KLM 777 Turbulence Incident?

[volare123]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=270433
KLM airliner hits turbulence, 16 hurt
Thursday May 31 13:49 AEST
At least 16 people were hurt when a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines airliner bound for the Japanese city of Osaka hit turbulence soon after take-off from Amsterdam, officials said on Thursday.
The Boeing-777 KLM flight 867, with 262 passengers and 14 crew on board, touched down at the Kansai International Airport in Osaka, around 9.15am (1045 AEST) on Thursday, airport officials said.
Of the 16 people including three crew hurt, nine had been taken to hospital, a firefighter said.
http://ninemsn.com.au/9msnshared/images/space.gif
"Their injuries are not life-threatening," he said.

[PieterPan]

http://www.nu.nl/news/1095729/10/Gewonden_in_KLM-toestel_door_turbulentie.html
Quick translation: Heavy turbulence above St. Petersburg, Russia. 13 passenger + 2 crew injured in a KLM flight from Amsterdam to Japanese airport Kansai. Plane undamaged, could continue flight. According to KLM, the pilot had warned passengers about upcoming turbulence, but the crew was still out and about serving drinks. Whatever they were serving fell on top of the passengers. One of the crew was taken to a Osaka hospital with burn wounds, 8 others also transported to hospital.
On board 262 passengers + 14 crew.

<update>
News item was updated to say injuries were minor, mostly bruises. Only 3 crew went to hospital.

I suppose this turbulence was much worse than what was visible on WX radar? Of course, I was not there to see it, so its hard to say anything about it.

[Wizofoz]

I suppose this turbulence was much worse than what was visible on WX radar? Of course, I was not there to see it, so its hard to say anything about it.


CAT is NEVER visable on the WX Radar- Only precipitation.

[WHBM]

St Petersburg has been having some exceptionally hot weather in recent days (was there 2 days ago, was 33C and some torrential TS) so likely to be CBs rather than CAT.

So :

Flight deck had made announcement but service was allowed to continue.

After the incident which occurred overhead a major city flight continued for, what, 9 hours, then when it arrived 9 pax taken to hospital.

For those who say that Russian medical standards leave something to be desired then Helsinki was about 30 mins away.

What sort of operation is this ?

[KPL]

I'm not sure it was CAT. I don't know what time this incident happened - but I was flying in that area yesterday at 20.00 utc and there was a sigmet forecasting severe turbulence due to embd ts intsf top FL390..

[dontdoit]

Quite simple - signs go on, hot drinks services stops. If you're happy enough to have a full cup of tea/coffee in your hand and hold it over your nether regions while you're in your comfy seat in 0A or 0B, it's smooth enough to have the signs off. If it's not, switch the signs on or standby for injuries and/or getting your ass sued.

[Green Flash]

Especially if there was a Sigmet in force. I'm sure the met man didn't issue a warning just for the sheer hell of it.

[NigelOnDraft]

After the incident which occurred overhead a major city flight continued for, what, 9 hours, then when it arrived 9 pax taken to hospital.
For those who say that Russian medical standards leave something to be desired then Helsinki was about 30 mins away.
What sort of operation is this ?Pretty standard I'd say... Injuries do not sound too serious - but more importantly, I am sure the crew / Pax assessed them and/or communicated with the ground as part of the decision making process.
I am aware of numerous instances, up to and including broken bones, where flights have "continued". I cannot recall, but am sure there are some, where flights have diverted...

[WHBM]

I cannot recall, but am sure there are some, where flights have diverted
Well I can recall one because I was on board, very similar. LAX-LHR, CAT over the Rockies, several pax and crew in a poor way, burned off fuel and diverted to Chicago, several offloaded.

Continuing when you are mid-ocean is one thing, when you are overhead major cities (or only 2 hours out of base) but ABOUT to head out over Siberia (or the Atlantic) with injured persons on board is another.

[NigelOnDraft]

Rather than get into a long discussion I shall bow to your superior knowledge of the situation. Of course they should have diverted immediately to HEL for a few bruises. Of course the entire KLM crew were complete plonkers to have even considered continuing... and as for KLM as an operator :ugh:

[WHBM]

I'm always a bit disappointed when threads go into unnecessary overstatement/sarcasm about the comments of others; at least we have escaped (so far) the banal response that we should wait until 2012 for the official report.

