Experienced pax vs very experienced CC seatbelt thread

[Finn47]

Number of injured now reported as 47

47 injured on Northwest Airlines plane due to turbulence Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/about-30-injured-due-to-turbulence-on-northwest-airlines-plane)

[vanHorck]

It is stupidity of people not to wear their seatbelts as much as possible, despite the recommendations given during the safety briefing.

But there is another side to this story.... Especially on short haul flights, i see the crew keep on the safety belts signs on much longer than necessary, just to give the CC some time without too much "hinderance" from the SLF (!).

This is a psychological issue. Many people fly often these days and perceive this secondary role of the fasten seat-belts sign, and this therefore reduces their safety urgency.

I therefore believe the crews should only use that sign for safety purposes.

[flapsforty]

The crew should only switch on the FSB for safety purposes should they?
Thank you for stating the glaringly obvious vanHorck. Very useful.

You see the crew keep on the safety belts signs on much longer than necessary, just to give the CC some time without "hinderance" from the SLF, do you?
How do you see that?
From seat 7b you can read the flight plan and hear reports from aircraft ahead?
You wouldn´t just assume would you??

And once you have passed your qualified judgement on the length of time the FSB sign is on, you then know it is to keep the SLF out of the CC´s hair?
How do you know that then vanHorck?
The CC told you?
The pilots did a PA to that effect?
Your superior SLF/Seneca pilot judgement tells you so?
Or are you just assuming again?

I have seen what you describe happen twice in 20+ years; both times when the situation was about to get dangerously out of hand in the cabin.
Never to keep the aisle free of pax so we could serve a meal.

:rolleyes:

When it comes to the habit in some companies of keeping the FSB sign on much longer than is enforcable in the cabin, yes, that is a self defeating, legal cover-your-@ss exercise.
Still has nothing to do with giving the CC some free working space.

[Basil]

vanHorck,
Now you know why we don't argue with senior cabin crew :p

[John_Mc]

flapsforty,

Why are you so aggressive in your tone? There's no need for it...

I'm a first time poster, but a long time lurker and the attitude of some of the people on here amazes me sometimes.

[bossan]

I agree with John Mc

Van Hork's comments are not without merits and should not provoke such a harsh reaction.

Paticularly so, if it comes from a moderator.

[5Y NJB]

I can understand flapsforty's frustration. Every time an incident like this is posted here, the same old nonsense about

(a) daft pax who don't observe the seatbelt signs; and
(b) CC conspiring to keep pax in their seat

comes up. As CC it must get a bit boring. Particularly if (b) is a load of old b*ll*cks, and (a) is stating the blindingly obvious.

Just my 2c

[vanHorck]

Flapsfourty

Sorry I offended you....

Perhaps you sit too much in the front and not enough in the back....

I am a long time SLF (intensive), I have many ATP friends and I am an active MEP PPL myself

That's why I started by saying the obvious, to always keep the belt on when possible even without the sign.

Not all pilots do keep the signs on for longer than needed but some do, perhaps at the request of the CC or perhaps in an attempt by the flight crew to accommodate the CC without request.

Those that do make a mistake because indeed, the SLF cannot evaluate the necessity and there will always be instances when this necessity does not become obvious, leading to wrong assumptions by the SLF. All the more reason to avoid keeping the sign on without safety necessity, given how the psyche of SLF works.....

Finally I hope you're not as pedantic as you came across, we're just exchanging views here and your view and mine are both equally honorable.

Basil, Bossan and John, thx for your comments, there are many nice people in aviation, I know!
5Y thank you for your input. Perhaps you guys could read again my post in the vein it was intended.

[fmgc]

I think that there is an issue with the litigious society that we live in these days.

I do think that some have the seat belt signs on much more than we used to. What this does is "cry wolf" so the SLF don't see the seat belt signs as being as important as they used to be.

[DC-ATE]

You wanna know why the Seat Belt Sign is ON many times when you SLFs don't think it should be? It's because no one yet has devised a way to "See" Clear Air Turbulance, and the Front End Crew is looking out for your butt! If it isn't on and turbulence is encountered, then you try and sue someone. If it IS on and turbulence is encountered, you sue anyway. I say leave the darn sign on ALL the time.

[Flintstone]

Here we go again. You know what they say about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing don't you?

It amazes me that anyone would even think of arguing against wearing a seatbelt at all times whether the sign tells you to or whether you make that decision yourself. The 'I'm-too-cool-for-a-seatbelt' brigade can be the first to hit the ceiling in CAT for all I care just as long as they don't come down on me.

If someone's too stupid to take such a simple precaution there's a good chance they'll try to blame (and sue) someone else when they get hurt. You can't blame the crew for covering themselves. Flaps and other experienced CC have been dealing with these morons for years so their reaction is somewhat understandable.

[Final 3 Greens]

You see the crew keep on the safety belts signs on much longer than necessary, just to give the CC some time without "hinderance" from the SLF, do you? How do you see that?

Well I have heard CC ask the FD guys to do it on the interphone (you wold be surprised what pax can hear), more than occasionally.

Not typically on European scheduled airlines, though.

And I agree with Van Horck, it does reduce the effectiveness of the sign.

However, this is nothing to do with the concept of keeping your belt fastened all the time you are in the seat, which is common sense and against which there is no rational argument.

[5Y NJB]

However, this is nothing to do with the concept of keeping your belt fastened all the time you are in the seat, which is common sense and against which there is no rational argument.

Unfortunately, common sense and rationality mysteriously appear to desert a large majority of pax the moment they board.

[Guava Tree]

Post #8 from Flaps Forty appears to be out of order even allowing for the possibility that he may be now, or once have been, senior cabin crew,.

[vanHorck]

It seems that i have opened up a can of worms here, more or less off thread... Sorry for this.

I have encountered severe turbulence as a SLF a couple of times and the CC were the ones to suffer most. I am not somebody who considers CC or flying crew cattle, nor do i wish to be considered cattle when i help paying the bills.

A bit of respect for other people's opinions, especially when the post was intended to increase safety would not go amiss...

Mods are not above the rest of us and the post I received from flapsfourty was completely wrong in terms of tone. Not called for.

It seems I am not wrong, considering other posters. I too have heard CC call for extended Seat belts on, so it IS an issue and should be addressed.

I shall end with the start of my original post: My experience has taught me that the briefing by CC is correct: wear seat-belts always, certainly when the sign is on, but also when it is not on

[A300Man]

flapsforty, with all due respect - and I have the UTMOST respect for Cabin Crew - but your tone in your reply was a bit o.t.t.. Sorry.

Let's hope that the injured NW folks are all ok and nothing too serious and that we can steer the discussion back on topic, i.e. the specific incident over Narita today.

[Avman]

Similarly out-of-order rant by TightSlot recently:

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/361998-flight-camcorder-use-illegal-not.html

I'm thankful and appreciative of those who volunteer to moderate forums and I do understand how frustrating it can sometimes be. However, if you're going to do it you must be able to keep your cool, remain objective and lead by example.

Perhaps there are times when they moderate after a long exhausting trip with grumpy pax? Best sleep it off first. ;)

[demomonkey]

vanHorck

Finally I hope you're not as pedantic as you came across,

You really are good at calming situations down and winning people over. I'd stick with the PPL myself. A little knowledge doesn't go a long way, or to put it another way: you know enough to be dangerous.

[Basil]

Perhaps worth repeating that, although I spent forty years in aviation, I'm still not too cool to read the safety briefing card and keep the seatbelt fastened whether the FSB light is on or not.
Another thought is that, even if you are strapped in, a 90kg unsecured passenger landing on you could spoil your trip. OTOH a 60kg unsecured stewardess may be more agreeable :O (am I allowed to say that?)

[5Y NJB]

OTOH a 60kg unsecured stewardess may be more agreeable (am I allowed to say that?)

Only if you qualify it with " / unsecured steward" for the birds amongst us :E

[Basil]

but of course.
Next time I'm sunbathing at the equator I'll be looking :p

[vanHorck]

Demomonkey

Sorry if you could not live with my anger at the Mod's post.

This forum is great for exchanging views and I try to be respectful at all times, accepting that many people have different views. I have no issue with the mod voicing his opinion but i did have an issue with his demeaning tone.

Unfortunately patience seems to wear thin with some posters with regards to other people's opinions. The arrogance is sometimes simply incredible and yes, I do perceive such attitude as pedantic.

We live in an time when your GP should not address his patient as a child, an neither should an airline captain address his SLF that way or a mod a poster. This is 2009, not 1959.

As for keeping the signs on when there is a possibility of clear air turbulence (PIREP), I think that's obviously wise, as is a brief info to the SLP telling them of this risk. It is exactly because of the clear air turbulence that the standard briefing includes the suggestion of keeping the belt on at all times

[overthewing]

The role of a moderator on an internet forum is to moderate, ie ensure respectful discussion, I thought? Moderators don't take part in the discussion, far less inflame it.

I've seen poor moderation on other forum sites, where there's a high level of emotional reactivity and the moderator is easily provoked into joining in. I'm surprised at the emotional excitability on Pprune, given that many posters claim to be part of a profession where intellectual discipline and emotional restraint are valued. But if even the mods can't exercise self-control...

