math.

To describe throwing a ball, you may use calculus.

But if you then reason that people who throw things must know calculus, that's going to lead to incorrect inferences and decisions.

(as you may know it's not allowed to say "correlation != causation" on HN so I'm not saying that)

[Dylan16807 → vba616]

> It's another thing to claim that the idiots are doing the math.

Did someone say that?

If someone keeps a bag because they don't trust the airline, that's an emotional decision, not a math one.

[vba616 → Dylan16807]

Ok. I'm maybe not following your point.

Do you think the FAA's policy is a problem?

[Dylan16807 → vba616]

I do. For three reasons:

1. If people are worried nobody will get their bags for a long time, they'll be less likely to follow safety protocols and leave them behind.

2. It's bad to take people's things away for a long time.

3. Even if you assume people will obey, it can cause more harm than good in non-dire situations.

None of those reasons require the passengers to be notably logical.

And I have no idea what correlation you're talking about.

[vba616 → Dylan16807]

People worry in an emergency because they don't know what's going to happen.

People do not worry more or less because of some particular 1 in a billion billion event that happened yesterday. Well, maybe yesterday, but wait a day!

On the other hand, revising rules and regulations would have real costs for you the taxpayer.

[Dylan16807 → vba616]

If people regularly lose access to their belongings when there's an incident, that's not a 1 in a billion billion and a good number of people will learn about it and have it affect their behavior. If that's what the regulation says, it's going to keep happening. The premise of this conversation is that this is the regular process, right?

> On the other hand, revising rules and regulations would have real costs for you the taxpayer.

I am happy to pay the cost of revising a few paragraphs so that the regulation stops screwing people over! Don't steal people's most important bags! If that needs a rules change, it won't be a complicated one. Once the plane is safe to be on, get everyone's carry-ons within a few hours.

[vba616 → Dylan16807]

>If people regularly lose access to their belongings when there's an incident, that's not a 1 in a billion billion

It was an estimate for an individual.

>The premise of this conversation is that this is the regular process, right?

The premise seems to be that if somewhere some policy changes, people will not feel insecure in a (purported) emergency and grab their bags.

But they will, because they don't have a time machine to see it will be ok, and they don't trust the authorities, by assumption.