Air Canada 777

[jacek_flying]

Just heard a news cast on the radio of a B777 from Air Canada diverting to Honolulu after flying through thunder storm and turbulance.

Reports are some minor injuries to PAX and CREW

Anyone have anymore info??

[gwillie]

15 injured by sudden drop on turbulent Air Canada flight (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/04/24/bc-air-canada-flight.html)

[jacek_flying]

thanks for the article glad that it wasnt any worse

I wonder if the turbulance was forcast and if so why would the crew fly through it rather then around??? perhaps it may have came on suddly. :confused:

[RoyHudd]

Fly round turbulence? (or turbulance) Dear Lord, preserve us from idiocy.

[jacek_flying]

what I mean is why would you plan a route through an area of turbulance if it was forecast???

[PJ2]

jacek_flying;
what I mean is why would you plan a route through an area of turbulance if it was forecast???
Airlines do not "plan a route through an area of turbulance [sic] if it was forecast".

Flight planning, whether international or domestic is not nearly that simple, CAT is not nearly that easy to predict and pilot reports enroute may or may not indicate that a selected route is satisfactory. One simply does not board tons and tons of fuel for an extended route or "just in case", simply because turbulence is "reported" or indicated on the Sig Wx charts. The industry is exceedingly experienced at determining, most of the time, where to expect turbulence and does plan around such routes. But determining precisely where, when, at what altitude and how bad turbulence is going to be is simply not possible, and experience indicates that almost all the time, significant route diversions are not necessary. Also please bear in mind that one's own airplane is up there with hundreds and hundreds of others, on crowded routes across the Pacific and Atlantic. Finally, one does not "fly around turbulence" as though it were a pothole in the road. CAT can extend for hundreds of miles - I sat in 10hrs of moderate chop coming home from Tokyo one night and along with the dozens of flights which were in our area above, below to our side, in front and behind, there was nothing any of us or ATC could do.

[Bruce Waddington]

J_F,

Airlines usually plan their flights on the 'minimum time track '. In certain areas of the world, such as the southeast section of Japan, this minimum time track is created by the convergence of two or three jet streams.

Eastbound flights to North America are routed into the track system just about where these jet streams meet and as PJ2 has mentioned there can be some bumpy rides associated with the minimum time track routes.

So, airlines don't look for bumpy air, but do look for minimum time tracks, which often mean bumpy air. :-))

I often took extra fuel on those eastbound flights and would occasionally drop down to the mid 20s to find smooth air if things were too bad up above. Another option if you were on the northern track in the system was to offset 25-50 miles north in an attempt to get on the northerly side of the tropopause. You of course lost some tailwind but the ride could improve significantly .

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

[Gooneyone]

Are we missing the point? The seat belt sign was ON. Why were the SLF not strapped in? Probably for the same reason they don't listen to the passenger brief!
Crew injuries might be explainable, but the SLF injuries were avoidable, but probably deserved - am I being hard on them? Maybe, but too many people believe that they can always do as they want with no consequences. Remember the one on the wing in the Hudson with his life jacket on backwards?

[PJ2]

Bruce;

Nice additional comments. Those were the days - dark nights, brilliant clear sky, millions of stars, the Great Magellanic Cloud when pointing south, Sydney flat whites, Bondai...

Gooneyone;

You've run up against the pampered generation (of all ages). The airlines will not talk about safety because it may "frighten the customers/guests/clients" unnecessarily, so passengers take a lot for granted.

However, not only in the airline world have we become accustomed to having our every comfort met, "like right now and if anything hurts and even if it's my fault, you can expect to be sued".

This is an expectant, situationally-unaware generation of travellers who are bathed every moment in technology where their virtual world of pixels and soundbites creates the illusion that reality doesn't bite or kill.

Put your newspaper, blackberry, magazine, iPod down and listen to and watch the cabin crew. Set an example for others.

How many in the Hudson aircraft knew that within four minutes of liftoff, they were going to be relying upon one another for a safe evacuation.

Far too many passengers take their safety for granted, when it is their responsibility to do as much as possible to ensure their own safety, just as we do in the aircraft and the industry.

Not wearing shoes for takeoff and landing means a very nasty evacuation, possibly over sharp metal and/or burning debris.

Not wearing/having ready, warm clothing when coming from a tropical holiday into the dead of winter is simply stupid and thoughtless of one's personal safety.

Wearing the seatbelt at all times is absolutely necessary.

Drinking too much affects one's own safety and the safety of those around one - and it takes about half the alcohol at cabin altitude to get one drunk due to quicker absorption in the bloodstream due to the partial pressure of the cabin.