[vanHorck]

Let's get back on track.
The Mod said HER bit :ouch: and so did I :ouch: .
Subject closed, back to the thread.
:)

[Perrin]

Ok now that all the toys have been thrown can we get back to the reason for this thread or is it time to go to bed children??:{

[bossan]

Wise words indeed van Horck:ok: let's get back on the topic.

How to avoid heavy turbulence ? Simple; improve the instruments which can detect it.

How to achieve this ?( and I truly hate to say this) Sue and ligitate airlines and plane manufacturers until they realise that it is cheaper to develop better detecting equipment.

Lastly, a barely lit FSB light will not do the trick to keep people seated, one has to consider that there are people around who are totally unaware of what can happen( And no, they are not daft )

[DC-ATE]

This is your Captain speaking.

The Seat Belt Sign is ON as you can see. While we are expecting a smooth flight, however, turbulence up here can NOT be forcast any better than the weather at your house can. There's always a CHANCE for it, just as there's always a chance for rain or snow at your house. There's even a CHANCE for rain in the desert.

So, unless it is absolutely necessary for you to leave your seat, I would like you to remain seated with your seatbelt FASTENED.....PLEASE. Neither I nor this airline can be held responsible if you are injured because of unforecasted turbulence, if your seat belt is not fastened with you in it.

Thank you.
-----------
As to the remark made by 'bossan'....."How to avoid heavy turbulence ? Simple; improve the instruments which can detect it. How to achieve this ?( and I truly hate to say this) Sue and ligitate airlines and plane manufacturers until they realise that it is cheaper to develop better detecting equipment."

That seems to be the attitude of many people for many things.....sue. There ARE efforts underway to achive this very thing (forcasting turbulence). Even then, there will be encounters. You simply cannot have a 100% safe flight, much as everyone, especially the front-end crew, would like. Some people even want parachutes on board commercial flights. My suggestion to those that are worried so much.....DON'T FLY.

[vanHorck]

I tried to look for a severe turbulence video on youtube but could not find anything worthwhile.

To describe it, let me explain one that happened to me several years back. I never found out if we flew through a vortex of another plane or if it was clear air turbulence.

The flight was from Amsterdam to Heathrow on BMI. I was in seat D and waiting for a drink, belt attached.

Suddenly the left wing dropped extremely fast and extremely deep. It felt like we were suddenly completely vertical (left wing down, right wing up) although it was possibly just 45 degrees rather than 90 degrees, but the drop was fast, less than 2 seconds!

My right arm flew up and my hand hit the luggage bin hurting quite bad afterwards.
Some bins had fallen open and some luggage had fallen on passengers.
One stewardess was thrown sideways and burnt herself on the coffee or tea.

The whole event was over 5 seconds later when the plane was back how it should be.

The event was totally unpredictable, not even time to get frightened.

Forget all options about holding on to a seat, an armrest. The armrest onto which my right arm had been resting was up between the seats, i must have been holding on to it when my arm flew up

[5Y NJB]

That seems to be the attitude of many people for many things.....sue.

Couldn't agree more. Anyone with half a brain (or who has read news reports like this one) knows what severe turbulence / CAT can do so, instead of coming over all litigious why not just take some personal responsibility on board an aircraft? Belt up when seated, hang on to something when not, and deal with it until better detecting equipment is in place. BTW, whatever did happen to personal responsibility?

[overthewing]

Speaking as a pax who fastens the belt so rapidly, I often have to undo it to let the other passengers board into A and B :O, I feel I need to point out that people DO need to go the toilet.

Especially on longish flights, and in cattle class, queues build up at the loos as the journey nears its end. I should thing that having twenty or so people on their way/waiting/coming back from a toilet break would not be unusual in a 747. If each of those people hits the roof and bounces off one other person, you get up to the forty injuries level pretty quickly.

If the FSB chimes unexpectedly mid-air, it can take a while to struggle back to your seat, especially if you're going against a tide of returning trolleys.

All I'm saying is, don't be too quick to lambast pax for foolishly not fastening their seatbelts.

[bossan]

DC-ATE

" This is your Catain speaking ect " Hate to tell you this, but most of the time I can't even hear what comes out of the cocpit....Also bear in mind that a fair number of your passengers don't speak/understand your language.

I have never sued anybody in my life, but unfortunatly that seems to be the only way to progress.

Fully appreciate that one cannot forecast the weather 100 % accurately; I was talking about detection equipment.

Who would have thought-some 25 years ago- that CAT detecting equipment would be in use; yet, manufacturers are making great strides.

I am not the least concerned about my safety when I fly ( a lot ) but there is always room for improvement ?

[Final 3 Greens]

You simply cannot have a 100% safe flight

Think about this and an earlier comment about pax losing their rationality.

Then think about the image that airlines try to create (understandably) to market their products.

The problem is that airline flights so rarely encounter any problems, that the industry has created a whole generation (or two) of passengers, who are conditioned to the journey being similar to a train journey.

How many pax have experienced a wing drop as described by van Horck? Not me and my pax flight hours are well into the 000s.

The majority do not perceive the risks, as modern jet airliners are comfortable and usually avoid the worst weather conditions. Like van Horck, I have battled my way around in small aircraft and am most respectful of mother nature.

The dilemma, for the industry, is that raising the profile may cause passengers to become fearful and impact on sales figuresl.

So we have bland briefings that put across the info, but in a way that has little impact for those who do not understand the environment.

Awareness raising and sales figures become accidental adversaries.

[lomapaseo]

Since were into seatbelt management issues again, some more war stories.

I have seen first hand where unexpected excursions happened in flight without the seatbelt sign on. So of course all those among us already know it's smart to wear a belt at all times.

On The Other Hand as passengers we do watch the belt sign to judge whether to get up and take a wee, reach down and move our carry ons, etc.

Since I'm with Van Horck (BTDT) I do appreciate the call from the cockpit warning about the need to keep the belt fastened at all times as well as reports of some turbulence ahead.

For the specific warning issue I hold my bladder. For the general warning I watch the Cabin Crew and if they move, I move.

I've been through some turbulence, loosing food plates drinks etc. with my belt fastened. the worst part is the lack of shoulder restraint which allows your upper body to snap about

[flapsforty]

vanHorck & supporting cast, let’s try a small analogy. Never perfect but perhaps illuminating. :)

You’re attending a Formula 1 race as a spectator. There’s a sponsor tent where you can mingle with the drivers, the mechanics and all the other professionals who make up a Formula 1 team.
You grab a beer and saunter over to where you spot Hamilton, Kovalainnen, Massa and some other people in team-overalls talking about their last race and pleasantly answering questions from interested people just like you.

You take the floor and emphatically announce that in order to win a Formula 1 race, it is important to make sure that the wheels on the car always turn.
…. when they remain severely under-impressed, you don’t get it. You drive your Opel Astra to work every day, and as a prudent driver you even took one of those how-to-drive-on-slippery-surfaces courses; of course they should be impressed with your idea and thankful that you share it with them…

After gracing them with your first major insight, you carry on telling them how you have seen the drivers tell the mechanics to put on dry tyres when clearly intermediate ones were called for.
… you have tyres on your car after all, you know about these things …

When one of the tent managers then tells you off for irritating the professionals with empty verbiage, you sulk mightily and maintain that your opinion is just as valid as anybody else’s.

Let me tell you something; it isn’t.
This is the flagship forum of the web’s foremost aviation bulletin board. Set up by professional pilots for professional pilots and other aviation professionals.
Everybody is more than welcome to read, to ask questions and to further their knowledge of professional aviation.

What we are not keen on, and see far too much of here, is people who think that having a PPL, a degree in Flight Simming or merely being a frequent flyer qualifies them to proclaim as gospel their opinion on the actions of professional cockpit- and cabin crew members.

Stating your opinion on matters you know little about can be done in Jet Blast (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/). Not here.

PS: I’m not liking myself to the drivers; maybe the person who dusts off the tyres. :p

[bossan]

And here I was, waiting for some kind of an apology from Flaps 40.

Take me of your member list.... Please

[DHC6tropics]

Sorry Flaps Forty, but the FSB sign is an issue. People will get up and go to the lavatory if it has been illuminated for an extended period of time during calm conditions and if no specific warning has been given by the flight crew (ie. expecting turbulence ahead).

I am a pilot for a major airline and I have done both short haul and long haul flights. There are 3 times that I have noticed the FSB sign on unnecessarily.

1. The pilots just plain forget that it is on. I would say that about 5% of the time after we exit turbulence we just plain forget that the seat belt sign is on and may leave it on for longer than really needed.

2. During night flights when there is intermittent light turbulence some pilots will leave the sign on at all times so sleeping pax are not disturbed by the required CC pa's. There are usually differing views with the crews I fly with as to whether this is appropriate or not.

3. On some sectors that are notorious for annoying or harassing pax (ie. TLV-YYZ) I've heard of some Captains leaving the FSB sign on in an attempt to keep some level of order in the back.

Anyway, I really do think that these self-proclaimed SLF have a point and that some debate needs to take place between CC and pilots as to when it is appropriate for the FSB to be left on.

