The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has just published an update to a very outdated rule, which actually had some implications for an airline recently, as flagged by PYOK.
In this post:
Aircraft “no smoking” signs no longer need to turn off
Regulators have very strict guidelines that they require airlines to follow, and that’s for good reason — it contributes to how safe aviation is. However, sometimes the rules are outdated at best, and ridiculous at worst.
As an example, smoking hasn’t been allowed on US airlines for decades, but airlines continue to be required to have “no smoking” signs in the overhead console, by the seatbelt sign. That’s fair enough, but here’s the wild part — up until now, regulations have required that pilots be able to manually turn the “no smoking” sign on and off. That’s despite the fact that there’s absolutely no situation in which pilots would need to turn that off.
The FAA is now amending this regulation, allowing aircraft to operate with “no smoking” signs continuously illuminated, so that the functionality of them being turned off is no longer needed.
The FAA acknowledges that this rule change was overdue, and that the old regulations were drafted at a time when smoking was at times permitted on commercial flights. So these amendments bring FAA regulations into alignment with current practice for manufacturing and operations.
What’s interesting is that for almost 30 years, the FAA has addressed the silliness of this rule by issuing regulatory exemptions, whereby aircraft operators could request to be exempt from the requirement to turn the “no smoking” sign on and off. But now the FAA will be making everyone’s life a bit easier, by no longer requiring an exemption.
The inefficiency of all of that is kind of mind-boggling. The FAA has for decades taken the time to issue exemptions for something that wasn’t even needed, rather than just changing the rule.
United Airlines learned this lesson the hard way
The timing of the FAA changing its rules surrounding the “no smoking” sign is no coincidence. In late 2023, United Airlines started flying the Airbus A321neo. A couple of months after commencing operations, United had to ground its A321neo fleet.
The reason? The “no smoking” signs on the aircraft couldn’t be turned off, and United hadn’t requested an exemption from that requirement. Clearly the airline forgot, or something. So the airline had to ground the fleet until it could get an exemption from the FAA.
I’m happy to see the FAA now avoiding this silliness altogether, so that exemptions no longer have to be issued.
Bottom line
The FAA has updated its rules regarding the “no smoking” sign on aircraft. Historically, the FAA required that pilots be able to manually turn the “no smoking” sign on and off. This rule was created back when smoking was still allowed on some commercial flights, which hasn’t been the case in decades.
Since then, airlines have been able to seek exemptions to this rule on a case-by-case basis, but that seemed like an unnecessarily complicated process. With this latest ruling, it’s fine if the “no smoking” sign is just constantly on, with no ability to turn it off.
What do you make of this FAA update regarding the “no smoking” sign?
The silly part about when smoking was allowed was that for example smoking was allowed in rows 1 - 15 but not in 16 to the back of the plane but there was nothing between 15 & 16 to keep the smoke from killing those sitting anywhere behind 15.
Such is the part of "Government Bureaucracy" that makes Government an embarrassment!!! It should have taken a 2-minute phone call. Instead $10Ks on both side are expended checking a box that someone should have checked many years ago!!!!!
The days of airline smoking! Usually it was in the rear of the aircraft only to be redistributed throughout the plane by recirculation in the ventilation system. Incomprehensibly, at least one airline decided that dividing the plane in half, (left of aisle nonsmoking, right side smoking) would ameliorate the problem. For some reason this didn't work. I'm glad the FAA has crawled out of its cave.
Speaking of dumb FAA rules. Please raise your hands all out there who don't know how to fasten a seat belt.
All those with their hands up please disembark this airplane. The city we are flying to doesn't want you spending any time in their city.
Nobody has made a case for why any airplane built in the recent past should even have a no smoking sign.
This is so gentle on the FAA....why not just call it what it is: gross government inefficiency on a level that may even be criminal negligence.
It seems to me that I've flown all I need in the 90s. Nothing about airline travel sounds the least bit enjoyable these days. I'll drive thanks.
The silliness would be that an airline would fly the a320, when the similarly sized ERJ & CRJ planes are millions of dollars cheaper
The Germans can do this more extremely that the Americans!
https://www.thelocal.de/20150615/there-is-a-light-that-never-goes-out
I think it would save a lot of money if they don't have all the extra wires and the weight
And reduce the risk of fire.
Considering that the seat belt illuminated sign on/off signals a reversal of the requirement to have the seat belt fastened, it is stretching common sense and logic to expect that the illuminated on/off smoking sign, generally in close proximity to the seat belt sign, could be expected to require an entirely interpretation by the passenger.
Considering that aircraft are still, as far as I’m aware, required to have a no smoking sign prominently displayed in...
