Continental flight forced down by turbulence

[Edforce1]

Any details ??

Continental flight forced down by turbulence

Monday, 03 Aug 2009 16:51

A Continental Airlines flight has been forced to make an emergency landing in Miami after being hit by severe turbulence.

Over 30 passengers are believed hurt as a result with nine presently receiving treatment in hospital. The flight had been on route from Rio de Janeiro in Brazil to Houston in Texas when it was forced down at 05:35 local time (09:35 GMT).

The Boeing 767 has first encountered turbulence an hour earlier while over Dominican Republic.

No damage was reported aboard the aircraft while no crew are reported hurt. The plane carried 168 passengers and 11 crew members,

Earlier this year Air France flight AF 447 was bought down in severe storms over the Atlantic while on route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris with the loss of all onboard.

Turbulence accounted for 22 per cent of all airline accidents in the USA from 1996 to 2005 and was responsible for 49 per cent of the serious-injury accidents, according to figures from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSA) released earlier this year.

An investigation into the incident is underway.

travelbite.co.uk staff

[visibility3miles]

This I assume:
Continental Airlines Flight 128 makes emergency landing in Miami after getting slammed by turbulence

By Brian Kates
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Updated Monday, August 3rd 2009, 11:20 AM
Continental Airlines Flight 128 makes emergency landing in Miami after getting slammed by turbulence (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/08/03/2009-08-03_continental_airlines_flight_128_makes_emergency_.html)

[Lightning6]

I'm sorry for those that were injured, but it seems to me that the crew did all they could to get the aircraft down as safe as possible, any connection with the AF447 accident, as implied in the initial post, is due to the ignorant media.

[spannerhead]

There's nothing silent about it! Prior to entering turbulance there's normally a 'bing bong' when the seatbelt signs illuminate but unfortunately not all of the pax take any notice and the cabin crew do nothing to stop someone going to the lav while these mandatory signs are on. I bet that a very high percentage of aircrew follow their own advise of wearing their seatbelt even when the signs are off, it's a different percentage with the SLF.

[p7lot]

Windshear and microbursts are notoriously difficult to predict as is most weather and even more difficult to quantify.
Do not rely on my flightdeck "bing bonging" you as my advice is ALWAYS keep your seatbelt fastened when seated.

[r1flyguy35]

A Continental Airlines (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/airlines.html) jet has made an emergency landing in Miami after being struck by major turbulence. Skip related content (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090804/twl-emergency-landing-as-turbulence-hits-41f21e0.html#ynw-article-part2)
Related photos / videos


http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/ne/itn/20090804/10/3907364848-emergency-landing-turbulence-hits-plane.jpg#300,225 Emergency landing as turbulence hits plane



Some passengers were snoozing on Flight 123 from Rio de Janiero when the drama unfolded over the Atlantic.
Suddenly, the jetliner began to plunge and shake violently. Passengers were thrown out of their seats against luggage bins. Among the 26 people injuried was a child who smacked his chest on a tray table and started bleeding.
The plane, which was bound for Houston, was rerouted to Miami to allow treatment to be given to the injuried including four who were seriously hurt.
Passengers said the terror lasted only a few seconds and the cabin quietened down quickly when it was over.
20-year-old Camila Machado was treated for a bruised cheek and said she thought the worst.
She said "I felt like we were going to die. Like, the first thing I thought about was Air France."
It's not known whether a storm is to blame for the air incident.

[captmark]

Wow!!! I was the Captain on that AA flight LAX-LHR that hit that mod-svr turb. over the Rockies. We were at FL330 and were getting very light chop...not enough to turn on the seat belt sign. Inquired ATC about the ride and he said "light chop at 330 and below. From 350 to 390, moderate chop to light turbulence. No current ride reports in front of us since it was late at night. Just waiting to see how the ride was sorting out and WHAM!!! Split second later, seat belt sign on....I know, too late by that time. We got the crap kicked out of us for a good 30 seconds as I recall. Made call to ATC and got immediate clearance lower and was out of it fairly quickly. Told ATC it was Mod. to Severe and to alert other aircraft. In the cockpit I would classify it as Moderate, according to the book. It was far worse in the back. The 767-300, as I was told later does a tail dance that increases the effects of the turbulence. We ended up diverting to ORD because of the injured PAX and F/A's. I felt terrible for what happened but based on all the reports and weather briefings during pre-flight, this should not have happened. As I recall, this happened late summer and we were in VMC with some low altitude CB's with lightening way out in the distance as shown by radar. Summer night flying in the clear over the Rockies is not where you expect this kind of turb. Enroute winds aloft were Zonal (West to East) and fairly low speed.