[DC-ATE]

Thank you, 'flapsforty' !

I suspect there will be those that pay about a much attention to what you wrote as they do the Seat Belt Sign.:*

[overthewing]

This is the flagship forum of the web’s foremost aviation bulletin board. Set up by professional pilots for professional pilots and other aviation professionals.

What a great shame, then, that it can't rise to professional standards when it comes to moderators.

[flapsforty]

DHC6tropics, totally agree with you. Communication between cockpit, CC and pax is essential for making sure that the pax understand why the sign is on, for the pax to be willing to obey it and for CC to properly enforce compliance.

1. In this case it is up to the senior cabin crew member to call the pilots on the interphone. 9 times out of 10 the sign plings off before I get as far as " guys, how much longer.... " The tenth time they tell me that it will remain on a while longer because of XYZ. I share the info with the my cabin colleagues and we continue enforcing pax compliance.

2. I am not familiar with this, as we don't do it this way in our company. What most happens on the flights I am on is that I make a very specific PA, explaining to the pax why it is a good idea to keep the seat belt fastened at all times, explaining that on most LH flights the FSB sign will come on a few times and that when that happens, we from the CC are obliged by law to check that every pax has his seat belt fastened. I then suggest to the pax that they keep their belts visibly fastened, above their blankets, so that we won't have to wake them up to check the belt in case of turbulence. I then assure the Captain that we will carefully check each and every pax each and every time they switch the FSB sign on, and that we will strictly enforce it. We usually then agree that during night flights there will be no announcements made abut the FSB sign. This rewards the pax who listened to the PA and fastened their belts by allowing them some undisturbed sleep time, and it makes it 'morally' easier for the FAs to wake up forewarned people whose belts are invisible or clearly unfastened.

3. As stated in my first post, I have seen it happen twice in my whole career. Both times in extremis and not because the CC needed a clear aisle. If your experience is different, then far be it from me to disagree with you. :)

[zhishengji751]

:ok:

Thanks for the informative response.

[DHC6tropics]

Fair enough Flaps Forty. All I was getting at is that it is inevitable that passengers will get out of their seats to use the facilities if the FSB sign has been left on for length periods of time (over an hour) in smooth conditions with no information from the flight deck. When I deadhead I would say that the majority of the time flight attendants become complacent during these situations and do not enforce the fasten seatbelt protocol. The passengers have a valid concern and complaint when it comes to the FSB sign protocol at many major airlines. Unless actually experiencing or truly expecting moderate turbulence it is unacceptable to keep everyone seated for hours at a time.

However, when passengers are seated I think they should be required by law to keep their seatbelts fastened.

[DHC6tropics]

We usually then agree that during night flights there will be no announcements made abut the FSB sign.

At my company the flight attendants are required by regulation to make a PA each time the FSB sign is selected on...in two (and sometimes three) languages.

[Final 3 Greens]

DHC6 Tropics

When I deadhead I would say that the majority of the time flight attendants become complacent during these situations and do not enforce the fasten seatbelt protocol.

This is a very sharp observation and I see this regularly, too.

The unfortunate lack of intervention reinforces the behaviour, which is wrong, when negative reinforcement* would make much more sense. (*telling pax that if they wish to avoid being injured, they should remain strapped in.)

Regarding being strapped in for hours, I once endured a flight from BOS to LHR with the belt sign on for the entire 6.5 hours! Therere may have been a very good reason for it, but I don't recall a single bump apart from the landing gear contacting terra firma at London.

People just ignored the belt sign after an hour or two, which is not conducive to flight safety.

[Avman]

It's a gamble in the end. In recent years when I have crossed the atlantic on US carriers the SB sign was on for the entire trip. We had the odd little ripple here and there which couldn't even be described as light "turbulence". Now, let me be clear, I always keep my SB fastened, but on an 8.5 hour sector I'm going to need the loo. Could be just my luck that having kept my SB on up to that point the moment I release it, "bang wallop" 3 secs of significant turb and I'm kissing the ceiling! Not the crew's fault, not my fault., just an "act of God" as they say.

In contrast to the above experience with US carriers, I find that European carriers tend to be more realistic with the SB sign. The outcome is that when it is illuminated it will generally be respected. On my last eastbound oceanic flight we never saw the SB sign despite a number of encounters with, albeit light, turbulence.

I believe that the warning given by (most) crews in their speel to pax to keep their SB on when seated should be considered legal enough protection for them from being held responsible for any pax injuries sustained during unexpected turbulence.

[Phil1980's]

You are Right Van Horck...I sat on some flights and they kept belts sign on all of the flight...
In a different situation...Singapore Airlines, I recognised how attentive the pilots were at switching them on and off at the appropriate times...Some pilots probably forget and leave the belt sign on...some actually think about the cabin more... :)

[A300Man]

Flaps, once again, I am rather bemused at the tone of your second-but-last post, albeit the most recent one appeared to be written in a more level-headed stance. Please do not take this the wrong way or be offended by my imminent comments, but your approach in the participation of this now-divorced (from the original) thread has only served to weaken your argument, IMO. It would have been much better to employ the tact and wit and diplomacy that CC are known for with the ultimate objective of achieving a result, rather than go on a barbaric offensive which only served to alienate the audience.

I work in the industry. I am not employed by an airline, as such, directly. I DO however fly a heck of a lot. I know a lot about the superficial aspects of the service (it's not rocket science when one does it so often). I don't get down to the nitty-gritty of timings to switch on or off the seat belt signs. But the original poster made a very valid comment. I know - for a fact - that some airline crew maintain the signs illuminated longer than normal to allow the cabin crew to complete the service asap, not because the cabin crew wants to put their feet up, but because the sector time is so short that having pax in the aisle would make full service delivery extremely difficult within the alloted time.

I have been on many flights and stood in the galley and actually witnessed a cabin crew member coming forward and requesting the purser to ask the captain to switch on the seatbelt signs and make a PA about "imminent" turbulence (phantom turbulence) to ensure that a crowd of lager louts assembled near the rear galley takes their seats and stops causing such hassle to the cabin crew. I have seen this done many times.

As such, whilst still maintaining my earlier statement of UTMOST respect for those in the cabin crew profession, your original post was way off beam and did not permit evaluation of both sides of the story!!

By the way, I love your purple ink........................Happy Flying!! xx

[TightSlot]

You've had your fun now with a nice session of mod-bashing. I'll remind you that posting on PPRuNe is a purely voluntary: If you are that disgusted by the moderation of this, or any other forum, you always have the option of simply not visiting. There are more complicated explanations that could be offered about how and why moderation takes place on PPRuNe - I've explained them before, to little effect, so I don't propose to waste your time and mine by repeating them once more.

From now on, this thread will concern itself solely with discussion of the topic. Comments about moderators and moderation are off-topic and will be deleted. If you do not like this policy, then there will be little point in your continuing to read the thread.

[Mozart21]

My experience when flying as SLF is that short, clear instructions which seem to have a purpose achieve better compliance than broadly scoped "rules". For example, explaining to SLF that they can't take a large bag on board because it won't fit is better than stating that the bag size "exceeds company policy".

It is the same with SBs. If pax know why the sign is on they are more likely to follow. They know that on takeoff and landing there may well be "bumps" so comply. persuasion rather tha legal sanction will deliver a greater likelihood of the belt staying on when the sign is off. keeping the signs on for longer doesn't achieve anything for safety or goodwill. I have seen crews explain the benefits of keeping belts fastened and noted good compliance. I have also seen cres demanding compliance and being sworn at.

My crews keep the sign on for as short a period as possible, commensurate with safety requirements.

If anyone on this thread thinks that an announcement to keep belts on throughout the flight is going to prevent legal action in the event of CAT and injury, they are living in some land way, way beyond the clouds. If a pax is injured, s/he will sue. That's it.

[Abusing_the_sky]

I am guilty as charged!:ouch:
I do ask the F/D to put the SB sign on when there is a rather loud, all over the place stag due on board, clearly out of control. I can't just sit them down, i have to ask everyone to do the same;
I do ask the F/D to put the SB sign on when i think the turbulence is worst at the back than the front of the cabin; again, i can't sit down just the pax at the back, i have to ask everyone to sit down and fasten their seatbelt.
I do ask the F/D to put the SB sign on when i have a medical emergency on board; it's not required, but i chose to do it so i have no pax in my way when i deal with the casualty.

I can't say anything when it comes to long haul, i don't have the (CC) experience.
However, having some serious experience in short haul as CC, i fail to understand why some pax (some being the operative word), would keep their seatbelt on in a 2 hrs car journey, without stopping to use the loo, but they won't do it in a 2hrs flight.
And why some (again, the above applies) pax complain after take off that the seatbelt sign is still on but they wanna go to the loo... You are a grown up who just left the terminal building, a terminal building with, I'm sure, more than one toilets you could use; cleaner and bigger may i add.

flapsforty, in my opinion, stated the obvious in her posts ( i would've done the same if i would've been around when it started). Very heated posts, however, we are allowed to have a personality outside uniform you know... :}
Where in Pprune's rules says that a Mod is not allowed to express his/her opinion?

