American Turbulence

[srjumbo]

This question is not to berate or offend and please don't let it start any slagging matches but can anyone explain why North American aircrew seem to be so paranoid about turbulence?
Is it because of the 'ambulance chasing' lawyers on the West side of The Pond.
I look forward to reading the replies!

[West Coast]

In search of passenger comfort.

Not about being paranoid about anything. I may be old fashioned but I believe in providing the best product I can for the passengers as I am cognizant that they pay the bills. If I can work out short cuts when I have close connections, pick up the speed a couple of Mach numbers in cruise or find the smoothest ride possible I will do it. I am aware of when I can ask and when I shouldn't.

[tug3]

Probably an 'Urban Myth', but heard a story re. wife of v.famous Hollywood Director who got injured when flight encountered CAT over Mid-West USA. (Broken forearm, so the story goes). As CAT was forecast at levels which flight elected to cruise, lawers argued that as turbulance was forecast it was negligent on the part of the carrier to fly at those levels.

Case settled out of court but company lawers v.twitchy and crews equally so should finger be pointed at them.

Rgds
T3

[Wino]

Air-crews are almost universally indemnified by the company for which they are operating, so it is not THEM that will be sued.

BUT, why would you pound along through turbulence making your passengers uncomfortable/sick when simply going up or down a few 1000 feet would put you in smooth air? Its easier on the people, easier on the equipment, easier on the hostitutes (flight attendants:p ), safer, and easier on the cleaners (less puke to clean up)

Different mentality, when I flew in England I got the feeling that my copilots were sometimes quite embarrassed about my having them request ride reports and then changing altitude (or asking for the World cup scores). But remember ATC works for us! Without airplanes there is not ATC... Help them out where you can, they have a difficult job, but their mission is OUR safety and convenience. A smoother ride is part of that safety. Don't ask the guy that is swamped about it of course, but if the frequency is reasonably available, its another tool at your disposal.

Cheers
Wino

[SilverThunder]

Most American air crew have no idea what the AIM definition of turbulence is. I have sat in trail of a heavy reporting moderate when all I have felt is a occasional light many times. I have also been a prisoner in the back, unable to use the lav in smooth air. On a short flight across the US it is almost tolerable, but crossing the Pacific it becomes unbearable.

Passengers in the US completely ignore the seat belt sign. The sign is always on!

When I was a Captain flying domestically many years ago I would ask that pax keep their belts fastened at all times, just like we do up front, just like they do in their cars. I would ask them to limit their movement during meal service to appease the Flight Attendants. I did not use the seat belt sign for crowd control.

For passenger safety and comfort I suggest that the seat belt sign should be used only when it is needed.

[kite]

In my experience nearly all American aircrew have excellent knowledge of the AIM definitions of turbulence. When flying in America I have noticed that their aircrew are far more communicative about ride reports. Also their ATC are actively interested and consequently warn subsequent aircraft early on, providing an excellent service. As a Brit having flown lots on both sides I find their attitude of actively pursuing the smoothest ride very commendable. I imagine it may be puzzling to them why we don't talk about it quite as much. You're right Wino, it is a different mentality.

[Avman]

Sure, the Americans are known for their "ride reports". But I tell you what, when flying as a passenger in an aircraft piloted by an American crew, I take comfort in knowing that they are doing their utmost to provide me with a smooth ride, and I appreciate that because I sure hate seeing good champagne being spilled! But seriously, turbulence does make many pax nervous so it's not a bad idea to try and avoid it if at all possible.

[broadreach]

Surely, doesn't the perceived difference have something to do with shorter sectors and tighter airspace in Europe? I'd wager that if you restricted the comparison to the Boston - New York - Washington corridor the perception would be a bit different!

[AA717driver]

It's far too difficult to read the paper when you are bouncing around...:D

I do agree that "American" pilots inflate their turbulence reports.TC

[Ignition Override]

First of all, even if you are in the cabin/cockpit of a plane with a fuselage of modest length, you should never be forced to endure constant light turbulence or chop.

And for the passengers and crew in back of a long plane, such as a B-757, what is considered light turb. up front is converted into something worse by the swinging around far behind the wings-moderate turbulence due to the fulcrum effect. And if you are in moderate, this can easily become severe turbulence in the back. Why risk breaking someone's ankle or back as they are thrown onto a beverage cart? Do we want our family or friends nauseated for one to two or three hours if we can compare fuel at ETA and have options?

If a Captain is afraid to descend to reportedly better altitudes because of extra FUEL BURN COSTS, yet realizes that he/she will have sufficient reserve+ alternate+decent contingency fuel on arrival at destination and alternate airports, then the Captain COULD BE either a 1) from a totally indifferent corporate culture [apparently quite common?] 2) an inconsiderate %^*& or 3) afraid to put passenger/crew comfort and safety ahead of fuel costs; a wimp or corporate 'kool-aid drinker'. Maybe there are other reasons.

But no critiques are intended here for those cultures with little flexibility ingrained into operational decision-making or having rigid policies on costs.:D

[Wino]

Nope broadreach, samething in the Northeast. Before climbing or when checking on ride report requests are very common, even on a 45 minute sector....Why go to 33 to get hammered of 29 is smooth...


Cheers
Wino

[Avman]

Ignition Override reminded me of an eastbound sector over the Atlantic, some years ago, in a TAP B707, and five hours of moderate to occasional severe turbulence. I was in the very last row getting hammered and received light bruising from the constant banging into the armrests. Near the end of the flight when things calmed down I went up front for a chat with the crew. When I asked how they would categorise the turbulence we experienced they described it as "light"!! I suggested that next time we swap places!

[ExSimGuy]

How many of us remember the RR Dart-powered turbo-props, with FLs 10 or so, often no presurisation - now THOSE were the days of turbulence ;)
____________________________________

Martin Baker - the only way to fly:ok:

[BrightonGirl]

tug3,

If we're thinking of the same story, it was the Director's sister, not wife, who was injured and sued. (Actually, I vaguely recall there were a number of suits). And I thought her neck had been injured because her head had hit the ceiling (or whatever the top is called on a plane).

Thanks for posting the reason why the airline might be held liable -- I hadn't been able to figure that out. All this time I've been wondering how you can blame the airline for the weather.

Would just like to mention to everyone out there whose flights I may someday be on, that I truly appreciate any and every effort made to avoid turbulence (have occasionally wished I could ring up the captain and suggest that we divert -- I don't care how far, or land in any nearby city and wait until it's over! I would like to explain at those times that I don't care in which city, in which state we spend the night; my actual destination becomes expendable.)

Barring this option, I very much appreciate the flight deck keeping us informed. Makes me feel safer to know that they're aware of upcoming turbulence and aren't cavalier about it, despite the fact that its gonna feel lighter to them, particularly since they're used to it and have undoubtedly flown in much worse.

[DanAir1-11]

DVT has added another aspect to this debate. On the on hand, being a bumpy ride (or worse), we were always encouraging the pax to stay seated with seatbelt tightly fitted, yet on the other hand we are now staring down the barrel at DVT lawsuits and have consequently been put in the position of having to encourage the pax to regularly take a walk and stretch. Of course this increases the risks to pax if and when we encounter CAT etc.

One has to ask the inevitable question,where does this leave us ?
We do not have, and I beleive probably never will have the ability to predict all turbulence, and we do actively engage in avoidance wherever possible, but there are always going to be incidences where we cannot 'see' it, which is where the lawyers are inevitably going to become involved.

Any takers??

[Atlanta-Driver]

Me thinks that the constant yapping and asking for ride reports adds to the congestion on frequencies. Americans seem to be worst on this aspect... Mainly fellows from majors though.

AD

[Avman]

AD , me thinks you exaggerate. What does occupy lots of R/T time is ATC having to repeatedly warn a/c coming on frequency of turbulent areas/levels. It could be an idea for each enroute ATC unit to have a dedicated frequency churning out the info in ATIS fashion.

[wish]

The problem is the definition of the intensity of the turbulance.

The UK AIP GEN 3-5 16 gives the interpretations.

LIGHT. IAS fluctuates + or - 5 to 15kts (<0.5g)

MODERATE . IAS fluctuates+ or - 15 to 25 kts (0.5-1.0g)

SERVERE. IAS fluctuates more than 25kts (>1.0g)

There are also discriptions of how it feels.

[bazzaman96]

My second response on these forums...perhaps my law degree isn't going to be a waste after all!

You raise some interesting points about this woman (whoever she was) taking the airline to court.

It's a very logical argument - if the Flight Crew knew that turbulence was 'forecast', and decided not to avoid it, are they liable?

Equally, if they put the fasten seat belt sign on and one of their passengers develops DVT, are they liable?

In the UK negligence is a vile, ugly and costly area of law, and I'd imagine it's worse in the UK. As a lawyer, I hate the spate of 'where there's a blame, there's a claim' companies trying to clog the legal system

For negligence to be proved there needs to be:

1) A 'duty of care' between A and B
2) Loss or harm suffered by B
3) Which was as a result of the negligence of A

You'll need all three to prove negligence.

There is, clearly, a duty of care between the flight crew and the passengers to fly the passengers safely, and in reasonable comfort. If the pilot started barrel-rolls you'd be suing away! However, to satisfy the first limb you'd need to define what the 'duty of care' is - is it to get the passenger from A to B efficiently, or to get the passenger from A to B comfortably?

If it's the former then the director's wife would lose. If it's the latter then she'd win.

I would imagine the courts WOULDN'T find a duty of care existed to tranport the passengers in comfort - turbulence is a normal occurence in flight, and it's not possible to avoid every blip and bump.

Anyhow, even if this could be established, I don't think passengers would succeed under point (3) - that the damage was be AS A RESULT OF the pilot's negligence.

Firstly, you couldn't pinpoint exactly what sort of turbulence caused the harm. The aircraft may have flown into an area where turbulence was predicted, but may have also hit some wake turbulence, which caused the harm. The pilots predicted the general turbulence, not the wake turbulence. I would find it difficult to see a court of law finding 100% definitely that the injury was caused as a 'direct consequence' of the pilot steering into the turbulence.

An option, which the court may be fond of, would be to allow the claim, but factor in contributory negligence from the passenger - for example, if they weren't wearing a seatbelt at the time, and when they should have been. This raise another interesting point of law:

If the passenger wasn't wearing a seatbelt, and the seatbelt light is ON, then any turbulence causing harm - even if they succeeded in proving negligence - wouldn't get them anywhere, and the courts would probably refuse to award damages, as they were contributorily negligent.

However, if the lights were off, was the passenger negligent in not having their seatbelt on? This is a point for all the aviation enthusiasts, and indeed lawyers, to ponder! People are advised to stretch their legs, though perhaps it could be established that they should do this with a walk to the loo, or exercises, for which the removal of the seatbelt isn't required.

Of course, the issue of DVT is interesting. I realise that some cases have resulted in successful claims for DVT, but the negligence in those cases results from the airlines NOT PUBLICISING DVT AND PREVENTATIVE MEASURES, not causing the DVT itself. As the three point test shows, it would be impossible to say that DVT was caused by the airline. Airlines do not owe their passengers a duty not to give them DVT. They owe a duty to help them prevent it.

In summary, the UK position is less claim-orientated than the states, but the systems are similar. I'd find it hard to suggest a court would find negligence for a flight crew that didn't plan to avoid turbulence. However, I'm sure a court WOULD find negligence if the pilot either a) deliberately flew into turbulence 'for the thrill of it', or b) had a perfectly feasible and equally suitable flight path, but chose the turbulent one over it. This latter arm would be difficult to prove.

I'm sure claims will happen in the courts though...my guess (don't shout at me for this!) would be with LCCs who perhaps are concerned with shaving time off journeys by taking a risk here or there, or less-reputable airlines (see Panoramo airlines thread elsewhere!) who want cost-effectiveness over comfort. I realise the LCCs do take comfort into consideration and WILL avoid turbulence, but if flight crews start taking gambles with turbulence, cases will appear.

Now I'm going to charge you £2000 for that advice ;) (well, have to fund my flight training somehow!)

Baz

[flartnog]

Several years ago I broke my back in turbulence in the USA. Seat belt sign was not on, I was in the aisle as part of the crew.

Rather be safe than sorry.

[arcniz]

FWIW, I have found that turbulence comes up as a discussion item much more frequently in N. American skies than, for example, in European ones.

It might be that the meteo people in the U.S. are more vocal and more focussed about tracking/ forecasting/reporting turbulence than their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere. Likely they have more tools for observing than many places, and a yearning to make some good use of all the data that comes from their observations.

Any negative forecast analysis inevitably filters up thru the system, even when turbulence is not a go/nogo criterion. By definition, more or less, negative forecast info must be propogated, once it is in the pipe.

It could be a cultural difference, perhaps, or just some folks out in the windy mountain-stippled reaches who are working harder to do their jobs so they can collect a pension someday.

[NWSRG]

Speaking purely as SLF, I have to say that US pilots do seem to be much more conscious of turbulence ('rough air!'), and as a passenger, I appreciate that. A little bit of customer service, that comes from a professional approach?

Are US pilots more likely to encounter more variable weather than European pilots? I ask only because we in Europe tend to miss the hurricane season, that the American mid-west and Atlantic seaboard suffers from.

[EDDNHopper]

bazzaman96,

interesting points, but (although you also point out how difficult negligence is to prove) is it really that simple? What if you´re on the loo and the seatbelt sign goes on? What if you MUST go to the loo after the seatbelt sign has been on for 2 hours and still is? Etc., etc., etc.

I could never understand the negligence of some of my fellow pax, when the signs go on and they don´t care. Cabin crew are often having a hard time to get them seated and buckled up. Slightly off-topic legal question: what are the chances for airlines to sue resisting pax for not fastening their seat belts, if the signs are off but a PA has been made advising to always keep belts fastened when seated?

[SaturnV]

These days, any SLF in the US with an interest in the ride ahead can simply go to:
http://adds.aviationweather.gov/turbulence/

and scan the graphed forecasts between FLs 210 and 450 over the next 12 hours.

