20 Hurt In Severe Turbulence Over Alaska

[coffindodger]

More than 20 people have been hurt by turbulence on a flight from Washington DC to Tokyo.
Although there were no serious injuries, at least one passenger may have fractured a leg, and others have complained of pain and bruising.

Police at Tokyo's Narita International airport said the United Airlines flight hit turbulence over Alaska but the Boeing 747 eventually managed to land on schedule.

United Airlines spokesman Mike Trevino said that about halfway into the 13-hour flight, the pilot advised passengers to put on their seat belts.

A short time later, the plane "experienced moderate turbulence."

Turbulence Hits US To Japan Flight And Injures About 20 People - Plane En Route From DC To Narita | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Turbulence-Hits-US-To-Japan-Flight-And-Injures-About-20-People---Plane-En-Route-From-DC-To-Narita/Article/201002315554345?lpos=World_News_Second_Home_Page_Article_Tea ser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15554345_Turbulence_Hits_US_To_Japan_Flight_And_ Injures_About_20_People_-_Plane_En_Route_From_DC_To_Narita)

[PLovett]

For those not wearing their seat belts they deserve everything they suffered. The same for those not wearing them reasonably tight. :=

[Graybeard]

When the winter winds come howling out of the north, Mt. McKinley and other mountains and ranges generate lots of severe turbulence. The winter bump is known to the locals flying out of Anchorage, who stay slow until climbing through it, but the pilots of a C-47 load of jumpers in about 1948 were apparently unaware. The plane split apart, and the only survivors were some of the jumpers.

An Evergreen 747 taking off out of ANC in March, 1993, hit severe turbulence, and found damage to control surfaces upon landing JFK. A second EV 747 taking off from a cross runway just after that hit severe turb at 2,700 feet, which tore a pylon in half. The engine landed in a parking lot in downtown Anchorage, harming no one.

GB

[framer]

My favourite thing about this thread so far is the word 'misunderestimate'....it's awesome. I will use it in my PA tonight.

[matkat]

A second EV 747 taking off from a cross runway just after that hit severe turb at 2,700 feet, which tore a pylon in half. The engine landed in a parking lot in downtown Anchorage, harming no one.

GB in regard to the B747 that had the engine torn of, this is only a small part of the story, when the engine came of as it was designed to do it went over the wing unfortunately as the A/C was on the climb out the LE & TE flaps were still deployed the engine took out a fair amount of them, Elmendorf were requested to shadow the A/C which as you said landed safely, it was later revealed that the damage that occured was never foreseen and could/should have caused it to crash. The Capt. was a certain Larry. BRAn. an old Friend from my days at polar.

[Graybeard]

Oh, I didn't invent the word; Pres. George W. Bu$h did. His English is legendary.

"The terrorists are trying to harm Americans, and so are we." "Nukular"

GB

[Captain Dart]

I've had the cabin crew strapped in descending through FL200 inbound to Anchorage; the highly professional Anchorage ATCOs put a turbulence warning below that level on the ATIS; and they were bloody well right!

[wxjedi]

The entire North Pacific Rim can be very turbulent in my experience. It makes sense really. Big body of water meeting a big land mass with high terrain. I have had severe turbulence all over the world but it is uncommon and usually on the Pacific and the Bay of Bengal.
My worst ever event was over Biscay from Cork to Malaga in a 146 about 10 years ago. Tough old bird that 146.

Tom

[Dave Gittins]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people immediately undo their belts when the sign goes off (Mrs DG included) and are terribly resistant to putting them back on even when the sign is on - and then try only to do them up as loosely as they can get away with. Maybe a video of the dangers of severe turbulence as part of the safety brief would help avoid the injuries.

My gut feel tells me that there are far more injuries due to turbulence than anything else so why not make a far harder point ? Or is the publicity deemed to be too negative ?

[mr Q]

It is that woman Sarah Palin's fault if it happened in her airspace !!!!

[Final 3 Greens]

For those not wearing their seat belts they deserve everything they suffered.

Not much of the milk of human kindness in your veins, eh?

[philbky]

Not much of the milk of human kindness in your veins, eh?

But a great deal of reality as people not belted are a hazard to themselves and others. On a recent flight at night, in the climb through a decaying area of convective activity, the seat belt sign was not turned off after take off though the cabin crew were gonged to start their duties.