Making sure children behave and not permitting them to run up and down the aisles seems to have left the repertoire of many parents' childraising skills and values.

Very little in an airplane goes wrong as a result of the airline or the staff. We/they know exactly what to do. Most incidents can be mitigated by a passenger taking the necessary responsibility themselves for their, their loved ones' and others' cabin safety.

PJ2

[V2-OMG!]

PJ2, very good comment. I'm not too "sophisticated" to ignore the F/A's safety monologue - unlike many of my fellow passengers.

I did the SYD/HNL/YVR flight on the Air Canada A340 shortly before the non-stop B-777 was put on the route. Even with the stop in HNL, some of the "SLF" were popping up and down in their seats like a Jack-in-the box. It seems that the longer the trip, the more complacent and disassociative the passengers become.

[Chu Chu]

Even as an SLF, I'm appalled at the number of passengers who completely ingnore the fasten seatbelt signs. On the other hand, I've been on a number of flights where it's seemed for all the world like the pilot turned on the signs and then just plumb forgot them. If that's really what happened on those flights, I think there's room for improvement on both sides.

[Brian Abraham]

Chu Chu, as SLF myself I'm inclined to think that on the occasion where the flight deck has "forgotten" to turn off the seat belt sign the cabin crew would have queried. As has been said turbulence is not given to easy detection and it may be the crew had an expectation of an encounter which proved to be unmet. Err on the side of safety, there will be a feeding frenzy of lawyers otherwise.

[Bobbsy]

As a fairly frequent SLF I know there are a number of airlines whose safety announcements include a suggestion to "keep your seatbelt loosely fastened whenever you're in your seat" and this always sounds like good advice to me. It surprises me how few people do this even if they'd never dream of doing a car trip without a seatbelt.

As for not even buckling up when the seatbelt light is on, I just hope none of these selfish prats land on top of me after they bounce off the roof.

Bob

[Avman]

Here we go again!

Right, to begin with, I wear my seatbelt at all times except when I need to go to the lavatory. I believe most people do. However, in my book that means that by the laws of averages when any unexpected turbulence is encountered there may be pax walking to or returning from the lavatory. If the FD switches on the seatbelt sign I will respect it, but within reason. By that I mean that depending on how long they choose to leave it on, there will come a time when nature will take precedence. (Btw, my experience is that U.S. airline crews often tend to leave the seatbelts sign on for long and unecessary durations - thus reducing the effectiveness of it). And, right or wrong, many pax have a genuine need to go for walkies to relieve the agony of being squeezed in like sardines when flying Y class. Bottom line: inevitably, on longhaul flights there will always be a risk of injuries when unexpected turbulence hits.

[Cloud Bunny]

Okay, so we've had a go at the pax who have not had their seatbelts on when they should do however why have we not queried what the hell the aeroplane was doing that close to a thunderstorm in the first place???
CAT=undetecable and often unaviodable.
Thunderstorm Turbulence=Very bloody obvious and easily avoidable, or at least avoiding the worst of it.
This whole incident was totally avoidable.

[Cloud Bunny]

:}:} I know, how silly of me!! It's one of my "things" as a pilot. I can never understand these guys who want to fly as close to a storm as they dare, it only ever ends in tears. Particularly in the cruise. Pointless.
Obviously we know very little about the ins and outs about this incident so I'm not going to speculate, but if it is a case of just going to close to a CB then they have no-one else to blame but themselves.
Sorry to go on but it really really winds me up!!:p

[kingoftheslipstream]

B-Wad: Praise the Lord, what you say is true... (I hope you're enjoyin' yer retirement)

PJ2: Well said!

Cloud Bunny: From where have y'all learned that there was a thunderstorm, except from another poster on this here rumour site? Could be yer a might hasty in yer assesment.

[DHC6tropics]

but if it is a case of just going to close to a CB then they have no-one else to blame but themselves.


I have spent many dark and stormy nights flying through the ITCZ to and from South America. Many times we'd be cruising in a hazy layer and relying completely on wx radar for avoidance. Even with two experienced pilots actively scanning and tilting for CBs we still managed to get into very turbulent tops with lot's of St. Elmo's fire on a regular basis...not ever severe turbulence but definately more than you would expect from an area that was either not painting or only very lightly painting on the radar.

In tropical regions CBs and their associated turbulence are not always easy to detect and avoid. Until you actually spend some dark and dirty nights boucing around over the Pacific or the Amazon you don't really have an idea of what these guys may have been dealing with.