AA ended up having a couple lawsuits over this many months later. The funny thing is those people weren't hurt and didn't identify themselves as being hurt when the plane pulled into ORD. They lost, although I was deposed and had to give my story and defend my actions. My company was very supportive and backed me up all the way.

Here's my point: the safest way to deal with inflight turbulence as a Captain is to leave the seatbelt sign ON all the time......It covers your ass 100%. Of course, that's not practical in the real world. Dealing with chop/turb as it comes up is the most sensible way. Some guys turn on the sign any time there is slight ripple. What is the most frustrating is when you get "out of phase" with the chop where you start throwing the switch on when it should be off and turning it off when it should be on. Does this make any sense to you Captains?? I think you know what I mean...

Anyway, long time lurker here and first time poster...take care.

[apaddyinuk]

As cabin crew...I must admit more often then not you feel the turbulence BEFORE the seatbelt sign is on. Im sure any pilot will admit that it is impossible to predict turbulence more often then not and they can only simply rely on reports from aircraft ahead for clear air turbulence.
As for the cabin being secure....well if you have 4 crew on in a cabin of 200 people it could take anything up to 5 minutes to ensure that all the toilets are unoccupied, babies out of bassinettes, passengers woken and strapped and all this while hoping the turbulence does not get any worse simply so the crew can safely carry out this check. But also on that note it can often prove impossible to "force" passengers to fasten their seatbelts (especially when they see crew walking about...IRONY!) and heaven forbid you get some gobby passengers trying to go to the loo "BUT ILL PEE IN MY SEAT"!!!! I hear that EVERYTIME the seatbelt sign is on for extended lengths of time.

Alas, passengers JUST DONT CARE about their own safety or the safety of those they will impact upon should turbulence become severe. It was slightly different for about a fortnight after the AF447 but alas the general travelling publics memory is short lived!

[WhyIsThereAir]

I think there are several things at work here. One of them would be that probably 95% of the pax have not the slightest idea what "severe turbulace" means in terms of things happening in the cabin. If they did have any idea, they would probably consider it the captain's fault for letting it happen (or maybe for 'causing it').

Most people probably think 'severe turbulance' means they have to hold their drink cups because they will bounce off the table. Or maybe they will bump into the person in the next seat. Very few probably ever think that it might mean flying across the cabin and landing on someone on the other side 5 rows back.

Maybe the safety films should be more graphic. Show a cabin of flight test dummies and shake it up so that the ones not strapped down smash into seats 20 seats away from where they were seated. Show lots of people piling into a pile against one wall which is now "down", then being thrown in mass to the other wall. Then tell them that will 'probably' happen to them the next time the seatbelt light comes on if they aren't bolted down.

As for cabin crew walking about. In many industries if you work on a platform where you might fall, you need a safety harness. This usually goes to a slider that runs along a pipe above you where you move. If you are knocked off your feet, you don't go very far. Maybe there should be safety harnesses for the crew and slide pipes along the top of each asile.

[PilotsOfTheCaribbean]

Here's my point: the safest way to deal with inflight turbulence as a Captain is to leave the seatbelt sign ON all the time......It covers your ass 100%. Of course, that's not practical in the real world. Dealing with chop/turb as it comes up is the most sensible way. Some guys turn on the sign any time there is slight ripple. What is the most frustrating is when you get "out of phase" with the chop where you start throwing the switch on when it should be off and turning it off when it should be on. Does this make any sense to you Captains?? I think you know what I mean...