If we are going to be like this over who can assess the injuries, which of the crew on board had a medical degree ?

[NigelOnDraft]

I'm always a bit disappointed when threads go into unnecessary overstatement/sarcasm about the comments of others;Yours were not "comments" as I read them, but unequivolcal criticism of the crew and KLMWhat sort of operation is this ?You have clearly implied they should have diverted, and then backed that up Continuing when you are mid-ocean is one thing, when you are overhead major cities (or only 2 hours out of base) but ABOUT to head out over Siberia (or the Atlantic) with injured persons on board is another.
I do not know the extent of the injuries, and whether any subsequent inestigation will say they did the right or wrong thing. All I did was comment that what they did, given what we know, is typical.
Maybe you would like to make your views known also to BA, Virgin and the AAIB, since your views disagree with theirs (2 more flights with inuries on board that headed over the Atlantic):
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_2006/boeing_747_443__g_vrom.cfm
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/august_2005/boeing_777_236__g_viio.cfm
I for one do not mind "comment" or questions about "incidents". But critisicising specific individuals by someone who does not know the facts I find unacceptable...

[bomarc]

WHBM

thank you for your note of civility. old pprune sometimes goes ballistic when people question a pilot's judgement...but I think I agree with you on this one.

Most every airline worth its salt has some sort of radio medical assistance available...I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to KLM that there was some real medical evaluation either onboard or via radio link. and then a decision was made in accordance with that advice.

of course money may have been part of the equation too.

a pilot should always make it clear that if there is turbulence ahead all passengers and cabin crew must return to seats/secure cabin and get their seat belts on tightly.

while there is some truth to the idea that wx radar doesn't show CAT...how did the pilots know there was turbulence ahead? sigmet?(yes) PIREP? *(maybe), or it wasn't CAT and wx radar did show something of turbulence ahead. on some of our planes we have a special magenta color over and above read indicating possible severe/extreme turbulence...but it is only valid on the 40 nm range...not much warning at 7 miles a minute.

now for some sharp pilots, careful monitoring and comparison of outside air temp (properly corrected as in SAT),can lead one to suspect possible clear air turbulence ahead.

all in all, I prefer the course of action to get down to a good hospital asap...its only money if one acts in this fashion.


we can all recall the thread with injuries near florida and a flight that continued to england...with similiar arguments and no clear cut victor.

[Andy_S]

I seem to recall a discussion on PPRuNe a few months back reference a flight out of Miami or Orlando bound for the UK which experienced turbulence with consequential injuries to some passengers and crew a few hours after take off.
On that occasion, as now, a few people (who may not have been ideally qualified to pass judgement) whipped up a storm because the crew elected to continue to their destination. Eventually, wiser heads prevailed, and I think the defense they made of the crews judgement has some relevance in this case.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=247503&highlight=florida+turbulence

[cargo boy]

Give us a break! :ugh:

So, based on one journalists interpretation we have a judge, jury and executioner telling us all that the crew must have ignored the possibility of turbulence and then decided that they would continue to their destination with a pile of near-corpses, groaning whilst their wounds seeped and festered. :rolleyes:

"Injury". Have you even stopped to think about the term? It could mean a paper cut, a simple bruise or, of course, an amputation or whatever. Just because the report says there were "injuries" doesn't mean that they were serious.

Are you telling us that if one of the crew got a blister from touching a hot tray from the oven tha you'd divert immediately? Of course not. But hang on.... that's a burn injury. Quick, I have no mre facts. They should have diverted immediately. Condemn them and their airline. :rolleyes:

I have no doubt that KLM have access to the same services that most legacy and other well run airlines have, namely MedLink. Using that service you get immediate access to a doctor who is trained to assess any injuries described by the trained cabin crew or even a doctor who is on board. Based on the assessment they will recommend whether to divert immediately or whether there is no need. Any injuries or illnesses are assessed and if, as in most cases, the injury has been treated with adequate first aid then the flight can continue.

If any injuries or illnesses are assessed as needing immediate treatment at a hospital they will then advise on which hospital is best suited and equipped to handle the patients. It does not mean that they will recommend diversion to the nearest airport but to the nearest airport to a suitable medical facility which can treat the symptoms.