Anyhow, that's only my opinion. But then again, there's always going to be someone who knows better...

Rgds,
ATS

[Final 3 Greens]

Seeing as we now have a changed thread......

DC-ATE wrote

The Seat Belt Sign is ON as you can see. While we are expecting a smooth flight, however, turbulence up here can NOT be forcast any better than the weather at your house can. There's always a CHANCE for it, just as there's always a chance for rain or snow at your house. There's even a CHANCE for rain in the desert.

This is almost apologetic in tone, it certainly does not demand compliance.

Consider the health warning on the front of a pack of cigarettes, e.g.

"Stopping smoking reduces the risk of fatal heart and lung diseases"

As we know, some people choose to ignore this warning, but there is nothing mealy mouthed about it, how about a similar sign on the seat in front....

"Wearing your safey belt when seated reduces the risk of severe injury", supported by a PA or short video on the effects of turbulence.

Do you think the industry will go for this??

[Final 3 Greens]

ATS

Appreciate the honesty and all of your reasons for asking for the FSB sign seem fair enough to me.

One of the reasons people need the loo on planes for a short flight, but not in cars is simply the physiological effect of their bodies reaction to stress.

Most pax are nervous when they fly.

[Abusing_the_sky]

Fair point F3G.

However, why (in my experience) do the same slightly nervous pax admit "Flying is the safest way to travel"?... :confused:


Rgds,
ATS

[Final 3 Greens]

ATS

However, why (in my experience) do the same slightly nervous pax admit "Flying is the safest way to travel"?...

The fact that they feel the need to say this speaks volumes ;)

The body can directly cause physiological reactions, even though the cognitive (thinking) functions know that these are inappropriate.

Do you drive a car? If so, think about a time when you had a near miss, maybe someone braked hard and unexpectedly,causing you to so this same.

Even though you 'know' you didn't crash and there wasn't time to think about it as you were reacting, your body still goes into FOF (flight or flight) mode and you get the increased heart rate etc.

So, the pax are cognitively aware that the experience is safe, but the body circumvents the conscious part of the mind.......

Ask your old man if he ever suffered from 'the leans' when flying on instruments and had to really force himself to ignore what his inner ear was telling him - it's a similar thing.

[A300Man]

Actually, don't some carriers have a rule that seatbelts fastened whilst seated at all times is mandatory? Isn't that a Lufthansa policy?

Incidentally, as a FFFFFFFFP (note the number of F's), I always wear my seatbelt whilst seated. I fail to see what's so difficult about it. Over the blanket as well! It's easy! Nice and loose, but nonetheless capturing, if you know what I mean.

What do you mean about the "leans"? What is that exactly?

[Final 3 Greens]

A300 Man

What do you mean about the "leans"? What is that exactly?

Sensory illusions.....

Sensory illusions in aviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation)

Your body is screaming at you, telling you to do something that is wrong.

Not exactly the same as needing the loo on a flight, but the commonality is the body overriding (or trying to) the cognitive functions.

If you look for autokinetic illusion on the page, you'll then understand how I once took avoiding action in a light plane 3,000' over the fens, when confronted by what I later realised to be a large greehouse with the sun reflecting on it :}

[Mozart21]

Aside from the stress, comes the boredom. When I am driving/flying I am busy and my body doesn't think about the need for a break in the same way as when I am sitting looking at the back of the seat in front.

Also have you ever seen the pax facilities at the toilets at say LGW? STN? or worst - LHR T2/T3? The gutter outside is the more sanitary option.

[boardingpass]

I'm sure I've heard 'It is a Qantas requirement that you keep your seatbelts fastened while seated' or something to that effect.

VanHorck: The seatbelt signs are there for pax safety, not to stop you being a hindrance, that's what the restraint kit is for.

JohnMc: the need for displayed tone is because VH's comment is so far from reality it warrants a trolley to the kneecap.

DC-ATE: if you sue, ticket prices have to go up, and PAX end up paying the price anyway.... or you could just wear your seatbelt. :ugh:

FlapsForty: your analogy is accurate, some FFlyers and PPL holders say the most darndest things sometimes.

Mozart21: your wealth of experience as SLF is for the most part irrelevant, because you are probably a reasonable person who complies with instructions. Whereas I might see up to 500 pax in any given work day and therefore have to deal with at least 5 nitwits per day (1% of pax) who are in the 'I'm too cool to wear a seatbelt, I'm too busy to turn off my computer, I'm to important to put my bag on the floor' category and therefore require a little 'OR ELSE' angry mommy attitude to get things done.

AbusingTheSky: And I would add sometimes we call the flightdeck to turn on the seatbelt sign because on occasion it can be terribly rough up the back near the tail while the flight deck is relatively smooth. You're right about going to the toilet, too.

My mother always told me, before travelling and going to sleep, go to the loo. She had a few other gems of advice, too, bless her.

Usually, pax will notice the seatbelt signs are still on after the cabin crew have been released (while the plane is still climbing). But this is not because we want to work unhindered, but because we are trained, experienced, able bodied and wearing appropriate footwear to be walking around in an unstable cabin. Pax are not, and even if Mr Frequent Flyer thinks he is, I cannot implement one rule for pax A, and one for frail lady pax B with weak bones.

So, if the seat belt sign is on, and you need to pee, may I suggest you press the call bell to ask an FA if it is safe to go to the toilet. If no-one comes, they are all probably strapped in too. If they say no, you can ask them to ask the Captain if they expect a change in circumstances soon, and convey your urgency :sad:. Usually crew will say something like 'if you need to go, you need to go, but hold onto this grab rail, take care, and be aware that you are responsible if anything happens'.

Now, I'm not going to deny that bad unscrupulous airlines exist that have zero customer orientation and might have silly ideas like keeping seatbelt signs on a whole flight 'in case'. I've heard stories how crew used to count how many call bells could be on and left ignored until they hit the 'call reset' button... But fortunately these airlines are mostly on the way out and if you encounter this, don't fly them again.

[Final 3 Greens]

I'd love to know how a CC member can decide, with any certainty, whether it's safe to go to the loo, when the belt sign is on, without asking the aircraft commander.

Please explain, i'm all ears..........

[Teevee]

But as SLF I'd like to know why some people who'll happily sit in a car for hours with their seatbelt on can't wait to get it off when they're thousands of feet up in the air ...:ugh:

[boardingpass]

I'd love to know how a CC member can decide, with any certainty, whether it's safe to go to the loo, when the belt sign is on, without asking the aircraft commander.Well, that's because pilots talk to other pilots on the radio who report the severity of turbulence up ahead to each other. They use highly technical words like 'light', 'moderate' and 'severe'. CC undergo gruelling training so that when pilots communicate this information, (when we call them, when they call us, during the pre-flight briefing) we can understand. They might even dumb it down for us and say something like, 'we can expect some pretty heavy turbulance over the Alps, so I'll keep the belts on and no trolleys till I call.' Therefore, we don't decide with certainty, but we can help as best we can given the information at hand.

Does that help F3G??

[Flintstone]

I'd love to know how a CC member can decide, with any certainty, whether it's safe to go to the loo, when the belt sign is on, without asking the aircraft commander.

Please explain, i'm all ears..........


Whenever I decide to illuminate the seat belt sign I always brief the CC as to the expected endurance and severity of any turbulence. Therefore if asked by passengers if it's ok to visit the lav the CC can assess each passenger's ability to stay upright during (say) intermediate, light chop for a brief period. The twenty-something sporty person probably could. The granny with two dodgy hips probably couldn't.

You see? Unless you're actually an insider (as opposed to a FF, PPL or reggie spotter) there's often more to it than meets the eye.

[vanHorck]

ok ok ok

I've made my peace with Flapfourty and she has made her peace with me, via private messages.

I do not consider airline flying the F1 of the air and me flying my Seneca IV as single crew being the Astra of the sky.

Whilst i fly slower and lower i have to contend more with weather, the flight is less automated and the workload generally higher, so I am led to believe from friends/ATPL's. It's like saying Alaska floatplane pilot are less of a pilot than twin pilots in England because they fly singles. They are all different types of flying but none better or worse or higher or lower than others. There are old pilots and bold pilots, there are those who feel they need to push down to rise themselves and those who do not feel this need.

So back to the intention of my statement.

As in any profession, through time a form of blindness appears in all eyes of staff, in this case pilots and cc alike. We are all aware of it (me in my work too) and we all fight it.

I's like to contribute to this fighting as follows:

Communications is vital between both crews one the one hand and pax on the other, simply because people fly more, THINK they know more and are more and more trained to use their individual brains in the current rat race.

Contrary to what some aviation crew think, it is unnatural for a person's brain to just leave their own well being to somebody else.

It is natural for any individual person to want to make their own judgement, and the thought you achieve best judgement by pax through not informing is old hat.

Providing the necessary information to the pax which will lead him to making the right decision (wearing the belt) is the way to go....

