WX/Turb and Seat Belts

[Airmann]

Hi, I would like to get people's opinion regarding the use of the seat belt sign for weather and turbulence.

At the airline am currently flying for I find a lot of captains are reactive with the belts. I.e. they wait until the turbulence gets to a level they feel warrants the sign before they turn it on. I personally don't like this 'technique' as it means people will be moving around at the start of turbulence when they should already be sitting down. The argument for this is that they don't want to be putting the sign on unnecessarily when the turbulence isn't that heavy and constantly disrupting the service.

I don't agree with them and would personally prefer a more proactive approach where the signs are turned on whenever the pilot judges that he is likely to experience turbulence. E.g. flying over or through significant weather systems or flying downwind of the weather system rather than upwind due to limitations. This ensures that the crew and pax are less likely to be caught out. Yes there may be times that the turbulence really isn't that bad and the signs could have stayed off but from a safety stand point the inconvenience to passengers and crew is outweighed in my opinion by the threat of hitting nasty turbulence with the belts off. And of course there are times that turbulence simply can't be predicted (e.g. CAT) however I believe that most pilots have flown long enough to have good sense of when they should expect turbulence based on what they see out the window or on the radar.

Opinions?

[underfire]

There are operations and activities that cannot take place while the seat belt sign is on, such as toilets.

The instructions are to keep belts on at all times, even when it is not on, so perhaps that should be emphasised?

[Tinstaafl]

In my experience, if the belt sign is on unnecessarily then pax eventually ignore it, initially when desperate enough for the toilet, later for lesser & lesser reasons.

It's really like the boy who cried 'Wolf!'

[Derfred]

Airmann,

There is certainly a time and a place for pre-emptive seat belt sign usage. I do see pilots waiting until the turbulence occurs prior to turning on the sign, and it annoys me especially when the turbulence was obvious in advance (eg flying into convective cloud).

But overusage leads to non-compliance, annoyance, failure to deliver service as well as reduced trust in the pilots.

I tend to see overusage in some countries, possibly due to the over-litigious nature of their culture - and it appears to lead to non-compliance.

But on the other hand, why some pilots insist on not giving the cabin a bit of notice when flying into obvious turbulence is beyond me.

[Airmann]

Thanks for the replies. I never thought about the non compliance issue due to over use. But at the same time when it's clearly going to be bumpy I get frustrated when I see the sign come on only after the fact. Sure, I guess a balanced approach is required.

My company has a policy to allow the passengers to go to the bathroom with seat belt sign on with a verbal warning that they go at their own risk.

Also, no coffee and tea service during but CC only sit if a pilot or Cabin Manager makes the call.

[Capt Fathom]

I get frustrated when I see the sign come on only after the fact
Everyone wants to be the captain... but won't accept the responsibility that goes with it. Easy to judge from the right seat. Your time will come. Then you will understand.

[FullWings]

would personally prefer a more proactive approach where the signs are turned on whenever the pilot judges that he is likely to experience turbulence

It’s a fine sentiment but rather difficult to action in real life. After 20k+ hours flying, I have come to realise that you can get turbulence just about anywhere, forecast or unforecast. If you use the criterion “it might be bumpy ahead” to turn the seat belt signs on, how are you logically going to turn them off again?

All said and done, what are you really trying to do with the seat signs? I’d have said prevent injury. How often do you fly through something that would cause that to an unsecured passenger? It happens but (for me) it’s pretty infrequent. As others have said, if the signs are on for long enough in smooth air, people will eventually get up anyway as they assume you’ve forgotten to turn them off.

In my initial welcome I include instructions to wear the belt at all times when seated and to sit down and belt up as soon as the sign comes on. I will preempt turbulence if it is almost assured (pilot/ATC reports, clouds of certain types, etc.) but generally will respond when it goes over a certain level. Sometimes you get hours of annoying light clear air turbulence which never develops into anything more malign (tropical regions are good for this) and I’m happy to keep the signs off, reserving them for when I feel they are actually necessary.

At the end I suppose it boils down to whether you are more interested in preventing harm by trying to understand human nature or just attempting to cover your posterior. The ultimate expression is to leave the signs on all the flight “just in case” but this will lead to people being out of their seats right at the moment when they really shouldn’t be...

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

@Airmann
... a verbal warning that they go at their own risk

But that's not entirely true, is it? What about the risk someone poses to other pax who are sat in their seats obeying the lighted sign, when the wander person gets dumped on them when they get launched off their feet? I understand a call of nature and all that, but it isn't just a case of "my broken arm, my choice"....

[Nightstop]

Unfortunately a certain Irish airline pops the seat belt sign on whenever the flightdeck need to go to the toilet or cabin crew take in (their own prepurchased) food and beverage. The result is the passengers simply ignore the instruction, the cabin crew also allow them to walk up and down the aisles after their own announcement to keep seated with their seatbelts fastened. The result will be a serious inflight turbulence pax accident. The Irish airline will be in the clear though, they told the pax to sit down and fasten their seatbelts (so the crew could go to the loo :ugh:).

[Escape Path]

To the OP: in my airline some captains are more proactive about the sign, some others are not so.

In my position as FO, I wait a bit when the turbulence kicks in to see if they plan to do something (or if they say they will do something). If the turbulence increases to a point where I feel it would be nice to have the sign on (I do wait a bit) I ask them in a calm voice: "Should we strap 'em?". The usual response to this question is seat belt sign on.

The exception to this "technique" is when an obvious big f-ing CB is in our path and we will go through it, in which case, the aforementioned question will be asked before the turbulence starts. The response though, tends to be the same in both cases

[sonicbum]

The exception to this "technique" is when an obvious big f-ing CB is in our path and we will go through it, in which case, the aforementioned question will be asked before the turbulence starts. The response though, tends to be the same in both cases


Hi Escape Path,

what about considering an avoiding action of that "f-ing CB" in your path ? :E:E

[sonicbum]

Unfortunately a certain Irish airline pops the seat belt sign on whenever the flightdeck need to go to the toilet or cabin crew take in (their own prepurchased) food and beverage. The result is the passengers simply ignore the instruction, the cabin crew also allow them to walk up and down the aisles after their own announcement to keep seated with their seatbelts fastened. The result will be a serious inflight turbulence pax accident. The Irish airline will be in the clear though, they told the pax to sit down and fasten their seatbelts (so the crew could go to the loo ).


We do have the same procedure in my gig, I believe it could be an EASA/FAA recommended practice as I have dead headed with other carriers not applying it.

[Escape Path]

Hi Escape Path,

what about considering an avoiding action of that "f-ing CB" in your path ? :E:E
Sure, whenever possible we do just that. For the isolated case it's not possible/feasible, the question is asked as told above

[sonicbum]

Sure, whenever possible we do just that. For the isolated case it's not possible/feasible, the question is asked as told above


Then it must be a TCU hopefully.