Yes we have all been there and know exactly what you mean. One thing I have noticed on some US carriers is exactly what you say, in that some Captains will leave the seatbelt sign ON throughout the flight. The problem with this, is that it devalues the impact of the message. Passengers (just like the rest of the crew,) need to move about from time to time if only to attend to physiological needs If they are to heed the warnings, it is important that those warnings are seen to be relevant. Rather like being stuck at a red traffic light. After a while you realise it isn't providing a proper function and you are forced to ignore it. In my opinion, leaving it on is simply lazy and shows poor discrimination.

[Gary Brown]

Flying AA as mere SLF a few years ago, I seemed to go through a whole period of the flight crew including in their basic announcement something like:

"Folks, I'm going to turn the seatbelt sign off so that you can move about the cabin if you need to. But when you're back sitting in your seat I really do recommend that you do like we pilots always do here up front - have that belt fastened whether the sign is on or not."

Certainly got my attention - and to this day I always have the belt fastened unless I'm actually standing up. And I've - successfully - shared the story with seatmates too, over the years.

Haven;t heard such an announcement for many years, though.

AGB

[Jim Boehme]

Using the American example for your future actions not the best idea, their policies more often than not dictated by the litigation culture. Seat-belt signs ON for an entire flight bad airmanship. A good pilot should be able to do his job with confidence.

There will always be pax who NEED the toilet. Old ladies, men with prostate issues, drinkers, kids - plus crew who are required to be up regardless of light turbulence and belt signs. These are the injuries occurring frequently in turb events. In the airlines I fly with there's always an announcement advising the pax to keep their seatbelts on during the flight even when the 'fasten seatbelt' light is turned off. The majority of the pax don't seem to give a toss about it. Then they complain they've been tossed about. A decent operation will have this "advice" put as a "requirement" - in theory pax now take responsibility and airline/captain are absolved - to some degree. Untested in court?

[Paradise Lost]

Seat belts....the perennial problem! Signs on too long....signs not on in time....pax ignoring the suggestion to keep them on whenever seated etc.
Since the cabin crew are working the aisles on a frequent basis, maybe they should remind the fare-payers why it would be in their interests to remain strapped whenever seated. They're quick enough to check when the signs are illuminated! Then when pax are tossed about, the airlines can sue THEM for damaging the aircraft!

[Rhino1]

Flying AA as mere SLF a few years ago, I seemed to go through a whole period of the flight crew including in their basic announcement something like:
"Folks, I'm going to turn the seatbelt sign off so that you can move about the cabin if you need to. But when you're back sitting in your seat I really do recommend that you do like we pilots always do here up front - have that belt fastened whether the sign is on or not."
Certainly got my attention - and to this day I always have the belt fastened unless I'm actually standing up. And I've - successfully - shared the story with seatmates too, over the years.
Haven;t heard such an announcement for many years, though.
I've heard the announcement several times in the last three years - I think on almost every flight (mostly Southwest and Northwest) I've been on.
I personally suspect most passengers don't listen to the briefing - or read the cards however. I mentioned this as an example to some family members and others of the general public and got basically the same response.

Rhino

[Old 'Un]

Agree with the sentiments above in regard to seat belt signs being left on for the duration of the flight. Experienced it as SLF on a flight HK - LHR last year, then again on the return leg. When you gotta go, you gotta go. Told cabin crew they would have a nasty mess to clean up if they prevented my excursion to the little boys' room. They didn't argue.

Left me unimpressed with the carrier. Will avoid them in the future, if I can. That's how you lose repeat business.

Le Vieux

[Heidhurtin]

Just so you guys up front know, some SLF actually pay attention! Seat belt on, unless I'm walking somewhere. Even critised the safety card (US726 2 days ago) because the pics weren't that clear. I guess reading the posts on PPRune makes one think......

:8

[Hunter58]

Lufthansa has a very easy solution. When seated you are REQUIRED to have the seat belt on, even when the sign is off.

Since it is part of the PA right after take-off, along with the non-smoking message it makes it a legal requirement...