I advocate the safety belts sign on is only ever used during take off, landing and when risks dictate it, never to allow CC more room or time (unless emergency) or other secondary non-safety related reason
I advocate that crew (cabin or drivers) always explain when they keep the sign on outside normal periods (PIREPS of clear air turbulence etc)

The above will hopefully lead to fewer SLF using their ill informed brains at making natural but wrong decisions about their safety

And finally i would like to agree with another poster re the turbulence in the other thread. 30 injured on 400 pax 20 minutes before landing may not have so much to do with ignorant SLF but probably more with people wanting to go to the toilet before landing and failing to reach their seats in time when the FSS came on

[bucket_and_spade]

Fail to see the problem with giving the CC a couple of extra minutes to get on top of things by leaving the seatbelt sign on if it's a short sector or there are unique circumstances.

What's the problem?

[johnfairr]

This is all a bit silly.

Seat belts are there to be worn, whatever the conditions. I'm ex-mil and got into the habit of wearing a seat-belt in an aircraft well before it became mandatory in the UK for car drivers. IT SAVES LIVES, that's why the militray fit them, among other reasons. :rolleyes:

Yes, I am that old! Yes, I am stuck in my ways. Yes, I am still alive
and so are those people reading this, seat belts or not. But some of you wouldn't be if you'd ignored the sign.

Grow up! Flaps has a valid point and macho posturing does nothing to calm pax who might otherwise have obeyed the requests of CC.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Johnfairr (and everybody)

I'm still military. I'm a SAR helicopter pilot. We bring people on board our aircraft mostly in a state of extreme stress (if they weren't when we found them, they are by the time we have hoisted them through 100' of space).

You would not believe the things that people do if we don't ensure that they are sat down strapped in - in the middle of a major emergency, in the dark, when the crew are a bit busy with the world outside.

There was an incident in the late 70s (just after we got Sea Kings where the cockpit and the cabin are on the same level) when the handling pilot, in the middle of rescuing a bunch of people, was hugged by a completely naked and very comely female survivor . . .

The point I'm headed for is that, regardless of what you think you know, and regardless of what you think is going on, the crew have both knowledge and issues of which you are completely unaware. Everybody do what you are told unless you are definitely going to die if you don't.

And to airline staff (and my brother-in-law is a BA 744 Capt, so my Xmas will be fraught if you F**k me about), remember that the SLF have bladders, and may have been 5 hours through check-in etc (ever tried to take a legal gun on an airliner?) and may be quite stressed before they start (my wife lives in perpetual irrational fear of her husband or her brother dying in a horrible aircraft accident - and an airliner in the Hudson and a helicopter in the North Sea in the same month hasn't helped).

Its all about consideration for each other. I appreciate that the travelling public generally don't consider, but CC, if you could prompt the pilots so I can have a pee as soon as possible after top of climb in a 15 min gap or so before you start shoving trolleys round, I would be so much on your side.

BTW, flew ANZ in Jan for the first time in 30 yrs of travel - love ya!

Sven

[Sick Squid]

All those of you SO mortally offended , then just go. Please. Now.

You won't be missed. The moderator you are trying to claim some sort of moral high-ground over would be, however, and has done more for this site than any of you probably ever will.

You really do miss the point sometimes. We sit and watch this site, day in, day out, moving posts, deleting threads, occasionally intervening, and we see the same trends appearing time and time again. Someone with a peripheral interest or knowledge will post some absolute, it will be contradicted, they will get on their high horse, some will defend them, others will attack the person who had the temerity to confront the "free speech" of the initial poster....

...then someone will post looking for a pilots-only site verified by some licence inspection palava....

.. then a moderator will be flamed for having the temerity to have an opinion.

Never mind that the moderator in this instance is someone I would happily have looking after the cabin on any aircraft under my command, any day.

Get over yourselves, and get on with it. It was a poorly phrased post in the first place, making global statements not backed up by experience. You want experience? Here you go.... 12,000 hours or so, most in command of airliners, and the belts signs on for cabin-related stuff twice. And that stuff wasn't simple convenience, it was to clear galleys of over-exuberant passengers when a service was about to take place.

Flame me now, if you like. I don't give a stuff what you think, but I do care when I see my friends and fellow moderators being attacked for simply speaking the truth, in their own inimitable way. Once any of you writing above has contributed as much value to the site as Flaps 40 I'll take you seriously, but till then.... sorry. Keep trying.

Love and hugs,

Squid
(Moderator, formerly of this parish, patroling other pastures now.)

PS. The going rate to phone someone who gives a **** is 10p. Dig deep in your wallets, oh ye so sorely aggrieved.

[vanHorck]

bucket and spade

There is no problem except the psychology that the SLF consider the belts a safety issue and if they perceive it is used for other means they stop trusting the system.

It s all about the little boy crying wolf without reason till one day he was chased by the wolf and nobody listened

So why not extinguish the SBO lights, and ask the SLF by intercom to give the crew a few minutes the space to get organized?

Most bar those who urgently need the toilet I am sure will be happy to comply... And so now you've created more room for the staff and still maintained the integrity of the safety system

[Hot 'n' High]

Mmmmm, am I glad that my last job (scheduled airline) involved seatbelts on from boarding to engine stop. No arguments at all there! Ah, the trusty old Trislander. Livestock were another issue tho! Just how do you strap in a dog (of the canine variety!)?

Alas, no loos :uhoh: and no Hosties :{ on the Trusty Tris! Mind you, just how many times did I hear the jokes along the lines of “Oi, mate, where’s the Stewardess then?” or “How are you going to serve the coffees then?” when doing my Safety Brief leaning across the back of my seat? Most of my answers got a laugh from my Pax! ;)

Anyway, hopefully, having lightened the tone here abouts, back to the serious issue under discussion ………… for others to argue over.

PS Apologies to Flaps40 et al – can I say “Hosties”? Dang! Oh well! :ok:

[bunkrest]

I'm backing flaps forty on this one.:D

I'm not "intensive" slf nor do I spend my weekends tootling around the countryside in my piper cub thinking I know something about the actualities of commercial aviation...

Only once in 9 years of flying have I known the seatbelt signs be swithced on for a situation other than turbulence - and that was to prevent pax fistycuffs breaking out in the back galley of a 777.

On occasion it may seem like a carefully planned conspiracy to Mr Amateur Aviation in row 3 ...but light chop can turn very nasty in a matter of moments, it doesn't happen very often but when it does...well believe me when I say those cabin ceilings don't give very much...!

These so called reports of cabin crew merrily phoning up the flight deck to ask for those pesky pax to be be ordered back to their seats just doesn't ring true....well certainly not in my experience.

I don't treat my pax like cattle nor do I want them out of the way...they pay my wages and are entitled to excellent, SAFE, service.

[vanHorck]

bunkrest

Totally agree..... so if not during take off and landing, why not inform the pax of the reason?

Seems here are two types of crew here. Those who have learned to communicate and those who just do not see the necessity to do so because after all they are the gods of the air

(for the record I remain in my seat belted up whenever the light is on and also when the light is off unless I need to go to the bathroom and the light is off, don't start thinking i m one of the rogues....)

[bucket_and_spade]

vanHorck (http://www.pprune.org/members/214785-vanhorck),

I'm talking about, for example, having the seatbelts sign on for 22 minutes after takeoff as opposed to 19 minutes. If it might help the CC. On a short sector. Very rarely happens - some captains suggest it now and again though.

No need for a passenger announcement - we're busy flying the aircraft.

Perfectly reasonable, I'm sure you'd agree?

I'm struggling to see the big drama :bored:

Regards,

B&S

[Glamgirl]

I've just read through this thread and I've already forgotten what the original issue was. However....

I find it amazing that pax/slf think that we put the seat belt sign on for no reason. I guess these are the same people that think we tell them to turn off their phone/ipod/laptop/blackberry and take earphones out as well as anything else we ask you to do, that we do it for fun or just to annoy you.

Believe it or not, we do what we're trained to do. It's a legal requirement to check each seat belt when the sign comes on. I cannot force you to stay seated, but I can explain to you why you need to stay in your seat. A lot of the replies I get is: "But the guy in front of me went to the loo". Are you a sheep? (obviously not uttered to the pax in question).

What really winds me up though, is parents happily unstrapping their small children to let them go "potty" when the sign is on. Children cannot make an educated choice. If they're still anywhere near potty training, bring a "pull-up" type nappy/diaper or two. Then at least you can fit it whilst wearing the seat belt and child is not embarassed about wetting their pants.

Lastly, some people have posted about being stressed, the queue for check-in, security, boarding in a hurry etc. You can go to the toilet before push-back. The waste isn't like on the train. It goes into a tank, so you're not going to do anything to the people on the ground when you flush the toilet. Any airline that won't let you go on the ground before engines are started is making up excuses/stories.

For those crew who has to ask for the seat belt sign to come on because of raunchy/obnoxious behaviour from some pax (ie stag parties etc), a quick question: Why do you let them board and/or get to the stage where they behave like that? It's a criminal offence to be intoxicated on most airliners in the modern world. Don't let them on or don't serve them alcohol. It will avoid trouble if dealt with appropriately.

Ok, rant over, just had to get that off my chest.