So, please spare us the Kangaroo Court and the immediate rush to judgement. The only facts you have are a couple of lines of journalistic licence and immediately you claim to know the facts and condemn the crew and the airline. Well, I guess that's it. Case closed. :rolleyes:

[Re-Heat]

I thought medicine and science were one of the few things Russia was actually good at?!

[BRUpax]

STOP! STOP! STOP!
Injuries were assessed as not life threatning. Crew and pax with injuries were consulted and wanted to continue rather than divert, be treated, and take possible lengthy delay miles from point of dep or dest.
End of story.

[NSC]

ULLI 302200Z 20001MPS 4500 BR SCT050 OVC066 17/16 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 302130Z 21001MPS 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 18/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 302100Z 19002MPS 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 18/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 302030Z 22002MPS 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 18/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 302000Z 17002MPS 130V210 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 18/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 301930Z 12003MPS 090V150 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 19/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 301900Z VRB01MPS 9999 -SHRA BKN050CB OVC066 19/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 301830Z 26002MPS 220V330 9999 BKN050CB OVC066 19/17 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301800Z 24004MPS 210V270 9999 -SHRA BKN036CB OVC066 20/17 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301730Z 22003MPS 170V280 9999 TS BKN036CB OVC066 20/17 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301700Z 23006MPS 4700 -TSRA BKN036CB OVC066 21/18 Q1005 TEMPO 20010G15MPS TSRA RMK 10L/23006G09MPS=
ULLI 301630Z 24002MPS 120V290 9999 BKN033CB OVC066 21/19 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301600Z 17002MPS 080V210 5000 -SHRA BKN031CB OVC066 21/19 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301530Z VRB01MPS 6000 -TSRA BKN033CB OVC066 23/18 Q1005 NOSIG=
ULLI 301500Z 06002MPS 030V090 9999 BKN033CB OVC066 23/18 Q1005 BECMG TSRA=
ULLI 301430Z 35002MPS 270V360 9999 SCT033CB BKN066 23/18 Q1005 NOSIG=
ULLI 301400Z 32002MPS 270V360 9999 SCT033TCU BKN066 24/18 Q1005 NOSIG=
ULLI 301330Z 36003MPS 250V360 9999 SCT033 BKN066 24/18 Q1005 NOSIG=
=

as you can see there were moderate to sever thundershowers and CU and CB's, so i bet this was no CAT but definitely shown on the WX radar

maybe the flight was operating at max range and a diversion around the wx was not possible without a fuelstop in lets say UNWW

just my educated gues

cheers

[Ancient Mariner]

BRUpax:Crew and pax with injuries were consulted and wanted to continue rather than divert, be treated, and take possible lengthy delay miles from point of dep or dest.
End of story.

Not taking sides here, but as SLC I'm happy to see that we were consulted and that our advice was heeded. :hmm:
Not an everyday occurence.
Per

[M.Mouse]

Flight deck had made announcement....

Automation knows no bounds.

Did the flight crew have to push a button or was it automatic? Clever things these modern flight decks.

[NigelOnDraft]

NSC as you can see there were moderate to sever thundershowers and CU and CB's, so i bet this was no CAT but definitely shown on the WX radarI would not regard those actuals as "Moderate" or "Servere" CBs... I personally get edgy when they hit 4000m or below vis...

I can further assure we do not judge CBs / Turbulence / CAT from the TAFs / Actuals of airfields below us :rolleyes: but using High Level charts, Radar etc. However, who are we to doubt the conclusions you have already come to that the crew deliberately flew into a CB depicted on their radar, whilst leaving their Cabin Crew conducting the service :ugh:

[bomarc]

simply put, internet forums do not allow for the real body language/emotions etc...even with emoticons.

from the wx reports we can gather that there was a dynamic wx event in progress...t storms, clouds of vertical development or whatever...and not CAT.

pilots do fly into cb's. they make a judgement call that it will be bumpy but not extreme...wx radar is an imperfect tool, as are those who interpret it.

if you can praise a crew for a safe , unveventful flight, then you can also be critical of a crew who has the misfortune to have injuries on board.