As for myself, seat belts are on when seated. And I go my wife to do it as well. First she did not understand until we hit a moderate turbulence over the alps. Since then she is convinced that her (aviation working) husband actually knows what he is talking about!

[rgbrock1]

Hunter58:

I also have my seat belt fastened securely at all times. My wife used to think that
I was being overly cautious/paranoid. I used to always request her to wear the seat belt repeatedly, oft to no avail. Until one day on the way to St. Thomas USVI we hit
a pocket of CAT and dropped what must have been ~500ft. Rapidly. Although she didn't hit the cabin ceiling - almost but not quite - it frightened her enough so that now she wears it at all times.

I think it behooves ALL passengers to wear seat belts at ALL times. Most people wear seat belts in their automobiles traveling at 85 mph max. (Here in the U.S. anyway.) Why not wear one traveling at 600mph and rocking 30 degrees side to side?!!!!

[Basil]

heaven forbid you get some gobby passengers trying to go to the loo "BUT ILL PEE IN MY SEAT"!!!!
Well, I regret to say that, in the appropriate circumstances, you'd hear it from me. When you gotta go, you gotta go!
I do appreciate that by the authority vested in the cabin crew by the captain it is a criminal offense to disobey a LAWFUL command and, that an airborne body in severe turbulence would pose a danger to the crew and passengers - however, if someone has to pay a visit I'd be interested to see that tested in a British court of law.

[BOAC]

I think you'll find that because you have technically 'broken the law' by 'disobeying' the command you are open to being sued by any passenger whom you might injure as you fly around the cabin.

[Mr A Tis]

There seems to be heavy criticism of SLF not being obediant. There are plenty of examples just this year that leave alot to be desired by the crew.#
Like climbing to 41,000FT & 40 minutes after take off on a German major airline, a flat calm flight on a beautiful day, the seat belts signs still on. Only after 3 requests to the CC did they query the flight deck, who imediately clicked it off. Or the UK charter airline in light to moderate turbulence, with pax all belted up, the cabin crew decide to stand on seat arm rests & lift up & down their very heavy wheelie bags from the overheads - unbelievable.
Or the big airways 734 that didn't even have a safety card in the seat pocket. I could go on, but in my experience the bulk of SLF are more sensible than you give them credit for.

[Diamond Bob]

If the seat belt sign was only about keeping your belt on while seated, it would not be a problem for me. The problem comes when you are expected to stay in your seat for hours. My doctor told me to make sure I got up once in a while to avoid "economy class syndrome". Good advice, except it's very difficult to do when the sign is on for the majority of a flight. Not to mention the need to use the rest room. The crew seems to forget that when you take off, you might already have been in your seat for an hour or more. Then the sign stays on for another hour or more. It varies from person to person, but some simply cannot wait that long to use the lav. As a result, you usually see passengers getting up while the sign is still on.

Anyone have any numbers as to the actual number of injuries per year caused by turbulence? I'm guessing that it's very low.

[Robert Campbell]

In California, and many other states, it's illegal to drive a car without every occupant wearing a seatbelt.

Why do passengers in aircraft feel that it's unnecessary?:ugh:

Perhaps the airlines could hire an enforcement officer to fine all of the seatbelt scofflaws. Another revenue stream.:ok:

[jimtherev]

Perhaps the airlines could hire an enforcement officer to fine all of the seatbelt scofflaws. Another revenue stream.:ok:

Ooh, I do hope M O'L isn't reading this thread :rolleyes:

[Robert Campbell]

Who's M O'L? I'm fairly new here. Do try to appreciate the wry humor.

[ExSimGuy]

MOL? - The owner of a certain "Emerald Coloured" airline:rolleyes:

I've been a Frequent Flier for many years in/to/from the Middle East, mostly with GF. The average (read - those speaking from right to left :ugh:) pax takes absolutely no notice of any of the briefing - the cell-phones bleeping aweay on approach make that clear:mad: (Don't even get me started on cruise-liner-trunks in the overheads!)

GF, on longhaul, not only ask you to keep your belts on regardles of the signs except when you need to move around, but also to ask that you belt-up over your blanket if you want to sleep - so they can check without waking you if there's any expected bumps coming up. While moving arouind the cabin, they check, and politely remind any pax not doing so.