[PaperTiger]

From where have y'all learned that there was a thunderstorm, except from another poster on this here rumour site?
From AC, if quoted correctly in the Globe newspaper:Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said Flight 34, with 256 passengers and 17 crew, was just over an hour east of Honolulu when it encountered turbulence related to thunderstorms in the area.Mind you he could be speaking out his a*** as well. FWIW the CADORS entry does not mention CBs.

[PJ2]

DHC6tropics;
Even with two experienced pilots actively scanning and tilting for CBs we still managed to get into very turbulent tops with lot's of St. Elmo's fire on a regular basis...not ever severe turbulence but definately more than you would expect from an area that was either not painting or only very lightly painting on the radar.

In tropical regions CBs and their associated turbulence are not always easy to detect and avoid. Until you actually spend some dark and dirty nights boucing around over the Pacific or the Amazon you don't really have an idea of what these guys may have been dealing with.
Precisely; well stated.

My comments aren't about passenger-bashing; this is about being aware of the kind of travel you're undertaking. This is about complacency about the environment transport aircraft operate in which is, despite the relative comfort, (I certainly hear the poster who brings up the "sardine" point!, and sympathize greatly - even though I flew them for 35 years, I'm still an SLF once in a while), a hostile and, despite current technologies, not a wholly predictable one.

I see that some would shift the blame for passengers not wearing their seatbelts to the pilots, and that getting up and wandering around is justified because "the pilot forgot to turn the sign off". In my view that is an immature approach and an inappropriate solution to the problem. First, no passenger knows what's up ahead; there have been many times when there's been ten minutes of smooth air but the reports from others ahead indicate more bumps; second, check with the CCs and let them know you gotta go.

What I will accept from passengers by way of criticism, because it's valid, is the complaint about the FD not telling passengers what's going on. Crews have to keep people informed, even if such announcements are a nuisance to some. Even if it's an announcement every 15 minutes or so, explaining why the sign is on, its a requirement to keep people informed. Sometimes we'd get calls from the CCs asking, and reminding us - no problem - it gives us the opportunity to either turn the sign off or explain why it's still on and to make a PA.

Radar, ADS/CPDLC, pilot and ATC reports are all technologies/techniques we use to avoid turbulence. But passengers need to realize that despite these technologies and our best efforts, not all turbulence is predictable. That is the only point to my original post but I see that point has been missed or misinterpreted by some. It is situational awareness that I am emphasizing, not blind obedience to authority. We have ample evidence in injuries and even deaths to demonstrate the point I'm making.

Technology helps but it isn't perfect. Probably most passengers don't know, for example, that radar only paints moisture - rain; it doesn't paint thunderstorms or ice crystals in the higher altitudes - it only paints the liquid water associated with thunderstorm activity. Through training and experience, we learn what the radar signal means and can interpret the returns pretty well, but it isnt' perfect and sometimes there is no avoiding a solid line of 'em, a phenomenon which is more usually found on the continent, (NA, Europe, etc) than over the Pacific where they're generally more isolated.

Cloud bunny, you say you're a pilot?

If you're a real pilot, whether commercial or private, you'd understand all this and know that airline pilots, any pilots, do not fly as close to thunderstorms "as we dare". Do you think we just make all this up as we go and just guess or that there's a John Wayne in every pilot just waiting to let loose? Airlines have ops manuals which provide clear guidance on TCU avoidance, usually 20 miles from the red returns and more if there are hooks, curls or steep gradients in the returns. Bear in mind what I said about radar as well, although as a pilot you should know this already as part of your kit. From such knowledge, as a pilot you're pretty quick in assigning blame to crews and setting your hair on fire over an incident the cause of which no one has yet any knowledge.

[Chu Chu]

PJ2,

I agree with you completely about the announcements. Personally, when the seat belt sign is on, I stay in my seat (with my belt fastened, of course). But my aching bladder's a lot easier to put up with when I know the sign's lit for a reason.

One reason I stay in my seat is that I'm never 100% sure the pilot's forgotten the sign. For that matter I seldom reach even a tentative conclusion until I know the circumstances under which it's turned back off. Like on the flight into DCA when the sign went off immediately following an announcement that it would be turned on in five minutes for security reasons.

[muduckace]

I would like more clarification if there was weather in the area. I used to get frusterated with guys who liked to push their luck in an attempt to out-climb a growing system or skirt it tightly.

CAT... Had a wild ride over the amazon sleeping on a pallet in L1 and woke up pressed against the crown of the aircraft with an abrubt change in gravity, luckily the pallet was built to max hight and I did not really get banged up at all.