Gg

[lowlypax]

If we want PAX to belt up when the FSB light is on, and preferably all the time for their own safety (and others), they need to be aware of what can happen to an unsecured body in severe turbulence. Couldn't a suitable bit of video using realistic CGI be added to the safety presentation? Each person that sees it and gets the message is one less potential injury. Obviously you don't want to unnecessarily alarm people, just explain it like car seat belts. You very rarely need them, but when you do need them, you are very glad you buckled up.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Gg

I'm sure you, like just about anyone who thinks that flying is a vocation rather than a job, promulgate SB warnings as they should be - every time it is required, every time it is advisable, and not otherwise.

However, it only takes one occasion of leaving the SLF strapped down for 2 hrs after take off and nothing much happens to educate the flying sheep that this is a warning in the same class as they are used to on the motorways - ie stuck up at the first hint of trouble and not switched off until shift change.

In my aircraft we can use brute force. I feel for you that have to do customer relations. But unless the industry a) makes active efforts to switch off SB unless essential,

b) Explains (with films in the departure lounge??)that this is a real risk

C)Imposes sanctions on passengers who don't belt up and advertises that they have done so

Pax will continue to be awkward and people will continue to get hurt.

The industry must (continue to) be forceful to be kimd.

Sven

[west lakes]

Having been caught out by the seat belt signs being switched on whilst in the toilet I can tell you even in light turbulence it is not nice to be on your feet.
Just made it back as CC came down checking seatbelts were on.
Do I wear the belt all the time - yes, in fact as with a car I am uncomfortable if I haven't got it on.

I may be old fashioned but in any situation if a request is made that will enhance my safety and that of others I WILL follow it, an attitude that has kept me injury free for over 50 years!

And as for the earlier spats, having had the privilege of meeting Flapsforty and a number of other moderators and knowing some other CC & FD crew if they make a point or out the seatbelt light on it is for a good reason!

[Duck Rogers]

Hey, Squid!!

Couldn't lend me 10p could you? :E

[vanHorck]

It is an interesting thought to make wearing the belts full time when seated mandatory.

It would make sense from a safety point of view, but I guess given human nature, more people would stand in the aisle so as to avoid wearing them, making safety worse....

And it is only this human nature that I am about.

Many posters on both sides of the argument are right in their statements, but I hear no crew going to the core, which is that safety is enhanced if communications with the pax are improved. THAT is the real issue.

It has to do with the change of culture, culture of aviation but also culture of the pax.

I feel aviation is sorely behind on communicating, perhaps due to money constraints and in the case of the belts it affects safety.

The crew are not the cause, just getting the blows. Communications about delays (timely and with honest reasons) are sadly now simply not accepted by the pax because too often they have been lied to or not been informed at all. That is the pax stress somebody was talking about earlier. It comes on top of feeling like sardines in a can at customs, security and the waiting at the gates (and please don t start about paying peanuts and getting monkeys it s not about that, it s the PSYCHOLOGY of how they feel).

So now they arrive on the plane. They (too) are stressed. They fly often and can't wait to get their book out of the bin, or their laptop or go to the loo, or take their jacket off.

The belt sign stays on without explanation. A mother (wrongly!) feels it s for CC comfort reasons, and allows her kid to go to the potty. WRONG WRONG WRONG, but it is how people think!

So again, up front it s aviate, navigate, communicate, in the back i'd suggest communications as a priority would help no end

We've spent a lot of time discussing just a little detail in aviation. Respect to all, we all do our best

[ACCP]

I don't usually visit this forum, but here is my point of view anyway.

Unless it is bumpy, I switch off the seat belt sign with the after take-off checklist, somewhere between 4000 and 8000 ft. I switch it back on at 10000 ft on the way down. In the cruise I only switch it on if it is more turbulent that, say, a commuter train journey - in other words, you can hardly stand up.

My main consideration is to allow passengers the right (and it's a very basic human right by any standards) to go to the loo when they need to. I only allow myself to deny them this right for the shortest period of time if I think there is a real likelihood they will fall over and injure someone else.

Apart from that, who am I to decide that someone has to remain strapped to their seat during the cruise for no good reason? I am a pilot, not a dictator.

[Glamgirl]

Ok, so pax want communication as to why the seat belt sign is on, right? But at the same time they won't believe us, regardless what we say. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. To be honest, I think people are getting so used to bad manners and bad customer service (anywhere, not necessarily on planes) that they think everyone's "got it in for them" and are lying.

We all have to admit, that most pax don't listen to the pa's. It's like an invisible button in their heads. As soon as we (cc or pilots) start talking on the pa, the pax switch off. As mentioned by someone before, we also have language barriers. I've now started a little dictionary of my own, where I write down (phonetically -sorry for spelling) "please sit down", "fasten seat belt" and suchlike in different languages.

An example of how pax don't pay attention or have common sense, today, after the safety briefing and cabin secure, we got the "dings" as usual, telling us that take off is happening NOW. A pax gets up to go to the toilet. Doh! I had to shout, as I didn't have time to get to the pa hand set. This pax sat down again pdq, but believe it or not, the other pax around that area stared at me with disgust because I shouted! They didn't get it that I had no choice. After take off, I went down to the pax and apologised for shouting and explained why. This pax apologised to me, and we were both happy with that. Other pax talking amongst themselves, saying things like "oh, I thought she was being rude when she was shouting".

Again, damned if we do, damned if we don't

Gg

Ps. In regards to the suggested movies showing the consequenses of turbulence and not wearing seat belts, I think we'd have even more pax scared of flying. Statistics show 40% don't like flying as it is, so that would take the percentage higher and possibly lose us more pax in the process.

[boardingpass]

VanDork, you keep going on about poor communication. Trust me, it is very difficult to communicate with someone who refuses to listen. Know anyone like that? Next time you go to the aeroplane bathroom, next to the attendant call button there is a return to seat light, and next to that there is a really really big mirror.

[Conan The Barber]

PPRuNe really has turned into a socialist partyline.

[Hot 'n' High]

I think people are getting so used to bad manners and bad customer service

Sadly, Glamgirl, IMHO, that is not the case. The case is that, from the age of 8/9/10, kids, over the last few years, have been brought up by the “do-gooder touchy-feely brigade” to think that instructions don’t exist and that everything is up for “well, if I want to do it I’ll do it and, if I don’t, s*d ya!” Sadly, that is now appearing in the middle generation as well!

I have had several occasions to stop a Safety Brief mid flow as I am fortunate to see my Pax face to face. Each time I politely (but firmly) advise the passenger who was chatting away deliberately ignoring my Brief that, “not for your own safety, but for the Safety of your fellow passengers, I would be most grateful if I could be allowed to continue with my Safety Brief!”. Usually, the embarrassment of compromising fellow passengers’ Safety was enough to shut em up. Also, H ‘n’ H is no pretty picture – damn ugly actually – which helps on such occasions! :}

Am I joking about the kids? I’ve been married to Teachers (only 2 – that’s more than enough may I tell you!!!) for almost 20 years and, my oh my, if there is a job you don’t want to do, it is standing up teaching the younger generation!

Seriously, your quote makes out our colleagues are in the wrong! No way! As I say, look at the kids of today! Yes, we must communicate as best we can but, at the end of the day, sadly in our society, "Instructions" are becoming "optional"! Question is, how do we deal with that? Mmmmmm :ugh:

Now, on a scale of 0 to 10, how was that for a "socialist" Rant? 13/10? Please? ;)

[Davaar]

Long ago I was junior counsel to a large airline.

I travelled quite a bit but never once did I see an incident on board attributable to a passenger's seat belt being unfastened.

Funny thing, though, back at the office part of my daily work was to review reports (which you may be sure would be followed by claims for damages) of "in-flight incidents".

"Operations" copied me in on these in live time as and when received from the aircraft en route ..... medical emergencies, reports from physicians if one was on the passenger list, babies gone unconscious, passengers falling, scalds, choking, and of course "turbulence incidents", flying objects, bruises and claims of worse. No day passed without a crop from somewhere in the system, which ran from Los Angeles to Vienna, with North-South variations.

That is, even though I -- or you -- did not see them, someone did. They were routine spectatcles daily to stewards and stewardesses, as they were then known, somewhere in our business.

My practice in all flights was therefore to fasten the seat-belts, save when I was actually up and doing something.

The other determinant was my experience as a pilot when the vertical catches on the seat once became disconnected. At each little bump in turbulence I would shoot up to the top of the track with my bone-dome bumping off the canopy and the control column down by my ankles, or plunge into the bowels of the cockpit with the firing button opposite my nose, whence I would peer over the edge of the coaming. It was all the more exciting because I was in formation at the time. Not for long, though.

You have to experience unexpected unrestrained even modest +/- G-forces to appreciate just how unrestrained you really are.

I suggest you fasten the seat-belt.

P.S.

Years later I was with an airline that flew hard-rock miners into the Great North and out again after months of isolation. We flew DC-4s. We briefed lady cabin staff recruits were briefed that the lads had been away from the gentle refining influence of woman for some, perhaps many, months, and we recomended that they not fall in the aisles. If they absolutely could not avoid falling, we counselled, try not to fall on your back.

[Final 3 Greens]

Let's try to summarise the key points so far.....