Considering that the seat belt illuminated sign on/off signals a reversal of the requirement to have the seat belt fastened, it is stretching common sense and logic to expect that the illuminated on/off smoking sign, generally in close proximity to the seat belt sign, could be expected to require an entirely interpretation by the passenger.
Considering that aircraft are still, as far as I’m aware, required to have a no smoking sign prominently displayed in the toilets AND provide an ash tray (!), it’s glaringly obvious that the regulations around this issue are totally “confused”.
Everyone KNOWS that smoking onboard aircraft and in any part of the airport (other than designated areas/rooms) is forbidden/verboten just as they are similarly aware that knives, guns etc are forbidden onboard and will be detected and removed by AvSec (post checked bag drop).
So, easy fix … there’s no unrestricted opportunity for consumption of tobacco products or vapes post check in or pre bag pick up. Tobacco and vapes to go in checked bags. No checked bag/s? Purchase you supply at destination. Security detects and removes knives, guns, tobacco, vapes etc from offenders.
Where airside smoking rooms provided, addicts purchase desired (single) product against significant security deposit charge to their “card” ($500.00?), refundable on return of used product.
There. Fixed. No more smelly, sneaky ciggies in the (ashtray provided) aircraft toilets.
If they're not lit, cigarettes don't affect anyone not smoking them. There's no reason to mandate they stay in checked bags.
And vapes sometimes explode, which is why they're banned in checked bags.
The requirement to have an ash-tray so that those who do break the rules are less likely to cause a fire is an interesting one.
Perhaps it should be renamed combusting rubbish disposal box, but I do see the logic for having one.
Arguably it should be large enough to take at least a 'phone/powerbank/vaping pen. (I think the crew have access to special extinguishing bags for laptops?)
And regrettably I think your definition of "everyone" is too narrow!
What is the SOP for a laptop in an overhead bin/seat pocket/on lap catching fire?
I think the bags are in the galley, but are there gloves to hold the laptop getting it into the bag.
Or is there a sealed metal compartment in the galley?
Is it safeish to lie on tap of the laptop to shut out airflow (which I think is the recommended approach if a smallish area of clothing catches fire)
I don't remember what airline it was, but the no smoking sign was replaced with a WiFi symbol. When you were able to use your devices and the WiFi was up, it would illuminate.
Something I really hate from a UX perspective is that in the EU we have many flights with printed no-smoking signs and lighted fasten seatbelts sign. So let’s say seatbelts don’t need to be fastened - both the no smoking sign and the fasten seatbelts sign look the same - with different meaning.
Government is never the solution. It is always the problem.
Exactly. Why United wasn't granted an exemption is ludicrous.
They were. The second they applied.
Claiming govt is always a problem based on this tiny example is beyond ridiculous. If corporations ran the world we'd all be living in Black Mirror's "15 Million Merits".
What happens when government is taken out of the equation? Self regulation by Boeing. Who thinks that has been a success? Stop parroting Fox News and use some common sense.
Really @Ax? This rule still being on the books is objectively stupid. But try living someplace without a functioning government. Imagine life without public services - roads, airports, police, fire departments, laws. Have a look at some of those failed states out there and see how fun that is. If you think the government sucks, go help fix the problem.
I became aware of this when the UA 321neos were grounded. It is now my prime example of why we should not let the government take over private sector activities. You've known for decades the rule was superfluous, you regularly applied what should have been a temporary fix, now you finally fix it.
So your reaction to having to follow rules and a process of review and approval for change, is to dismantle the rules and process altogether.
No, I respect well-designed rules. I have obeyed numerous rules I thought silly. But, I believe you must design good rules. This was never one.
So your reaction to even one or a few poorly designed rules is to dismantle the rules and process altogether.
I don't think he mentioned dismantling the rules, just not letting a grossly inefficient government body police them.
It's not a silly rule. Pilots must be able to quickly and easily turn off ANY system completely (cough, MCAS, cough, cough). It sounds silly to be able to turn off the No Smoking sign, but let's say a little mouse has chewed a few wires, and now they cross, and smoke is coming from overhead wire bundle/cables. There's power to the system, so how do you turn it off? It depends on the aircraft,...
It's not a silly rule. Pilots must be able to quickly and easily turn off ANY system completely (cough, MCAS, cough, cough). It sounds silly to be able to turn off the No Smoking sign, but let's say a little mouse has chewed a few wires, and now they cross, and smoke is coming from overhead wire bundle/cables. There's power to the system, so how do you turn it off? It depends on the aircraft, but instead of a labeled switch, now the pilot is dusting off circuit breakers to find the right one while a fire is burning in the cabin...