The belt lights are put on when the front end deem it wise, and are switched of otherwise, so there's no need for excessive crossing of legs, or 'cry wolf syndrome' over the warnings. Like previous posters, my dearly-beloved has also been trained to listen to the briefing and to keep the belt on:ok:

(My first post in R&N for a couple of years! Hope you don't mind my 2 Hahalas-worth:O)

[Diamond Bob]

In California, and many other states, it's illegal to drive a car without every occupant wearing a seatbelt.

Why do passengers in aircraft feel that it's unnecessary?:ugh:

It's proven that auto seat belts save lives. Not so sure about airliner belts. It's well known that the seats break loose in a crash and render the belts useless. The sole purpose of the belts seems to be in prevention of turbulence injuries. But how many such injuries occur?

[gtf]

My two worthless coin contribution is for crew to make an announcement at cruise if seat belt sign is going to stay on due to expected turbulence so SLF don't think it left on by mistake and start moving about or complaining.

[Brockton]

If memory serves; all or most of the Star Alliance Carriers have a similar requirement.

[Basil]

BOAC,
Yes, I agree although I wonder if it would come down to who had the better barrister pleading force majeur.
It would be interesting to have a (without prejudice) opinion from Flying Lawyer.

It is, of course, a criminal offence to fail to comply with the ANO:

CAP 393 AIR NAVIGATION: THE ORDER AND THE REGULATIONS
AMENDMENT 3/2008

Authority of commander of an aircraft

77 Every person in an aircraft shall obey all lawful commands which the commander of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried therein, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.

Acting in a disruptive manner

78 No person shall while in an aircraft:
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew of the aircraft;
(b) behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards a
member of the crew of the aircraft; or
(c) intentionally interfere with the performance by a member of the crew of the aircraft of his duties.

p.s. I cannot imagine not having my seatbelt secured whilst seated even if the Fasten sign is not illuminated.

[Clear_Prop]

Of course the problem is further exacerbated by people who think that because they are going off on a nice holiday and they have 2 hours to wait until boarding that maybe 3 or 4 beers and a greasy panini they wouldnt normally consume at 11AM might be a good idea while they wait... :rolleyes:

[FrequentSLF]

Of course the problem is further exacerbated by people who think that because they are going off on a nice holiday and they have 2 hours to wait until boarding that maybe 3 or 4 beers and a greasy panini they wouldnt normally consume at 11AM might be a good idea while they wait...

Well...they are on vacation and you are grumpy about that...what do we expect from you? because you have to work while we are on vacation and we cannot indulge ourselves?
Next time you have your 3 or 4 beers when on off duty think of what you wrote here!
FSLF

[edmundronald]

Post Sep 11 flying is simply no fun at all for the SLF. Luggage limits, airport hassles, constrained seating, enforced urine retention ... No wonder high-speed trains are catching on in Europe.

Edmund

[AnthonyGA]

It's proven that auto seat belts save lives. Not so sure about airliner belts. It's well known that the seats break loose in a crash and render the belts useless. The sole purpose of the belts seems to be in prevention of turbulence injuries. But how many such injuries occur? According to the FAA, turbulence is the leading cause of injuries on board aircraft, after excluding fatal accidents. More than half of the injuries involve flight attendants, no doubt because their jobs require them to be up and about. Two thirds of turbulence injuries occur above 30,000 feet. Seat belts prevent injuries in turbulence by keeping people in their seats. The injuries usually result from banging unrestrained about the cabin in turbulence, so as long as one is securely strapped into the seat, there's virtually no risk. That's also why pilots are unlikely to be injured in turbulence, provided that they are wearing their seat restraints.

The advantage of belts is somewhat less obvious in a crash. However, they don't hurt. If you can keep a body synchronized with the airframe, the peak accelerations endured by that body will be lower than if it is allowed to slide forward and impact something else in the cabin, and so the extent and severity of injuries will generally be lower with a belt. The principles of seat restraints are the same, whether it's in a car or an airplane.