Took off out of Manaus heading for VCP once with 2 bumpers building and converging off to the south, the F/O was flying and wanted to go for the gap between the storms. The Capt did not mind burning the gas and climbing out to the north first but let the F/O have a go at it. We dipped our wing tips in each storm, not much turbulence but it was stupid none the less.

Landing in Brussels, big red blob right in the middle of our planned approach. Captain justified not burning the extra gas by the reasoning that the weather in europe that time of the year was pretty benign when it comes to the up and down drafts most would associate with a storm of that rain density. He was right, not too bumpy, but the static discharge we experienced had all of our vision and hearing screwed up for a few moments.

These days of conservation have companies pumping aircraft to minimum required fuel, this has a definate effect on pilot judgement. The stupid situations I have been in were mostly in freighters, much more care is taken when there are 400 souls onboard.

The 2 things I have to say here kids are allways keep your seatbelt loosley attached around the waist and never,never fly through the red stuff and avoid the yellow as much as possible.

[muduckace]

If you're a real pilot, whether commercial or private, you'd understand all this and know that airline pilots, any pilots, do not fly as close to thunderstorms "as we dare". Do you think we just make all this up as we go and just guess or that there's a John Wayne in every pilot just waiting to let loose? Airlines have ops manuals which provide clear guidance on TCU avoidance, usually 20 miles from the red returns and more if there are hooks, curls or steep gradients in the returns. Bear in mind what I said about radar as well, although as a pilot you should know this already as part of your kit. From such knowledge, as a pilot you're pretty quick in assigning blame to crews and setting your hair on fire over an incident the cause of which no one has yet any knowledge.

For the most part but I have flown with plenty of idiots who flew like John Wayne, we are after all human.

[frequentflyer2]

On the way to Lanzarote a few weeks ago (Aer Lingus from BFS) the seatbelt sign was switched for the entire last hour of the flight because of turbulence which was quite rocky at times.
The flight attendant in charge of the cabin told everyone who visited the lavatory during this period - in a friendly way - doing so was entirely at their own risk as there was a danger of injury because of the conditions. We were sitting at the front and heard what she said on numerous occasions but when Mrs. Frequent Flyer had no option but to visit the 'littlest room on the A320' 15 minutes before landing she too was warned of the possible consequences.
I told her I thought she should wait until getting into the terminal at Arrecife but this was not an option. Understandable after two cups of tea and a soft drink on a flight which lasted more than four hours.
One elderly lady made her way along the unsteady aisle on her walking stick holding on to each seat.
On Friday evening we were returning from LBA to BHD. In his pre-flight announcement the pilot warned it was bumpy in the cruise and emphasised the need for people to keep their seatbelts on.
Initially, he turned the lights off andI visited the lavatory but when I was in the cupboard that passes for a toilet on the Dash 8 400 the rocking started again and he switched on the signs. I went back to my seat but despite the seatbelt signs remaining illuminated and the obviously bumpy conditions people still continued to visit the lavatory including unaccompanied children.
Personally, I don't understand why people put themselves at risk this way on a flight which lasted only 40 minutes.
The cabin crew did continue with the service but at least one drink was spilled.

[eliptic]

at their own risk


The problem is that He/She also jeopardize all other passengers safety to,,right?

Like a friend to me asked the backseat(car) passenger to put on his belt and he answer he don´t need!! my friend told him "maybe you don´t need but i also don´t need you to crush ME when you flying out the window":eek: hehe

[PJ2]

muduckace;
plenty of idiots who flew like John Wayne,
Yes, in my early days of getting the licences/ratings I ran across a few people like that - bright, brash, very talented, and more than a few of them, dead, along with their passengers. Can you see an airline tolerating a "John Wayne" approach though? That's what I meant. I'm not saying it doesn't happen - I know it does because we've seen it in the data and so began showing both management and the line pilots what a few were actually doing when no one was watching, with and without passengers on board - remarkably it stopped coming up in the data after a while...
we are after all human.
Yes we are but being a pilot means one is in control of those basic human foibles such as the desire to show off, to have a huge ego, to think that one is "god's gift", etc. I think I know what you mean, but still, I can't think of a single SLF, manager, regulator, jury, that would accept that this obvious fact excuses an absence of cockpit discpline and lack of professionalism.

Another sad story:


Texas Woman Breaks Neck, Back In Airplane Turbulence

Doctor: 'Passenger Has Same Injuries As Christopher Reeve'

By EMILY FRIEDMAN
April 21, 2009

A woman who was paralyzed after disobeying warnings to remain in her seat during a turbulent flight over Texas has suffered the same type of catastrophic injuries as the late Christopher Reeve, according to her doctor.