Seated in an exit row on a 777, as soon as the crew in the seats facing us got up, the Frenchman next to me undid his belt. He was asked to refasten it, which he did. As soon as the crew disappeared he undid the belt again and hid it under his blanket.

A while later, in the cruise, we hit some moderate turbulence (overhead bins creaking, sideways and vertical motion, acceleration and deceleration). The seatbelt lights were flashed and gonged and the cabin crew came around to check belts (on departure the Captain had mentioned turbulence and asked for people to keep their seatbelts fastened - at least until the seatbelt lights went out and even then to keep them fastened - and the Purser had given BA's excellent briefing on seatbelt use whilst we were in the climb). The crew noticed one end of the Frenchman's belt hanging down from under his blanket and asked him to fasten it over his blanket - as had been mentioned by both the Captain and Purser. This he did but within minutes he released the belt and hid it in the folds of the blanket.

A few moments later one of the cabin crew came back and sat down opposite us and started to fill out somekind of form. We hit a particularly hard "rock" moving sideways and downwards and our friend's belt fell out of his blanket. When the crew member asked him to fasten the belt he made out he did not understand (though his previous conversations with the crew were in English). By gesturing and pointing at the sign the crew member had him fasten the belt again and helped him adjust his blanket.

Once away from the area of turbulence the seat belt sign went off and he undid the belt. Throughout the night he was regularly visited by a female passenger who sat on his knee and spent long periods kissing and stroking his face.

After some hours we hit a little light turbulence which, whilst not particularly causing unexpected motion, was persisitent. After a while the belt sign went on. The woman was sitting on the Frenchman's knee at the time and did not move, nor did he fasten his belt. She only returned to her seat under protest and he made another "I don't understand" pantomime about his belt.

Some people lose all common sense when they travel by air. It can be seen in behaviour at airports and on board. To not keep the belt fastened unless moving round and to ignore the fasten seatbelt sign is sheer stupidity. To do this in an exit row with over 4 feet of clear space in front and a greart deal of headroom is nothing short of moronic and, had our friend ended up damaged as a result of his behaviour I, for one, would have shed no tears.

[Final 3 Greens]

had our friend ended up damaged as a result of his behaviour I, for one, would have shed no tears.

Anyone who reads these boards regularly knows I have little tolerance for people who disobey the belt sign.

But I would be upset if anyone was injured.

Sorry is this offends you.

[philbky]

Doesn't offend me at all. As far as I'm concerned, people who take risks and disobey sensible, logical rules which are there to protect them and are repeatedly pointed out to them, should have no recourse to the sympathy of others.

[Graybeard]

How many are injured by unbelted pax falling on them?

I would have asked the CC to seat the guy somewhere else if there were empty seats. If he can't follow instructions in English, he has no business in exit row.

GB

[apaddyinuk]

As someone who sees it all the bliddy time I personally think there is something sociopathic about people who seem to think that the rules do not apply to them and that they feel the need to have control and indeed power over a situation as petty as a seatbelt! :}

Just like the moron I witnessed going through security in T1 a few hours ago... he refused to tear his Blackberry from his ear for a minute (or indeed wait and finish his call) in order to pass through the metal detector. When confronted by the security scanner people on the other side (who for a change where actually very well mannered and indeed friendly and helpful to everyone else from what I could see) he then started doing that really stupid and pathetic "Im an important person" counter arguement thing where he tried to poke holes at every explanation given to him. In the end however he was just hauled off by the Mets finest! I doubt his office will be too happy with him when they find out!

[Final 3 Greens]

A bit of a psychologist are you?

No, rather more than a bit.

The definition of a sociopath is a person who demonstrates extreme anti social attitudes or behaviour.

Having no sympathy for injured people is somewhere along the continuum between normal and sociopathic tendencies, thus my comments.

As for your ranting about my attitudes, you obviously have not read my opinions on here over the years, so for your benefit


I regard people who disobey the seat belt sign as highly irresponsible
I get annoyed when cabin crew do not enforce the belt sign
I once pressed the call bell to alert the crew to someone playing games like the French guy you mention, even though I knew it would cause bad feelings


By the way, what action did you take to contribute to a safe flight? Did you report the actions of the French guy to the SCCM?