Do CC request the FSB light for reasons other than safety - YES & NO

Can you have one rule for allowing people to go to the loo when the FSB light is on - YES & NO

Can CC make a judgement about whether it is safe for a pax to go to the loo - YES & NO

These are from posts by crew :}:}

Van Horck gets pilloried for asking for communication by Boarding Pass, who finds it difficult to communicate with passengers, yet can apparently receive PIREPS to decide whether it's safe to walk about in turb. That's definitely paranormal.

Then we have the classic industry attitude to educating the pax .... "In regards to the suggested movies showing the consequenses of turbulence and not wearing seat belts, I think we'd have even more pax scared of flying. Statistics show 40% don't like flying as it is, so that would take the percentage higher and possibly lose us more pax in the process."

In conclusion, if

- the pax are not fully educated to the dangers of the environment

- the crew have cognitive bias about communicating (as demonstrated by some here)

- the people paid to do the job don't agree about the use of the lights

Then don't be surprised if you have fun and games with some of your guests.

I also put it to you that the people who walk around in mod turb and choose to leave their belts undone are usually not PPLs or FFs, despite the predisposition of some around here who choose to sneer.

[5Y NJB]

- the pax are not fully educated to the dangers of the environment

Couldn't agree with your post more. However, no matter how well you educate people as to the dangers involved in any activity - be that driving a car, flying, smoking or listening to your iPod whilst riding a bike - there will still be a cross-section whose attitude will always be, "It won't happen to me" (and I'm not talking about the ones who, at TOD, need to answer the call of nature).

So what's the solution? Nail 'em to the seats... :E

[Phil1980's]

But on a 2 hour car journey I would want to stop at the service station after 1 hour for the toilet and a walk around...and that car...I have more room than in a plane seat

[TeachMe]

Two thoughts,

In many parts of the world, red traffic lights now have timers that tell people how long until it turns green. It seems that this information reduces stress and prevents trouble. Rough information of how long and why the light is on would seem to have a similar positive effect on passengers.

Second, any room for a three position seatbelt light on the next generation of planes?
1) Red - Everybody bolted down (SLF and CC)
2) Orange - Essential out of seat only (no more than quite light turbulence only??)
3) Yellow - Stretching your legs at the doors and waiting in loo lines fine

TME

[vanHorck]

constructive, well done!

[ThreadBaron]

TeachMe
constructive,'Yes'.
well done! Also, 'Yes'.

However, (you knew that was coming, didn't you?), there are those who will not accept that the red light refers to them! We are just at a higher (really?) level.

FSB lit = Red. Red = FSB.

FSB lit is a red light.

What is the difference to those to whom the difference is nought!

FlapsForty was rightly aggrieved as a professional who attempts to carry out duties to the benefit of pax.

Me, I'm just a safety professional.:p

[Guava Tree]

"Short Sector” means Less Loo Time per passenger,and the whole amount of time free of dangerous turbulence needs to be fully used. Extreme cases of holding your wee wee are bad for your health and in some cases even eventually fatal. So, particularly on a short sector seat belt sign should, no, MUST, be used only to avoid danger, not for convenience.
If you “nail them to the seats” you may find that you have unusable seats for the next sector”.

[A Comfy Chair]

A lot of this comes down to some airlines having the policy of allowing Cabin Crew to be standing while the seat belt sign is on.

In my airline, ANY time the SB sign is on, ALL pax and crew are to be seated with seatbelts fastened.

Certainly prevents passengers thinking we're doing it to allow the CC to do the service unhindered... it just makes passengers think that we're doing it so that the CC don't have to do the meal service at all!

From the high and mighty soapbox:

1) ALWAYS wear your seatbelt when seated.
2) ONLY stand when it is necessary to - loo, or a quick walk around the cabin on a longhaul flight.

After the Qantas A330 incident, where those who weren't strapped in were, in a lot of cases, SEVERELY injured, you'd have thought that passengers would learn. But, alas, just 3 days later, I had a flight were the cabin crew did a quick informal survey and found that 50% of seated pax didn't have their belts on, despite "It is a Qantas requirement that when seated you have your seatbelt fastened", and a specific PA from both Cabin Manager AND Captain telling people to.

As for informing pax for the reason of the sign being on - Its a good idea during shorthaul daylight ops. Its a P.I.T.A on longhaul overnight flights when people are sleeping.

Interestingly our last CRM session with both Pilots and CC was about turbulence management. Interesting stuff.

TeachMe:
Your idea is a good one, except it our airline it really already applies. Sign OFF = your Orange, and ON = your Red.

Flaps40 - I would like to say that you do an excellent job... I remember reading your posts from years ago when I first joined, and I think that you do an excellent (and unenviable) job. Thank you for giving your time to look after us all here in the playpen! A very big :ok: from me. :D

[Abusing_the_sky]

Unfortunately, nowadays, pax think that getting on an a/c is like getting on a bus with wings...
Pax, because they are "paying CC's wages" (up for discussion), think they CAN disobey the CC's commands (CC being delegated to be in charge of the cabin by the lawful commander - the Captain)

For the love of God, grow up and grow some baIIs! If you know sooooo much about flying, surely you know how to control your grown a$$ bladder, and you'd know it's better to use your hotel's toilets or the terminal's toilets rather than an a/c's toilets in a 30 mins (from take off to touchdown) flight!

It's not bad CRM, it's not me being unprofessional; if i tell you to sit down and buckle up (with a smile on my face), because of this, that and the other, you ought to do as i tell you; remember when i told you it's "for your own safety and for the safety of pax around you?" I wasn't kidding and for sure i didn't want you "out of my way". I can do my job with you fannying about, "stretching your legs" in a 30 mins or longer flight.

Some SLF are prepared to pay beer money to fly safely from A to B, yet they have champagne taste; tell you what, buy your own bloody jet and have it your way, but even then the (private) CC will tell you to sit down, buckle up and shut up".

Some of you lot need a serious reality check; yes, the glamor of the job is now long gone, but you still have to obey the rules. FACT.

Rgds,
ATS

[nemmis]

As all the information given by the Major Airlines and the Medical orgainisations is for passengers on long haul flights to move around where possible by standing or walking about ,then keeping your seat belt on for the whole journey is a bit out dated :=.

[A Comfy Chair]

Not in my airline it isn't!

They have a series of exercises that can be done in your seat to ensure you keep enough movement to help prevent DVT. We show that it is NOT necessary to get up and move around.

That said, I agree you should get up and move around occasionally on a longhaul flight. Just a few minutes every hour makes the flight go faster! That doesn't mean you need to stand for an hour, and doesn't mean you can't have your seatbelt done up when you are seated.

[nemmis]

:hmm: You should try flying with Virgin Atlantic as i do quite alot ,you would find you spend half the flight serving your self as the FAs have a wonderful habit of vanishing so we all end up in the back galley upstairs in PE ,and on the night flights its even worse .:confused:

[Dushan]

For the love of God, grow up and grow some baIIs! If you know sooooo much about flying, surely you know how to control your grown a$$ bladder, and you'd know it's better to use your hotel's toilets or the terminal's toilets rather than an a/c's toilets in a 30 mins (from take off to touchdown) flight!



ATS,
with all due respect, you have to understand that a male PAX in in his late 50s has a lot less control over his bladder function than a child, as you are implying. It is not a matter of "you should have thought about this before you left". Check OAB (http://www.detrolla.com/).

[Number34]

In Australia anyway, the seat belt sign is regarded as a legal command from the pilot. So to those who don't put it on when told to (regardless of their opinion) and get hurt, its their own fault. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past in this day and age and I wish people would stop blaming others for their own mistakes and stop ruining the experience that flying used to be

[EYXW]

A startlingly long thread about seat belts yet again!

Who would have thought something so simple really could be such a bone of contention - I believe they have trained rats to react to certain lights being illuminated in their cages yet after more than 100 years of aviation it seems that SOME people will always know better.

The story linked to at the beginning of this seemingly endless thread quite clearly demonstrates the result of assuming the belt sign is merely for decoration.

To assume that the light has been left on accidently is, as the well worn term points out, only going to make an ass of you and me or, quite possibly, an ass with a broken pelvis.

If the lights have been left on for what seems like an age do what the majority of sensible passengers I have met over the years do - ask the CC if there is a delay for a reason - many times I have been able to return to give an estimate of time or just that the Pilot's have forgotten once clear of forecast turbulence.

In my career I have seen the lights turned on once to restore order in the aisles - this was because a teacher (on a Naples flight if that helps some CC visualise the exact situation) decided to conduct a meeting at row 25 of our 73. The Captain was curious as to why the trim wheels had just had a fit and passengers were curious as to where the crew were (imprisoned in the rear galley) when no ammount of, quite frankly, shouting got them to sit down a simple *ding* seemed to do the trick.

I feel ashamed at having added so much more twaddle to this twaddle filled thread but I just had to vent - sorry.

I loved being Cabin Crew but feel ever so grateful for now having a sealed door between me and this never ending seat belt battle - (don't worry I only put the light on when I think there is a good chance that first class might spill red wine on the new upholstery.)

