Plane Passengers Prioritizing Their Luggage in Firey Flight Emergency Sparks Fury
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A viral video of an American Airlines flight evacuation is drawing sharp condemnation online after several passengers were seen retrieving their luggage amid a fire emergency.
The clip, first shared in a Reddit thread by user emoemokade, shows chaotic scenes as flight attendants (FAs) attempt to guide travelers off the aircraft while smoke fills the cabin, reportedly from an overheated laptop battery.
Yet, despite urgent calls to evacuate, numerous passengers fumble with overhead compartments, refusing to leave their carry-ons behind.
Newsweek has reached out to American Airlines for comment.
In response to an invitation to comment from Newsweek, the Foundation for Aviation Safety identified the clip as being recorded during the emergency evacuation of an American Airlines 737 MAX airplane in Denver.
There was a fire in the landing gear and smoke entered the airplane, the non-profit organization told Newsweek.
Stock image: Passengers standing in the aisle of a plane.
Stock image: Passengers standing in the aisle of a plane.
iStock / Getty Images Plus
'Tragedy waiting to happen'
Ed Pierson, the foundation's executive director, said that Boeing 737 MAX airplanes have been having "lots of problems" with landing gear issues, such as brake clips cracking and low pressure in the tires.
"We believe this is a tragedy waiting to happen and just one of over 30 serious defects in MAX airplanes that we have been tracking and reporting," Pierson said.
"Boeing and the [Federal Aviation Administration] should be required to explain what they are doing to fix each of these defects and the public should be monitoring progress."
The director said that emergency evacuations can happen for a wide variety of reason. Unfortunately, despite receiving detailed briefings by FAs on how to calmly evacuate, some passengers may panic and act irrationally, like stopping to grab their luggage or trying to go against the flow of people exiting the plane, risking the safety of others trying to get out, he said.
'How would you react?'
"It is easy for people to criticize these bad decisions, but you have to ask yourself how would you react if you were sitting in your seat, the plane just aborted takeoff and you were now dealing with people yelling, smoke, saw flames and knew you were standing on tanks containing jet fuel?
"Hopefully you and your fellow passengers would stay calm and move swiftly during the evacuation."
'Pay the price'
Observers denounced the behavior seen in the video and called for penalties amid more than 3,300 comments on Reddit within two days.
"People are going to die before they start following rules," a critic warned, while another called for accountability: "That German family deserves to be banned by that airline for five years. They refused to comply.
"Doesn't matter if the battery was out, they ignored the FAs. They held up other passengers. They should pay the price."
The incident echoes earlier concerns about deteriorating behavior in flight cabins.
As reported by Newsweek, another viral video showed a young passenger on a domestic U.S. flight darting up the aisle to the galley while the plane was still taxiing.
"The [flight attendants] were completely stunned—like, full buffering mode," wrote Reddit user gynot44, who witnessed the scene.
"My 6-year-old nephew knows not to stand up while the plane is taxiing... I have to chalk this up to entitled and just not caring."
The Foundation for Aviation Safety went on to tell Newsweek that the FAA is not doing enough to protect ground evacuations. The administration does not have regulations on minimum seat pitch, meaning the distance between rows of seats, or the width of the seats, according to Executive Director Pierson.
"Instead, the FAA relies on an outdated 90-second evacuation standard that has been widely criticized because it doesn't reflect realistic evacuation scenarios, or the current passenger population," Pierson continued.
"Many airlines have reduced seat pitch and width over the past few decades, while passengers, on average, have become larger. We believe shrinking seats can hinder emergency evacuations, increasing the risk of injuries and fatalities."
'Challenge the public'
Pierson said that, "perhaps the FAA could challenge the public into coming up with a design for a locking mechanism that could be retrofitted to airplanes that would allow the pilots and flight attendants to automatically lock all storage bins. Then people wouldn't have the option."
Newsweek has contacted emoemokade for comment via Reddit, as well as American Airlines for comment.
Newsweek's "What Should I Do?" offers expert advice to readers. If you have a personal dilemma, let us know via life@newsweek.com. We can ask experts for advice on relationships, family, friends, money and work, and your story could be featured on WSID at Newsweek.