[NigelOnDraft]

from the wx reports we can gather that there was a dynamic wx event in progress...t storms, clouds of vertical development or whateverYes - at ~5000'. No - at 35,000'+. Do you not understand the difference :ugh:
pilots do fly into cb's - they make a judgement call that it will be bumpy but not extreme...:rolleyes: I seriously doubt a crew would intentionally fly into a CB at Cruise level i.e. a v large CB, without securing the cabin. That is not just putting the signs on, but also warning and seating the CC. PS do you know the recommended avoidance distance(s) from CBs? I will happily acknowledge they are often impractical and therefore not adhered to...
wx radar is an imperfect tool, as are those who interpret it.I'll agree with that...
if you can praise a crew for a safe , unveventful flight, then you can also be critical of a crew who has the misfortune to have injuries on board.Disagree totally, especially since we have little info e.g. CB v CAT, Sig Wx chart, crew reports, outcome of any inquiry / investigation. I have to say, I also disagree with <<praise a crew for a safe , unveventful flight>> - unless you sat in on briefing / whole flight with the FC, I cannot see how one can praise or criticise :eek:

[bomarc]

yes, I do know the distances that are supposed to be used to circumnavigate thunderstorms...and you indicate that it is impractical at times.

we really don't know what happened.

did you know that mountain wave can be detected 700 miles downwind of the mountains creating the wave? I don't know the geography involved here.

whether you like it or not, pilots do make mistakes...sometimes they are not emphatic enough to the flight attendents about sitting down and securing.

[NigelOnDraft]

whether you like it or not, pilots do make mistakes...sometimes they are not emphatic enough to the flight attendents about sitting down and securing.I agree 100% - I have made plenty of mistakes, and am sure I (and others) have been less emphatic about seat belt signs / seating CC than might have been necessary. My pure gripe is the posts here that say that is what did happen, rather than what might have happened ;)

[PPRuNeUser0165]

we were coming back from the bahamas on a virgin 747 last jully, 30 mins into the flight we hit medium turbulence, the seat belt signs came on and drinks continued to be serverd, shortly after, the captain ordered the cc to take their seats and put any trollies etc away, before they could we hit cat and the plane droped, cabin crew and many pax injured, some broke through the center consoles!! The air stewdess infront of us was scrambling to her seat, wen we hit the cat she hit the roof!!:} many paxs complaining of severe back and neck pain! only 2 doctors on board, one a lady who was a quivering wreck, the other my dad, my point is, wen do u declare an emergancy and request a landing? The captain asked my dad and the other lady what they thought about turning back, their honest answer was that most the paxs were very stable and comfortable but does he really think all the paxs would be happy turning around and then reboard after an inccident like that? What must be taken into account by the captain? is it money that it will cost the airline! We however continued the 9 hours to lhr. there were 30 people who went to hospital, thats 3 times as more than this unfortunate accident and with a similar flight time, wat wud u have done in that situation? :}

[bomarc]

tommyg737:

wow.

if the captain decides to press on and a passenger or crewmember who otherwise might have been helped by a quick landing gets worse...well you can be sure there will be a lawsuit.

honestly, if I were the captain on any flight where turbulence injuries happened, I would land at the nearest field with good hospitals. as I said, then it is only money.

and your dad, God bless him, might have been brought into a legal battle with his statement about passengers/patients being stable. if I were a doctor, I could only say: captain, to continue for 9 hours without proper medical help is a calculated risk.

AND ALWAYS WEAR YOUR SEATBELT...AND TIGHTEN IT UP REALLY TIGHT IF YOU GET A WARNING ABOUT TURBULENCE.

[M.Mouse]

if the captain decides to press on and a passenger or crewmember who otherwise might have been helped by a quick landing gets worse...well you can be sure there will be a lawsuit.

Regrettably, Bomarc, it is the attitude engendered by you and your countrymen where every injury, imagined or real, has to have someone to blame and sue for compensation which has led and is leading the UK further down the road of precautions against all eventualities to the most absurd levels.

Common sense or best judgement is taking a back seat to the avoidance of being sued no matter how costly, disruptive or plain stupid those avoiding actions might be.

In life accidents happen, bad luck happens, people get hurt. If people cannot accept that there is a risk to everything then please stay at home, in bed, wrapped up in cotton wool and allow the rest of us to live a full life without being plagued by Health & Safety police, nannying governments and management and individuals scared witless of being sued by some half-wit out to make a fast buck.

I am very familiar with KLM and its operating standards and given that knowledge I have no doubt the crew acted in the best interests of everybody after this unfortunate event. Whether or not the event could have been avoided will only be known to those involved but I know where I would put my money.