But I would not wish for someone to be harmed or be pleased if they were.

I hope that your comments are ill considered and bullish, for if they are not, your are not in a good place.

The passenger had good, if not perfect, understanding of - and spoke good - English as you can deduce if you read paragraphs 2 and 3 of my post.

But he didn't when challenged by the crew, did he?

[Final 3 Greens]

I can only assume from your analysis that you would be the sort of person who would have sympathy for the drunk driver who kills himself in a single vehicle accident in the early hours of the morning.

I was going to let this one pass, but it needs an answer.

Yes, I would. I would also feel sympathy for any relatives.

I would also feel that he was responsible for his own choices (locus of control, if you wish to reference that) and a danger to the community, as well as knowing that he had broken a criminal law.

Balanced people can see more than one perspective.

[Final 3 Greens]

Hi Paddy

How are things?

As someone who sees it all the bliddy time I personally think there is something sociopathic about people who seem to think that the rules do not apply to them

Whether sociopathic or not (and it may be), it needs a firm reaction.

Too often, one sees people wandering around the cabin with the belt sign on and cabin crew not reacting (never on your mob :ok: in my experience.)

By failing to stop people behaving this way, the crew are conditioning them (training) that this behaviour is okay - and it is not.

[barit1]

The SLF who does not keep a belt on is not only a subject for Darwin's wrath, he becomes a missile that's a hazard to me and to others. The airline has a duty to prevent pax from harming each other.

OTOH, if his belt is loosely fastened, he's mostly a danger to himself.

[apaddyinuk]

F3G...

Couldnt agree with you more. Polite but firm action is not something I shy away from. Alas however, there are far too many crew up there who for some reason become complacent and allow "one or two" to be ignored for the sake of not waking people up or to avoid arguements!

Although back to your "sociopathic" comments...I think I might be a wee bit. A couple of months ago during some very severe turbulence eastbound over the Atlantic one little trouble maker who had been nothing but "Precious" the whole flight up to now insisted on using this rather sensitive time to use the potty. He had to pass me strapped in my jumpseat (and lets face it, if the crew are strapped in you know its bad) and despite my requests that he return to his seat immediately he told me where to go and off he jumped into the loo! 5 mins later the plane seemed to go over The Big One at Blackpool and a loud crash and bang from the loo is heard (as well as a load of screams in the cabin...even I was feeling a tad green). Only when safe to do so I got up, knocked on the door, he opened it and what confronted me was a rather bloody face and an askewed nose on the guy. Well I didnt do the whole "I told you so" thing as I went ot get the med kit but inside I was LAUGHING MY A$$ OFF!!!
I doubt he will make that mistake again!

[clareprop]

what confronted me was a rather bloody face and an askewed nose on the guy.

Presuming this was a G- reg aircraft and given the seriousness of the injury, I presume we will see an AAIB (or EI- equivalent) report soon - given it was a couple of months ago?

[Final 3 Greens]

Paddy

To be a true sociopath, you have to give him a big lecture about ignoring the belt sign, then take his name to report to the CAA, then assist him by pouring neat Dettol over his wounds :E

I'm just glad I wasn't on that flight, it sounds like the ride from hell.

[lowcostdolly]

Paddy Can I join the sociopathic club as well? That's exactly how I would have reacted :D:D Just deserts IMHO.

Imagine if that had been another pax he had fallen on top of. It might even have been an infant. Some SLF are just plain selfish with respect to their responsibilities towards others safety :(

Barit1 Yes we do have a duty to prevent pax from harming each other tht's why when turbulence occurs the following will happen;

The Captain will switch on the fasten seatbelt sign and make a PA to this effect. If he can predict it he will give some indication of how long these might be on for.
Most airlines will follow this up with a PA from the CC. At my lot if there is a CC language speaker on board they will also do a PA.
The CC will immediatly stop what they are doing and secure the cabin. This check is then passed to the Captain.
He will advise us if it is safe for us to carry on with our duties, modify them or indeed for us to sit down as well. The airline has a duty of care to us in this situation as well.Despite us doing all this it won't be long before we have the SLF who thinks they are exempt from these instructions who gets up to get an urgent crossword out of the lockers they have previously been told not to use. Some will try and sneak off to the loo's they have previously been told not to use passing other pax and crew on the way.