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, click here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
Key takeaways from 3-day hearing on deadly D.C. midair collision
Over the course of three days of investigative hearings, the National Transportation and Safety Board sought to gather more information about the factors that lead to the deadly midair collision over Washington, D.C., in January between an Army helicopter and a passenger plane. The NTSB heard testimony from air traffic controllers, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Army, and the families of several of the victims attended. At one point on the first day of the hearings, NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy said of the circumstances leading up to the crash, "Every sign was there that there was a safety risk." Addressing the families, she said the hearings would be "a critical part of our ongoing investigation." On Jan. 29, a Black Hawk helicopter struck an American Airlines flight from Wichita, Kansas, as it was coming in for a landing at Ronald Reagan National Airport, killing all 67 people aboard both aircraft. The NTSB will continue its fact finding and will compile a final report with determinations about the probable cause, likely within the next year. Here are the top takeaways from the hearings: The barometric altimeter the Black Hawk crew members were relying on may have given them incorrect information, according to NTSB investigators, because the crew was calling out altitudes that were lower than the actual height at which the helicopter was flying. The helicopter and commercial airliner collided approximately 300 feet above the Potomac River, and the maximum altitude for helicopters at that part of the route near D.C.'s Reagan Airport is 200 feet. The NTSB, as part of its investigation, tested three helicopters that are in the same battalion as the one that crashed and found that the barometric altimeter for all three was off by 80 to 130 feet. Army representatives on Wednesday told investigators that discrepancy is within the accepted variability because pilots are trained to maintain their altitude at plus or minus 100 feet. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy told CBS News' senior transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave the NTSB calculated the margin of error on Route Four in that area of the Potomac to be 75 feet. The Army said it is conducting additional reviews to determine how to proceed, frustrating investigators who asked why it would not make changes to the equipment, based on the findings of the NTSB tests. In 2022, an FAA working group considered moving helicopter traffic away from the airport, but ultimately did not. Transcripts from the airplane's cockpit voice recorder show the pilots received an automated verbal warning about traffic in the vicinity approximately 20 seconds before the collision. Less than two seconds before impact, the pilots shouted in alarm. Flight data indicates the plane's pilots attempted to climb to avoid the helicopter just before impact. The transcripts also reveal the pilots of the American Airlines flight questioned the move to Runway 33. The plane was originally supposed to land on Runway 1 but was redirected by air traffic controllers to Runway 33. As it was trying to land on that runway, the helicopter and plane collided. The pilots of the Black Hawk missed a key word when communicating with the air traffic control tower, according to a transcript released during the hearings of the conversation between the helicopter crew and the control tower. Fifteen seconds before the collision, DCA Tower asked the helicopter if it had the regional jet in sight. Four seconds later, the DCA Tower instructed the helicopter to pass behind the plane. The Black Hawk's cockpit voice recorder indicated that the phrase "pass behind" was rendered inaudible because a helicopter crew member pressed the microphone key. Although it was already known — based on control tower audio from that night — that the controller did not warn the American Airlines plane that the Black Hawk might cross its path, the FAA only openly acknowledged this for the first time during this week's hearings. In a key moment from the second day, Homendy asked FAA Air Traffic Oversight Service executive director Nick Fuller if any traffic advisories or alerts were issued to the plane. He responded, "No safety alerts." Homendy then asked, "Should the local controller have let the [plane] crew know that there was a helicopter there?" "Yes," Fuller responded. Rick Dressler, of Metro Aviation – which operates medical helicopters — was asked if there are units flying in the National Airport airspace that make him uncomfortable. "I don't like saying that first heli of [U.S. Air Force] from Andrews (Air Base) and I don't like saying that 12th Aviation Battalion gives us all pause in the community…," Dressler said, but "we are all very uncomfortable when those two units are operating." During the hearing, the Army admitted helicopters regularly flew below flights that land at Reagan National Airport.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pregnant Woman Says In-Laws 'Greeted My Baby Bump Instead of Me' When Meeting for the First Time