[bazzaman96]

That's exactly the sort of thing that the barristers would argue in court! Everything hinges around what is 'reasonable' - did the airline/pilot/cabin crew do what was reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the safety of their passengers? If they were less than reasonable, they were negligent.

It's a question with no answer really. To give extremes as examples, a pilot who puts his 737 through barrel-rolls and deliberate steers into known turbulent territory, or who ignores the warnings about wake turbulence and fails to keep sufficient separation...well, that's clearly unreasonable, and so negligent.

However, the example you quote, is more about whether the PASSENGER is 'contributorily negligent'.

Contributory Negligence is kinda like a defence (though lawyers would criticise me for calling it that). If a pilot is found to be negligent, by flying deliberately into turbulence, then court may reduce the level of damages awarded if the claimant (the unlucky passenger) is to blame. The extent to which they would reduce the damages depends on how 'negligent' the passenger is.

So, for example, if the passenger didn't have their seatbelt on when they were sitting in the seat, and the pilot's had switched the 'fasten seatbelts' light on, the court probably wouldn't look very sympathetically on them, as they contributed a lot to their own misfortune.

If, after two hours of the light being on, they really need the loo, and are injured in the toilet by turbulence, then the court would probably be more sympathetic, as they weren't being 'unreasonable' by using the loo. As much as pilots warn passengers to stay in their seats, I have been in situations where I've been, shall we say, quite in need of the loo, and the fasten seatbelts light is on.

In these cases, the courts would probably reduce the damages awarded, but not by much.

To give you a more domestic example - take driving on a road.

If someone is driving dangerously and crashes into you - they are guilty of negligent driving. The court may, hypothetically, award you 100k compensation for your injuries.

If, however, you weren't wearing a seatbelt, this probably increased the injuries you suffered, so the courts would reduce the damages you got (to, for example 80k), to take into account your own unreasonableness.

If, to make this an extreme example, you crashed into a guy driving negligently, but you yourself were driivng on the wrong side of the road, you're very much contributorily negligent, and the courts would probably agree with your case, but award you what is known as 'nominal damages'. The court, where the claimant is themselves largely to blame, give them perhaps a couple of pounds compensation, as a token symbol of their legal victory, but insignificant to represent their shared blame.

Ultimately, it's up for lawyers to argue what is and what isn't 'reasonable' for the passengers and pilots to do in flight. I'll have a dig around and see what British and American cases have debated this point (not many I fear!) and will see if I can put forward the picture from both sides of the Atlantic.

Sorry, just to add, I didn't notice the last part of your question.

If passengers ignore the advice given to them to fasten their safety belt, and they encounter turbulence, I'm fairly sure that, as I suggested, the courts would find them contributorily negligent and would award them either no, or nominal damages.

Sadly, this are of law - 'tort' (from the French meaning 'wrung', or 'wrong'), is quite 'simple' in the sense that companies often 'give in' to claimants rather than going through costly litigation. Hence the Director's wife in the above example was awarded out of court damages. Most companies just 'assume' they will be liable and cough up, but this isn't good - it sets a precedent for other airlines.

The way to combat this of course is for the airline industry to take a hard stance and tell the passengers to grow up, listen to what the Flight Attendants are saying and respect the fact that these are multi-tonne pieces of metal hurtling through the air at hundreds of miles an hour - you're going to expect a few bumps. Sit up and buckle up, or expect to get knocked.

The 'claim culture' isn't so prevalant here in the UK - but in the States it is (witness the litigants that successfully sued MacDonalds for 'making them fat'). We're moving that way though, with advertisements for 'have you had an accident in the past twelve months that wasn't your fault?'

They are the bane in the lives of the legal system (though generate a lot of work for tort lawyers), and they could start wrecking the aviation industry too unless a harder line is taken.

Sorry if all this is a bit boring!

Baz

[broadreach]

Wino, a somewhat belated thanks for the clarification.

[Romeo Delta]

Saturn V:

Thanks for that link. Pretty cool. I'll actually forward that on to my teammates, as we fly all over the US every week. Personally, I don't really mind about turbulence (light to moderate). Just makes it tougher to use the lavs when needed. :uhoh:

SilverThunder:

It's not really that US pax ignore the seatbelt sign. They just have a difference perception. The seatbelt sign turning on means "Oops, better get up and go to the lav!" I see this every time I fly (usually four times a week), and especially just before landing (and I don't know why! We're gonna be on the ground in a couple minutes anyway! Hold your water, people!!!). :mad:

As far as the liability goes, though, it's all understandable considering the sue-happy society we Americans live in every day ("Your child sneezed on me! I'm going to SUE!!!). Go figure.

RD