They are an accident waiting to happen and are not only selfish but also pretty stupid in these circumstances. Some people just won't be advised however much the CC try and most do.

Personally I think we should carry more pax restraint kits.......:E

[Final 3 Greens]

Dolly

I don't know how many other airlines you pax on, but I use quite a number.

And sadly, the process you described (which I have seen applied rigourously on British airlines) is not universal.

Normally the bell will chime, you might or might not get a PA and sometimes a belt check.

What is most concerning is the non reaction by CC to people doing exactly what you describe. On a southern med airline (mainland) I have even seen pax going to the loo and walking around whilst the aircraft was being flown caefully through the space between some huge cbs surrounding us, topping out well above us - but the CC didn't say a word :mad: Me, I was strapped in tightly waiting for all hell to erupt (which thankfuly it did not.)

The trouble is that the airlines have made flying so safe that the majority of pax lose their sense of self preservation and assume everything will be alright, because it usually is.

Whilst not condoning this, I do understand the reasons why. Even taking 100 flights a year, the vast majority are total non events and some people won't take 100 flights in a lifetime.

[philbky]

As the founder member of F3G's sociopath club I welcome (as a britinireland) a paddyinuk and lowcost dolly.

The guy in the toilet got his just deserts. I have irritable bowel syndrome so know exactly what it feels like to "be in urgent need" but have managed in nearly 50 years of flying as SLF in the back and hundreds of hours in jump seats up front to avoid going to the loo when the seat belt signs are on.

One thing I've noticed in recent years is just how much UK and Irish airlines have tightened up with regard to seatbelt briefing and checking for belts being fastened when appropriate. For instance Aer Lingus to and from Boston last summer were even a little over the top. The slightest ripple and the sign went on and the crew checked every belt. If I tell you that BOS-SNN was 5 hrs dead you can see that we were riding the jetstream and the sign was on more than off.

Compared to 30 and more, or even 10 years ago, the airlines have become more conscious of something. This applies to every British and Irish airline I've flown with recently - bmi, British Airways, easyJet, FlyBe, Thomson, Virgin, Aer Lingus and Ryanair - all seem to have tightened up. Could that something be a combination of more litigious passengers and declining revenues leading to losses which they don't want compounding by the costs of litigation and the lottery of a justice system which might just see injured pax, however culpable, as victims rather than idiots?

As far as I'm concerned wearing of seatbelts on board should be mandatory whilst seated and moving around the cabin - something I always do on long haul flights - should be on the basis of a strictly enforced return to seat and belt up policy, as per the book - no excuses, no exceptions, period.

[Final 3 Greens]

As far as I'm concerned wearing of seatbelts on board should be mandatory whilst seated

It is on some airlines, e.g. Lufthansa

moving around the cabin - something I always do on long haul flights - should be on the basis of a strictly enforced return to seat and belt up policy, as per the book

Some airlines encourage pax to walk around the cabin, from time to time, on longer flights, perhaps to reduce the risk of DVT?

[philbky]

Certainly in recent years airlines have been issuing info on DVT in their seat back mags, some in their pre flight safety videos (on long haul flights), many on their web pages and I've heard cabin crew advise certain people to get up and walk around.

I always make sure I stretch my legs regularly on long hauls but, as far as I'm concerned, as soon as the seat belt sign goes on, I'm back to the seat.

I had a conversation some time ago with a pilot when DVT first became an issue and we talked about walking around . He said it could be a nightmare on an A380 if the bulk of the pax decided to stroll around at the same time. Apart from the congestion, there was the little problem of trim. This was at the time when the type was being touted as able to offer flying gyms, casinos and a host of other diversions and was expected to be in service in numbers in time for the Olympics in 2008. We started to speculate - as you do over a couple of pints..

We decided the only answer was to split the aircraft into sections and have Chinese style excercises led by specially trained crew - perhaps Virgin would take the lead with lycra clad section leaders.

[lowcostdolly]

Philbky Lol re the exercise mental picture you have just painted :D

I flew Air Jamaica from Kingston a number of years ago. I don't know if you have ever travelled from Kingston but on that flight there was a large number of very large carribean men dripping with gold jewellery etc squeezing themselves into the economy seat. My partner described them as looking like "gangsters" and got quite twitchy. Not helped by the arrival of the drugs squad at LHR either :eek:. Pax profiling was certainly alive and well on that flight by many!