[bomarc]

M. Mouse

KLM has made mistakes in the past...as every airline has.

and I do believe someone is to blame for just about everything that happens, just as someone can take credit for a safe flight, someone can be blamed for a turbulence encounter that causes injuries.

On this very forum, I've seen people complain about keeping the seat belt sign on for much of the flight. I know of one case in which the pilots had the seat belt sign on, reminded passengers and f/a's to remain seated with seat belts fastened...a passenger got up to use the lavatory, they hit severe CAT. the passenger is now paralyzed for life.

the passenger disobeyed the expressed orders of the flight crew.

doesn't he share some of the blame? and what if while floating around the cabin he landed on someone and harmed them? who would be blamed?



Our jobs as pilots have now added responsibility...pseudo lawyer.


I always brief the f/a's that the meal service/drink service should be cancelled at the first warning/sign of turbulence...better a letter complaining about NO food rather than a subpoena.

[Rainboe]

The 'Pprune Courts Martial' has already sat and held a hearing, and a judgement has been reached! Time for KLM to be marched back into the room and observe the sword pointing towards the defendant! (Shame the evidence is only patchy hearsay, but then the judgemental audience here doesn't seem to need more these days!).

An appeal will be launched as a major plank of the evidence was airfield ATIS reports extrapolated to 35,000'. The defence will contend they are not related!

[IcePack]

bomarc, I guess your flights never have any in-flight service then!
I havn't done a flight on which "first warning/sign of turbulence" has not occured for the last 35 years. What a load of twaddle if all airlines did that th'd go broke.:rolleyes:

[lotman1000]

Have I missed something? According to the IACA Press review

"Above Russia the plane came in heavy turbulent air. The passengers were warned, but the cabin crew was still busy with serving food. A part of that food came onto the passengers. One flight attendant got hot coffee over her body.

The Flight attendant was brought to a hospital after landing with flsh burns. Other injured people were taken care of by KLM in Osaka."

At least one contributor has stated categorically that all those with the injuries said they wished to continue to Japan. That, and the story above, tells us that the injuries were minor. Only the F/A went to a hospital.

Who did anything wrong, to whom? How many times have passengers been told to make sure their belts are fastened, while meal service is allowed to continue? Very occasionally the anticipated turbulence is worse than foreseen, and accidents can occur. No-one is "at fault". No-one was badly hurt, as far as I can see, and sure as hell no-one wanted to get off-loaded in St Pete or Helsinki.

Now, being dumped in either place is something they might have sued the airline about.

[bomarc]

I've never had any flight attendants injured on my flights either...by the way, did you know that NWA has the lowest number of flight attendant injuries...they also have the most accurate wx information.

one can simply look in the AIM for definitions of turbulence levels and their effect on meal service.

[fox niner]

NWA has the lowest number of flight attendant injuries...they also have the most accurate wx information.

KLM uses exactly the same weather information as NWA. They even use NW-sigwx charts for flights across the pond.

And I KNOW this is a fact because I fly for KLM.

[jshg]

About five years ago I was the captain of a large twin that hit severe turbulence over Saudi Arabia. Nothing was forecast where the incident occurred, although there was a very strong jetstream above us. We'd encountered light to moderate, I'd put the seat-belt sign on and received the 'cabin secure' check. I didn't tell the crew to sit down because the turbulence wasn't that bad - if we stopped everything for every ripple then nothing would get done and passengers would complain, try to get up etc etc.
Then for the next twelve seconds the aircraft was completely out of control. One C/C member was knocked out, several others were bruised, all were shocked. One passenger had undone her belt just as we hit, and she was badly hurt - a fractured pelvis, although we only found out afterwards. (The area of forecast severe CAT a few hours later was smooth as a baby's bottom, so a SIGMET chart guarantees nothing.)
We did indeed start a diversion, albeit to OSDI directly in front. Doctors on board & radioed medical advice said there was no immediate need to land. The aircraft was behaving perfectly although we thought it had been overstressed ( in fact it hadn't quite: the peaks were +2.08, -0.24). An overweight landing at OSDI was just feasible, but if the runway was wet it became marginal - and if the flaps had been damaged it would be impossible. It would have required heroic efforts from a shocked and frightened cabin crew. There were also big security problems in that area at the time. We therefore carried on, and to cut a long story short made it back to EGKK where there was fully-prepared medical cover awaiting.
I consulted the crew but not the passengers. My decision was that possible aircraft damage made an overweight landing riskier than continuing, and there were a plethora of suitables to land at en route if things changed (and the landing weight would be lower too).
KLM is one of the world's best airlines. If they kept going I'm sure they had their reasons.