You turn off the cabin power and land the damn plane.
Why is the no smoking sign a light in the first place? Why can't it just be a sticker? Then there's no electronics to worry about
What we need now is a 'no farting sign'! Passenger next to me on a recent LAS-EWR on UA was farting loud & proud multiple times during the flight. Was funny the first few times but then was just ridiculous.
Maybe one of these decades the NTSA will allow matrix lights (which are safer at reducing oncoming traffic glare) instead of low/beam high/beam-only.
Regulation is often well-intended but poorly maintained regs are the worst.
I thought they finally did change the regulations on this, but that it's going to be slow to appear in the US market due to need for the technologies used by the various manufacturers to be certified under "NHTSA rules." Or at least that is what I've heard. My car has the capabilities but has been disabled by software and will likely not ever be officially enabled because the manufacturer will likely focus on certifying the future, not the past. It's unfortunate.
In the 1940s, a well-known travel destination in California established an ordinance that prohibited women wearing high heels. Women complied. But, seventy years later, an attempted enforcement of the ordinance failed. Times had changed and the offender was a man wearing high heels. When the story hit the news, the town's women filed a Constitutional challenge to the ordinance and won.
Lee, I have no idea if this is accurate, but I remember being told in high school physics that some in the airline industry wanted to prevent women inadvertantly leaning back on their high heels, putting all their weight onto a very small surface area, and potentially punching a hole in the thin aluminum floor. I suppose it could be a significant problem if an unpressurized part of the plane was below.
This may...
Lee, I have no idea if this is accurate, but I remember being told in high school physics that some in the airline industry wanted to prevent women inadvertantly leaning back on their high heels, putting all their weight onto a very small surface area, and potentially punching a hole in the thin aluminum floor. I suppose it could be a significant problem if an unpressurized part of the plane was below.
This may have been my teacher trying to make a point about pounds per square inch rather than pounds alone.
...and some people think we'll see AI pilots and controllers in the U.S in our lifetime.
SMH.
Curious if anyone on this blog has memories of being stuck in the smoking section on long international flights.
Flying to India from the US in the 80's on Air India in the economy smoking section is easily my most traumatic childhood memory.
My brother and I tried to build tents from the blankets as a way to protect ourselves!
That sounds horrific
The holocaust was horrific; being stuck in the smoking section merely sucked.
It was probably that way for many airline smoking sections, not just on Air India.
As a kid, put in the last row of non-smoking section - which was not separated by anything from the next row where people were lighting up like crazy
I remember going to the toilet at the back of the plane and having to stand, waiting my turn, in the middle of the smoking area. That was bad enough. I can’t imagine having to do a whole flight that way.
My sister and I also had the same experience flying from India to US as kids! It was awful. Fortunately we had a little fan and used it to blow smoke away (wasn't very effective but became a good distraction) . Crazy how that was legal then, our experience was in the late 90's.
I think smoking was banned on European airlines in the early 1980s.
On India-US was it banned in the 1980s on American airlines, and only later on Indian airlines?
Near the end of the time when smoking was allowed, some airlines started having smokng sections not at the back but on the left. Ghastly if one was on the right and wanted to avoid smoke.
I vividly remember flying to Japan in F. I was in row one. There was a japanese man behind me in row two chainsmoking. Row 1 was non-smoking and row 2 was smoking because that's all there was. I think I smoked several packs on that flight.
I don't believe it is now required to have illuminated no smoking signs but if they are present they had to be capable of being manually turned off.
The whole UA A321NEO no smoking sign issue highlights the bureaucracy that US airlines fight every day which do nothing but cost money with no passenger benefit.
I actually believe you're right. Many newer plane that I've flown on seem to have no smoking signs that are just printed to the left of the fasten seat belt signage.
It makes me laugh that I'm easily old enough to remember when the no smoking lights were in use; and they were off for more time than the fasten seat belt signs. Seems like it was shut off after reaching 10000' and stayed...
I actually believe you're right. Many newer plane that I've flown on seem to have no smoking signs that are just printed to the left of the fasten seat belt signage.
It makes me laugh that I'm easily old enough to remember when the no smoking lights were in use; and they were off for more time than the fasten seat belt signs. Seems like it was shut off after reaching 10000' and stayed on until you'd be at about that same altitude on approach. Had to be some decent turbulence to get it turned on. Times change and I'm glad that practice is gone!
Your memory may be off. I recall the no smoking signs going off within seconds of the plane leaving the ground, just as the gear was being retracted there was a chime and the non-smoking sign went off and folks lit up.
Actually, that's true now that I think of it. Depended on the crew but they all let you smoke long before you could move about the cabin.