However about 1 hour before arrival the Cabin Crew started leading the inflight exercise programme. All of these so called macho "gangsters" were participating.....it was so funny to watch and would have been even funnier if they squeezed themselves into lycra!!

Anyway back on thread I agree UK airlines at least are more litigation aware and have "tightened up" even during the time I have worked in aviation. The muppet on Paddy's flight would not have a leg to stand on if he claimed for his injury because he had ignored both the initial instruction from the Captain, seatbelt sign and the repeated instruction from Paddy.

I do sort of know where F3G is coming from on the sympathy angle though..... up to a point. Several years ago I broke my foot due to clear air turbulence. The pain at the time and after surgery was awful. The impact on my life socially and financially was significant. I would not wish that on anyone however much of a plonker they had been on board.

However my injury could not have been avoided. Paddy's pax had a choice and got injured because he made the wrong choice even when informed of the risk. Sympathy therefore turns to empathy from me in that event I'm afraid. OMG what does that make me psycologically F3G? ;)

In answer to your query F3G my experience as a pax on non UK airlines is very limited. I do not choose to fly on them if I can help it for exactly the reasons you describe. I'm not saying they are not safe because they are but I just feel more comfortable with our own way of enforcing safety rightly or wrongly.

Turbulence IMHO is one of the most dangerous aspects of airline travel as a lot of the time it cannot be predicted. Even when it is and is communicated to the SLF some will actively choose to ignore the warnings anyway endangering themselves and other pax/crew.

Personally I think ICAO should get on top of this and have universal procedures for all airlines to follow.

However I'm just humble CC. When somebody allows me to have an opinion they no doubt will tell me what it should be :rolleyes:

[apaddyinuk]

Quote:

Presuming this was a G- reg aircraft and given the seriousness of the injury, I presume we will see an AAIB (or EI- equivalent) report soon - given it was a couple of months ago?

Well I have no idea where I would look for the AAIB report as all I do is fill out page after page of the onboard incident form and submit. I lose interest after that. BUTTTTT We did just have a significant update to our turbulence procedures at my (g-reg) airline including the requirement for us to make PA's about seatbelts even on night flights as a result!

[lowcostdolly]

Paddy well said:D:D:D

Clareprop in your haste to be a "doubting Thomas" which you do frequently clearly have no idea on what goes on re incident reporting on board so let me enlighten you.....acknowledging the fact that different airlines vary but the outcome is roughly the same.

Injury occurs on board in the cabin to either pax or crew. A CSR or that airlines equivalent will be completed by the CC.
The incident will be reported to the Captain at the time. He will decide whether it also warrants an ASR and/or a MOR.
The reports should then go to flight safety (that airlines equivalent) to be investigated.Depending on that I guess it would go higher if needed....maybe to the AAIB?. In all the reports of pax incidents I have submitted that has never happened because CC are deemed to have acted correctly as in Paddy's case.

The pax concerned here also had the option to report this higher if he thourght it appropriate and it would be investigated. Would you report this to the statutory body if you had previously ignored the Captains and CC instructions plus the seatbelt sign?? :rolleyes:

My broken foot never reached the AAIB....as far as I'm aware. In terms of seriousness it is on a par with the incident on Paddy's flight.

Also I'm not aware of the AAIB circulating reports to PPRune or even "norf Essex" automatically. Feel free to access them if you feel the need.

I'm sure you will find that what needs to be there informative :ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

OMG what does that make me psycologically F3G?

Empathy = in a healthy spectrum, IMHO.

On the subject of universal procedures, that is a good idea.

I guess my cynical comment is will some of these airlines/regulatory bodies actually enforce? e.g. the UK is always bringing in new laws, e.g. don't talk on mobiles whilst driving, but where is the enforcement? I use the UK as an example in a general sense, as I know the aviation regulator does enforce.

Given the choice, there are some airlines I will not use, but the business traveller's dilemma is that one sometimes cannot, so I do understand why you stick to UK airlines.

I have to weigh the risk each time and this can be very difficult without inside info, as some carriers with a history of hull losses have top class products and service and this can give a misleading impression.

However, I still think you make a very good point.