[JW411]

Bomarc:
From my experience NWA also has the laziest flight attendants in the world so it's quite unlikely that any of them would be on their feet even on the calmest of flights!

[bomarc]

fox niner. perhaps you can tell us what really happened aboard the flight.
JW 411. if you wish to complain about any flight attendants, write the company directly.

and to those who really don't know about airline flying in the USA. Virtually every airline employee has taken a huge pay cut, loss of benefits. IF any flight attendant is lazy these days, I DON'T BLAME THEM ONE DAMN BIT...am I allowed to say DAMN?

What seems to be missing in all of this is: if the pilots knew or suspected turbulence of a significant nature, then why weren't the flight attendants warned?

I have a feeling that the pilots thought things would be relatively ok and things just didn't work out.

I've heard all the arguments about never getting any food service done if ...
in america, the pilot in command has the final responsibility and authority over the safe conduct of the flight.

better a thousand letters complaining the flight attendants didn't serve than a dozen people hurt...but the choice is YOURS dear PIC!

[JW411]

Bomarc:
Dear boy, it is "flight attendant" not "flight attendent".

I don't suppose you "is" one?

[jshg]

Throughout the world the commander has the final responsibility for the safe & efficient conduct of the flight - not just America.
In America, the airwaves are full of "ride reports", and "I got light chop here can I change level?" Whether anything different is actually achieved by all this is debatable.

[bomarc]

JW411

thanks for catching my spelling error. you must be a good chief pilot. you see, line pilots are good at flying, chief pilots are good at paperwork.

and no, I'm not a f/a.

[fokkerking!]

This incident is just the risk of a service orientated airline. You get stuff done, no seatbelt sign on when its not necessary, and the cabin crew can stay in the cabin when its not too bad. Here they hit some unexpected turbulence, we must suppose, I know KLM from within and know our policies. This is just the risk, I personally love this policy when flying as a passenger as opposed to the US airlines, with the fasten seat-belt sign on during the whole flight, just covering their asses. Nobody will care about the fasten seat-belt sign when its on the whole time, so eventually this creates a potentially more dangerous situation, because people dont care about it anymore when there actually is some substantial turbulence (ahead).

Best regards, fk

[KLMer]

JW411

IF you dont have anything useful to say then dont bother at all.

[stator vane]

yesterday June 19th, over the UK was a large handfull of avoidance material

and today the 20th over northern italy!!!

some of the most widespread disturbance i have seen.

over northern italy and austria, there was a hell of squall line of big tall buildups hiding in amongst the stratus. it looked like i was back in the US midwest.

[AVOdriver]

I was particularly interested in this thread as it highlighted a "heated" discussion I had with the cabin crew of a Lufthansa flight earlier this year.
We were travlling with our infant (10 months) and having previously flown on Lufthansa where we were told that no infant seatbelts where available I had borrowed a "loop" type belt from our own stores just in case.
As no on board belt was offered we dug out our own and secured our baby in the usual way. During pre pushback cabin checks the cc told us that the belt must be removed as "we have no training for this type of belt"!!
After an escalating discussion where I voiced my concerns about aborted take-off, CAT etc. the purser "threatened me with "the Captain".
I consider it my good fortune that the captain on this flight was at least to my mind a reasonable person and allowed us to continue using the belt. A big thank you to that man if he should happen to read this.
I later contact the LBA (German CAA) and was given the following reply:

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA, which is the German Civil Aviation
Authority) is often asked whether German air carriers are allowed to use car
type child seats or extension loop seat belt on board their aeroplanes.
German air carriers are not allowed to use extension loop seat belt.

Now, that we have introduced a specific qualification procedure for
that purpose, German air carriers are allowed to use child restraint
systems (CRS) on board their own aeroplanes or allow parents to bring them
on board, provided the CRS type(s) are qualified (especially) for these
aeroplanes by the TÜV Rheinland. However, our airlines are not allowed
to use CRS types that are not so qualified.