"Both FIL and MIL greeted my baby bump instead of me when we arrived, and it was all downhill from there," she writes on RedditNEED TO KNOW A woman says her first meeting with her in-laws did not go as planned when the couple immediately started talking about baby names She details the meeting in a post shared to Reddit "Both FIL and MIL greeted my baby bump instead of me when we arrived, and it was all downhill from there," she writesA woman says her first interaction with her in-laws will likely be her last after the couple immediately brought up potential baby names just hours after meeting for the first time. In a post shared to Reddit, the woman writes that she met her mother- and father-in-law for the first time, shortly after she found out she was pregnant. "Both FIL and MIL greeted my baby bump instead of me when we arrived, and it was all downhill from there," she writes. The couple then "pressured us to tell them our chosen baby names (we didn't), 'suggested' we name baby after MIL" and "made sure we had no time to see any other family in the area by dictating the whole weekend." At one point, the woman's mother-in-law also "threw a bizarre temper tantrum about baby showers." "She asked if I was having one, I said no, which is true," she writes. "She seemed to accept this at the time but next morning she declared my husband had told her that we would instead be doing a collection for the baby. He said no he hadn't, I said no we weren't doing that, she lost her cool (with a lot more back and forth in between, and increasing anger on her side)." She continues: "The whole visit made me sad because while I expected the entitlement and weird need for control, I wasn't expecting them to both prove me right quite so wholeheartedly or so soon. We've agreed to no more visits pre-birth, them coming to stay here/showing up unannounced is thankfully incredibly unlikely, and I personally will be putting them both on an info diet and directing all communication through husband for now." Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. Others on Reddit are chalking the situation up to a "classic mother-in-law power grab." Writes one commenter: "You're not 'evil,' you're just inconvenient to their fantasy of being third parents. Let them sulk, that's their hobby. Yours is protecting your baby. You already know placating just invites more entitlement." Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword
Fox News
8 hours ago
- Fox News
Husband refuses to eat chicken left in hot car for hours, sparking food safety debate: 'Not thrilled'
One man risked dinner – and domestic peace – when he refused to eat sun-warmed poultry that his wife was planning to prepare, according to a viral social media post. Writing on Reddit's 24-million-member "Am I the A--hole" forum on July 26, the man said the spat began after his wife decided to try a new recipe for dinner. "It's a one-pot chicken thing with orzo," he wrote. "She ordered the groceries online this morning and then went to collect them around 11 a.m. She got back home around midday and unloaded everything from the car." But around 5:30 p.m., his wife suddenly asked where the chicken went – and found that it had been sitting in the trunk of their car all afternoon. "The chicken wasn't a frozen chicken," the man clarified. "The chicken was a whole, fresh, raw chicken, in a sealed bag." "Although it wasn't a particularly warm day, we still had a high of [60 degrees Fahrenheit] and our car was sitting out in the sunshine all afternoon." The wife said that the chicken was still "cool to the touch," which the man hesitantly agreed with – it wasn't warm, he said, but he wouldn't call it "overly cold." "It's safe to say it was somewhere between fridge temperature and room temperature," he wrote. The Redditor quickly told his wife he wasn't interested in eating the chicken. "She tells me we're [still] going to eat the chicken," he recalled. "I go back to the couch and start Googling how long you can leave a chicken in the car." Despite going back-and-forth, the wife continued preparing the chicken – until the husband had an idea. "I pitch the idea that she can have the chicken and I can just make something simple for my dinner," he said. "She's not thrilled because she wanted to make this meal for me." The man said he told her that he was "not going to eat it" and felt as if he was "being made to eat a chicken against my will." She then got into the car and left "in search of another chicken from the store." But the man admitted that he felt "like a bit of an a--hole about it." "I also feel like we may have wasted a perfectly good chicken," he said. But most of the comments posted on the thread — which attracted over 2,000 responses — affirmed his fears. "You know what's worse than throwing out a chicken? Food poisoning," the top comment read. "I would not have eaten that chicken either." "I have a realllllllyyy loose attitude toward food safety and I wouldn't eat that chicken," another person chimed in. One user who attested to working in restaurants for two decades, however, had a different take. "I would've eaten it," the commenter wrote in part. "Still cool to the touch and getting cooked fully? It's fine." "It's not worth the risk. A single chicken is not that expensive compared to the food poisoning you could experience." Another wrote, "You're about to cook it. It's not had time to rot, especially if it's cool to the touch. Everyone in these comments is overreacting." Bryan Quoc Le, Ph.D., a food scientist with Mendocino Food Consulting in California, told Fox News Digital the risk in the Reddit situation is "very high." "It has been several hours-plus inside a car, which will be at a much higher temperature than the surrounding air," he said. "Bacteria grow very fast every 10 degrees higher than refrigeration temperature, exponentially so every 20 minutes. They are right that it is not safe to eat." Le added that, hypothetically, one could try cooking the chicken — which would destroy pathogenic bacteria. But that doesn't solve the issue, he said. "It's the toxins they leave behind that can be a problem, which tend to be heat-resistant," the expert said. "It's not worth the risk. A single chicken is not that expensive compared to the food poisoning you could experience."