[Final 3 Greens]

Who would have thought something so simple really could be such a bone of contention - I believe they have trained rats to react to certain lights being illuminated in their cages yet after more than 100 years of aviation it seems that SOME people will always know better.

You raise an interesting angle.

I am a management consultant and I specialise in organizational change management, which incorporates behavioural change, I have about 15 years experience and am qualified to masters degree level, as well as having a diploma in trick cycling. As well as ‘pure’ consulting work, I also get involved in workshops and training courses to help people acquire new attitudes and skills.

Mentioning the famous rat experiments is a double edged sword, which cuts back at the airline industry, as well as the passengers, who I hasten to add I am not defending for ignoring the belt sign.

Operant conditioning (as demonstrated in the rat experiments, which you can find on You Tube) is based on two principles, positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement and is different to punishment, since reinforcement seeks to create behaviour, whilst punishment seeks to stop it, by applying a sanction.

Positive reinforcement involves giving a reward for a desired behaviour, e.g. if the rat presses a lever, then it receives a food pellet.

Negative reinforcement means that in return for a desired behaviour, an unpleasant stimulus will be removed, in the case of the rats, pressing the lever cuts off the (low, but uncomfortable) supply of electricity to the cage floor.

These experiments (and others) demonstrate that patterns of behaviour can be created, but also that these behaviours will disappear without reinforcement.

In the famous dog experiment, Pavlov’s research showed that dogs conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell would cease to do so if the food associated with the bell was removed permanently.

Now, if you subdue your cognitive bias (“yet after more than 100 years of aviation it seems that SOME people will always know better”) and really think about the research, you may come to some conclusions from your empirical observations as a cabin crew member.

1. What the average passenger knows about aviation can be written on a postage stamp and most if it is wrong, e.g how do passengers judge a good/bad landing?

2. There is no education process to teach the average passenger about the dangers of turbulence, apart from rather bland briefings that lack impact

3. Positive reinforcement is not an option, what are you going to go, hand out prizes for buckling up? I suppose you could do a quiz post brief, for prizes!

4. Negative reinforcement (the best option IMHO) is generally lacking – I wish that crew would talk to the passengers as you talk here and tell them of the injuries that you have seen, so that they learn (like the rates) to comply

5. Even punishment is not often applied – I could pull my hair out when cabin crew don’t tell passengers to sit down when the belt sign is on – I’ve had people in the aisle next to me taking heavy cases down from the overheads in light chop – one big bump and I get it – no reaction at all from the crew

I wonder even how many irregular passengers realise that the FSB sign is a command from the captain, as opposed to an advisory?

Finally, many participant travel only once or twice a year and they simply forget and like Pavlov’s dogs, lose their conditioning.

None of which excuses some of the idiotic behaviour, but I’d thought I’d just take a few minutes to share something form my world, that might help you understand behaviour a little more.

[EYXW]

Final 3 Greens - what an interesting post - I know my comparison didn't have a great basis in science but I never knew I would find someone on PPRuNe who knew so much about it!!

Perhaps I shall take a box of Lindt in every day and ask the CC to hand it out to those complying with the FSB Sign!

In terms of educating customers of the negative impacts of non-compliance I agree to a certain point - though I worry at going as far as showing people what severe turbulence can look like - it would probably deter more people from flying at all for an event that I have only experienced once. Though I am sure there is some solution we could arrive at.

Like everything though consistency is the order of the day, like you, I despair when the light is on and I can quite clearly see pax in the aisles on the door camera with no reaction from the CC - this is a very rare occurrence though, but, what might be a rare for us could be 100% of the flights a particular passenger completes with us that year.

Perhaps the answer is to have one of those annoying beeps that goes off when someone has not strapped in, like the one in my car - it drives me to instant compliance or it would drive me mad!

As with a lot of the safety procedures and training undertaken, the FSB Sign is there to keep passengers safely in their seats just in case something that they are likely never to encounter occurs. That one sudden loss of altitude they may never see is what we are hoping to protect them from but, the fact that most will never see it, but will have definitely seen us illuminate that little light, helps to devalue the worth of that safety procedure.

Thanks for the education!

(PS I thought I should point out that I don't view passengers as akin to something less intelligent than a rat - in the few years I have been around I can only think of a handful that were unpleasant RE seat belts - the rest are welcome to dinner at FL370 anytime).

[VS-Toga]

F3G

I find you post fascinating.

As luck would have it, I've today attended a motivational thing run by Eddie Jones, the former Aussie rugby Coach.

They talked about creating a shared vision that catalysed behavioral environments within a team, and allowed, within certain prescribed boundaries, people's initiatives to flourish within an agreed fashion.

They also talked about responsibility, when to accept and execute it personally, when to delegate it and how people execute their responsibility differently under pressure. I found this very interesting as, apparently, when under pressure, I personally will revert totally to a relying on a factual approach supported by process (in other words, I completely move out of an interest in relationships, creativity or futures, into my left brain, and could not give a damn if people are upset as long as the right outcome is achieved.)

I found it very interesting, and, it certainly opened my eyes, whether PF or PnF, as to how to try and forge the best possible team relationships, to dispose of institutional heirarchy, and that, for me, extends past the crew and into including the pax as part of the greater team ethic, and trying to influence their (pax) behavior by positively recruiting them into 'our' team and sharing the consequences of their actions to them, rather than taking a more directive approach.

Does that all make sense? I have flown with Pacific Blue in Aus as pax and found their approach very similar to that outlined above and it worked.

The other interesting point re positive and negative motivation that came out of the talk was this- in the UK, there's a £100 penalty for filing a late tax return. Despite this, only 30-odd% are filed on time. In the US, there's a $100 bonus for getting it in on time- they have a greater than 70% success rate.

Telling, eh?

[panda-k-bear]

I'm a good little sheep, usually, and I keep my belt loosely fastened at all times (flaps, I think, may remember me of old and knows me to be a FF with her airline as well as being an aviation professional).

But here's a question that's not so hypothetical - this was me last Friday.

Imagine, if you will, being in a bit of a hell-hole for a week and eating something which seriously disagrees with you - over a couple of days. Not serious enough to stop you from flying but serious enough that you're glad that the loo is nearby and that you have a pressing need, several times during the flight, to visit it :bored::uhoh::eek:. I shall be no more graphic than that.

The return flight, where one experiences this repeated pressing need, is on one of flaps' finest, brand spanking new 777-300ERs and has a duration of almost 14 hours (I think flaps may now also be able to identify the route!). Of course, the routing takes us close - very close - to the Himalayas. And we all know what happens there, don't we?

Ping! FS on. Rattle, bang, shake. Rattle, rattle, bang shake. Drop 100 feet. Climb 100 feet. One pretty cc grabs a door on the galley as we drop. This goes on for aboot 30 mins. No biggie. FS sign on for another 20 mins without turbulence, though I know full-well, after having plied this route a dozen times over the last 18 months that it could return. But I have to use the loo. And I mean I REALLY have to use the loo. No nervous reaction. More a reaction to that dodgy chicken... what do I do?

Mrs flaps, you know I wouldn't want to upset your crew but I HAVE to go. NOW. And the FS signs on.

In that situation, I took the risk. Was I right? I don't really think I had a choice (luckily I was in 1F so I could reach the lav wall from my seat! I had something to grab on to the whole way). Don't shout at me Mrs flaps! I'm sorry!!!


Oh, and we can all predict when turbulence will come, btw... The very best turbulence detector is linked directly to the moment that hot coffee is being served. Never fails! :}

p-k-b

[Atreyu]

The best turbulence detector is the FSB switch itself, When moved to off, you can count on some lumps or bumps! ;)

Atreyu:ok:

[A Comfy Chair]

Panda-K-Bear

I sympathise with you for being in that position!

It is certainly not pleasant I know! I have (as crew) had to pop out of our crew rest to the loo during seatbelt sign on. Like you, there was an urgent need :}. I was lucky in that the crew rest was less than 1m from the toilet door, and it was in an area where there are no pax, so no one could see me. The rest of the crew weren't going to say anything!

The problem we have with passengers getting up is not the risk to themselves, but the risk to other passengers when you hit the real turbulence and go flying (as you know, I'm sure, that if you hit REAL severe turbulence (not what passengers generally call it) you will go flying) then you can injure other passengers quite easily.

Not a nice situation to be in!

[tart1]

When I was CC back in the 80s, we always used to tell unsecured pax that 'they weren't insured' while they were walking around/going to the loo/getting things out of the overhead lockers while the FSB signs were on.

I am not sure whether that was actually (legally) the case but it usually got them to sit down and strap in - for a minute or two anyway! :E

I suppose that if a passenger were to be badly injured during turbulence, the amount of compensation/damages they might be awarded could be reduced or refused if they had contributed to the damage themselves by ignoring the signs and requests from CC to strap in.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Regarding positive reinforcement.

Would it be financially feasible (I'm certain it's technically feasible) to disable the passenger's in-flight entertainment if the seat belt is not fastened?

Regarding negative reinforcement.

How about a "kicking toddler" simulator in the seat back that is disabled by the seat belt being fastened?

Sven (tongue not entirely in cheek).