Lawyer says his client didn't get "high standard of care" during turbulence."She is paralyzed from the nipples to her toes," said Dr. Trey Fulp, the spinal surgeon who will perform a second operation today on the passenger at the McAllen Medical Center in McAllen, Tex. The woman was one of two passengers and one crew member on Continental flight 511 from Houston to McAllen who were injured early Saturday morning in mid-flight.

Fulp described the severity of the passenger's injury as a "hangman's fracture," a term used to describe the neck break commonly seen in patients who hang themselves.

Fulp's wife, Kathy Fulp, was one of the first nurses to treat the patient. She told ABCNews.com that the 47-year-old Spanish-speaking woman, whom she declined to identify by name, suffered a broken back at the thoracic level and a fracture between the C1 and C2 vertebrae in her neck, the same injury that left Reeve paralyzed after falling off his horse in 1995.

"She had gotten up and gone to the bathroom," said Fulp. "When she was in the bathroom the flight apparently hit turbulence and she was thrown to the ceiling, which is how she got the C1 C2 fracture. Then she was thrown back against the toilet, which broke her back."

It was not immediately known if she will be able to walk again.
Kathy Fulp said that flight attendants rushed to the passenger's side and moved her into the aisle of the aircraft for the remainder of the approximately 50-minute flight.

The two other individuals were treated for minor injuries, according to Fulp, who said one of them had torn a ligament in her knee. The injuries were sustained during the descent of the aircraft, approximately 15 minutes before landing.

Mary Clarke, a spokeswoman for Continental Airlines, confirmed that three individuals from Flight 511, en route from George Bush Houston Intercontinental Airport to the McAllen-Miller International Airport, had been taken to the local hospital after being injured in the turbulence.
Storms in the Houston area had delayed the flight several hours and had caused major delays for both inbound and outbound aircraft.

"The flight experienced turbulence as it approached McAllen," said Clark, who declined to identify the injured passengers and crew member or provide details of the injuries.

A woman traveling on a Continental Airlines plane was paralyzed after getting up from her seat despite warnings of in-flight turbulence.
"The seat belt sign was illuminated at the time," added Clark. The passenger, who was from McAllen, had gotten up from her seat to use the restroom after the sign to remain seated was illuminated.

Clark said the Boeing 737 had 104 passengers and five crew members and was scheduled to arrive in McAllen at 10:40 p.m. on Friday, April 17, but because of the weather delay did not land until after 2 a.m. on Saturday April 18.

"Our real priority is to assist the customer who remains hospitalized and their family members with their needs," said Clark, who confirmed that the National Transportation Safety Board is also investigating the incident.
According to Kathy Fulp, the passenger was operated on for six hours yesterday and was scheduled for surgery again today to repair injuries to her neck.

Described by Trey Fulp as "alert," the passenger was reportedly aware of her condition and managed to wiggle her toes this morning, a positive sign for a patient who is battling paralysis.

The surgeon told ABCNews.com that the patient has been removed from the ventilator and is now able to speak. He described her as "anxious" and "scared" but said that her family -- including her children -- were at the hospital with her. He said he remains hopeful that she will recover because of the speed at which she was operated on.

"Only time will tell if she will recover," said Fulp. "My gut feeling is that she will because we got her in very quickly."

[Cloud Bunny]

PJ2:

I am a Pilot thanks and fully conversant in the use of the wx radar and its limitations as well as my airlines ops manual and guidance related to avoidance distances (which are minimum distances). I'm one of these people who take a lot of notice of Pilot reports of turbulence and actively scan ahead with the the radar looking for any potential nastiness and am not afraid to burn a bit extra gas to fly lower down (if the CAT is higher up) or fly more than the minimum distance when going around a CB. I know I am not the only one.
My comments were established from my own experience of flying with one too many of the "John Wayne" types who have come up with the classic line "we'll be fine, I've done this loads of times" when trying to out-climb a storm or skirting round with the wing tip in the cloud.
I also fully appreciate the conditions around the tropics and ITCZ can lead to conditions that are unavoidable and this may be the case here (if you look back I originally said I don't know the facts of this case and so am not offering speculation as to this particular incident). However, sometimes these incidents are totally avoidable and that was my point. We are equally quick to point the finger at the pax for not having the seatbelts on (which of course they should do and there is no excuse for them not to have unless they are in the loo when the sign comes on) and I was merely acting as devils advocate by putting across the other question. Thats all.

[eliptic]

"John Wayne"

hmm...how to avoid the John Wayne pilots?:{ maybe they can wear a special Tag or 6 stripes instead:ok: