Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

Mike,

I answered just about everyone who replied to my query by private mail. In
your case, however, I believe a public response is called for.

This thread started when I posted the following query:

>Okay, call me stupid. There must be a good reason not to carry full tanks in
>an airplane, but for the life of me I can't see it.

I posted it out of curiosity. Like I said, there had to be a reason for this
regulation but, since I couldn't figure it out by myself, I decided to ask
for the help of my fellow divers. I don't like it when I don't know the reason
for a rule.

That is NOT to say that I advocate ignoring the rule.

Just because you don't know how a full tank could send a 767 crashing down to
its doom - and several hundred people with it - does not mean that there isn't
a way this can happen. Even if no one in this list had been able to come up with
a good answer to the question, I would be the last person to encourage
disobeying
the law just because I don't understand the reason for it.

Now, many people in this list disobey well-known safety rules. BUT - and this is
a VERY big but - they usually know what they're doing, they don't endanger
anyone
but themselves, and they're not breaking the law. Summing it up, I believe it's
acceptable to break a safety rule if:

a) You thoroughly understand the reason for the rule, are well versed in the
   subject involved, and can state in no uncertain terms why the rule is
   hogwash. That was very clearly NOT the case here.
b) You don't endanger anyone but yourself in case you're wrong. A jet plane with
   hundreds of people aboard does not fit this scenario.
c) You're not breaking the law. Again, this is not the case here.

So if you don't see the reason for a safety rule, do like I did: ask around. If
you're lucky enough to be in the company of better informed people, you'll soon
be more comfortable following the rule. If not, follow it nonetheless. There may
be a good reason for it.

End of sermon.

Cheers,

Carlos    8^)



>Just got off the phone with my brother.  He is a 767 Captain for United, 
>amnd a Scuba diver. I asked him why the airlines require that the tanks be 
>emptied and told him a little of the discussion going on here. He said that 
>although he is not an expert, the airlines are concerned with tank failure. 
>It is not impossible for a tank to failure for stricktly structural reasons. 
>The resulting explosion could damage control systems, the airplanes 
>structure, etc.
>
>More importantly, he could not understand why anyone would violate the 
>safety rules. Bringing a full tank on board is considered an explosive 
>device and a federal offense and a felony.
>
>Better yet, the airlines announced to all personnel this week that due to 
>the middle east situation, all baggage that is brought or checked onto all 
>domestic and international flights would be x-rayed beginning immediately.
>
>I am sure, and hope that our fellow divers would understand that although 
>tank failure is unlikely, the airlines do not take chances. If you carry or 
>check or sneak full cylinders on any commercial airline and get caught, you 
>are in a ton of shit.
>
>Be safe, and pay the vip fee. It is not worth getting arrested or worse.
>
>Regards 
>Mike
>--
>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'.
>Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'.
>
>

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]