Just wanted to run this idea past folks.
If you generally boycott Boeing over their safety scandals or over their extreme right lobbying contributions that support that climate denying political party, but you find yourself taking a Boeing anyway (e.g. your employer books you on one), why not show up to board the plane wearing a wing suit?
The idea is to convey the idea that a panel can fall off at any moment, inconveniently suck you out, and you have a sudden unplanned need to fly on your own. A parachute is likely too bulky. It’s kind of a way to make a statement.
I’m not sure if the wing suit can be comfortable enough to sit in and actually simultaneously somewhat functional. Would we have to choose between sufficient comfort and sufficient gliding capability, or could we have both?
It doesn’t have to be ugly. Consider those Nepalese and African pants with knee-high crotches. Those are borderline wing suits for the bottom half. When legs are spread, it could reveal something like “Boeing passenger safety pants”.
I suppose the big question would be: would a Boeing pilot exercise their discretion and refuse to carry such a passenger?
Are you perhaps thinking that the crew does not talk to the pilots and inform them about any kind of disruptions or controversy?
(edit) In fact the more I think about this, the less viable it is. If I were a pilot, I would absolutely see a passenger who is equipped to jump as a safety threat – someone who might very well open the emergency exit latch and jump. If I were a crew member, I would be a fool not to report someone in a wing suit to the pilot.
I think the only way this could work is if the wing suit is clearly irrefutably dysfunctional. And even then there is still probably a risk that passengers feel uncomfortable.
sure, that’s all fine, but a pilot wouldn’t see anyone. Even if he was told, he wouldn’t have to see them. He’d just say “security, deal with it”.
everyone else would, which is fine, and the process would work fine.
Is English your first language? The phrase “I would absolutely see a passenger who is equipped to jump as a safety threat” does not imply a visual line of sight. In this context “see” means to have a viewpoint. Pilots regularly make decisions on whether to carry a problematic passenger without actually seeing them.
you would not see him at all, because he would not get through the airport security
no, he might not, it is not possible to open door due to their construction (pressure difference), not unless you are really close to the ground, in which case it would not matter anyway. also your main concern, if it were possible, would be being ingested by the plane’s engine.
it could not. do you really think the airport security would argue with you whether it is functional or not? you would be escorted out either by the police, or the ambulance headed to loony bin.
I’m trying to get my head around how you reconcile in your own head the contradiction. If someone wearing a genuine wing suit or a fake wing suit cannot be a threat, how can you simultaneously claim they are too much of a threat to get through airport security?
stop making contradictory statements for others in your head and you won’t have to try to wrap it around those made up contradictions. it can make life lot easier.
yeah, never said that. i explained why your plan to use suit as emergency device is laughable nonsense worth animated sketch in kid’s show at most and i mentioned marginal scenario where it might actually be a threat to airplane, but doesn’t really make sense to attempt to execute it in such case.
you may not be a threat and still not get through security. their job is not to argue with you whether your suit is functional, or to have qualification to asses that and make assumptions about what does its (non)functionality mean.
they will just err on the side of caution, kick you out and make you somebody else’s problem.