A German "Qualification Procedure for CRS for Use on Aeroplanes" (TÜV
Doc.: TÜV/958-01/2001) has been developed by the TÜV Rheinland in charge
of the German Ministry of Transport together with the LBA to ensure
compatibility of the specific CRS with the actual aircraft seats on which
it shall be installed and to ensure that there is sufficient space
available at the passenger seat where the CRS is installed to protect the
child in an emergency landing.

Only CRS already approved according to the European Community
Regulation ECE R-44-03 series for use on land vehicles, US FMVSS 213 incl.
Chapter 8, or an equivalent aircraft specific CRS performance standard are
accepted as candidates for the qualification. (Note: CRS having received
an LBA type approval as aircraft equipment (instead of having shown
compliance with ECE R-44), like the Innovint CRS Type 250-( ),
nevertheless, in addition, have to be qualified by the TÜV Rheinland to be allowed
to be used on aeroplanes operated by German airlines. The TÜV Rheinland
located in Cologne (http://www.de.tuv.com/ (http://www.de.tuv.com/)) is the only competent
independent organisation accepted by us so far for qualifying CRS for use on
aeroplanes operated by German airlines. To our knowledge, ECE R-44 is
also an accepted standard for CRS use on cars in many countries.

The German qualification procedure is based upon a correlation of CRS
type specific data to be provided by the CRS manufacturer with aircraft
interior specific data to be provided by the respective airline asking
for qualification. The qualification procedure also includes an
installation test on a TÜV specific test seat where different anchor point
locations can be simulated and the correct routing of the seat belt and
the correct buckle position can be tested. In the end, the aircraft
seats/locations where the CRS is allowed to be installed are marked in the
respective cabin layouts.

Once a CRS is qualified for the first time with respect to the
aeroplanes of one operator, the CRS gets an Identification (ID) number (project
number). The CRS manufacturer is then authorised by the TÜV to mark
their product with the TÜV logo which incorporates the specific ID number.

Once the qualification system is fully established, user relevant data
showing the airline specific cabin layouts, in which the seats allowed
for the installation of this particular CRS are marked, will be
published on the TÜV internet pages under the respective ID number and the
name of the respective airline.

The CRS manufacturer also has to provide installation and user
instructions for use of the CRS in aeroplanes. The CRS manufacturer as well as
the airline is obliged to indicate any change of their product that
could influence the validity of the qualification to the qualifying
organisation.

As to the aircraft specific data to be provided by the manufacturer, it
seems to be best that the qualifying organisation, which should be an
independent, competent organisation accepted by the relevant aviation
authority, performs the necessary measurements in the aeroplanes by
themselves, unless they have other personnel trained for that purpose,
because if a measurement has not been made correctly, it could render the
results invalid.

The qualification procedure seems to be a complicated procedure, but
for the time being the best we can offer to really protect especially
small children up to two years of age who otherwise would be sitting
unfastened on the lap of an adult. We hope that this procedure works to our
and the airlines' satisfaction.

You will find further information about qualified CRS at
http://www.tuvdotcom.com/pi/web/search.xml?LanguageSelected=de&searchbox=Child+Restraint+System+&strLevel=0&strUrlId=1&strUserId=&LanguageChanged=en-us (http://www.tuvdotcom.com/pi/web/search.xml?LanguageSelected=de&searchbox=Child+Restraint+System+&strLevel=0&strUrlId=1&strUserId=&LanguageChanged=en-us)
.
Having read throught the above posts particularly reference serious injuries sustained in CAT does this reply strike anyone else as incongrous.

[Doodles]

So, in case of unexpected turbulance I should always keep my seatbelt fastened. For the threat of DVT, I should stretch and walk around the cabin frequently.

Which is correct (for safety reasons - not legal)?

[Rainboe]

Look it's quite simple- stop trying to act confused! Nobody is trying to stop you stretching your legs (as long as you are not causing an obstruction), but when your arse and seat are in contact, you wear your belt, whether the sign is on or not. Is that difficult?

[SLFguy]

"when your arse and seat are in contact, you wear your belt, whether the sign is on or not."

I like that - very to the point. Humbly suggest that it should be printed on the back of every seat. :)

[Rainboe]

Thank you Sire, people say I have a certain way with words....usually adding swear words to that remark.