United 967 diverted to DIA -- turbulence injuries

[Eboy]

About 30 people were injured this evening, one seriously, as a United Airlines passenger airplane experienced severe turbulence, authorities say.

The plane, Flight 967 enroute from Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C. to Los Angeles, landed at about 7:45 p.m.

30 injured on passenger plane diverted to DIA - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15562161)

[forget]

Try IAD. .........................

[JW411]

No, the flight was from IAD to LAX and it diverted to DIA (Denver International Airport).

Engage brain before opening mouth.

[Cacophonix]

The Independent had this to say...

Dozens injured as US flight hits turbulence - Europe, World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dozens-injured-as-us-flight-hits-turbulence-2031448.html)

The turbulence was "just a huge up and down", said passenger Kaoma Bechaz, a 19-year-old Australian in the US to visit her boyfriend.

She told the Denver Post that the head of the woman sitting next to her hit the side of the cabin, leaving a crack above the window, and a girl across the aisle flew into the air and hit the ceiling.

Ms Bechaz said she was not thrown around because her seat belt was tight
Go figure!

[forget]

Engage brain before opening mouth.

Sound advice. It's a little early.:hmm:

[peter we]

Ms Bechaz said she was not thrown around because her seat belt was tight

I think airlines should emphasise a little stronger how important it is to keep buckled up.

[DC-ATE]

I think airlines should emphasise a little stronger how important it is to keep buckled up.

If you don't know that, you probably shouldn't be flying. Besides, passengers ARE told to remain buckled up.

[AnthonyGA]

I think airlines should emphasise a little stronger how important it is to keep buckled up. People who feel that seat belts are important usually put them on without prompting. People who think seat belts are too uncool to wear usually aren't going to grasp their importance from seeing a safety demonstration, no matter how many times it's repeated.

It's true for airplanes, cars, roller-coasters, etc. Some people are safety-conscious and some aren't.

I haven't seen exact numbers, but my guess is that the difference in the number of people who belt up when given basic safety information and the number who do so when given an exhaustive, strong lecture on safety isn't that big. If they don't get it the first time, they never will.

[shogan1977]

Presumably this occurred while the seatbelt sign was turned off. I would assume therefore that many of the 20 pax injured were on way to/from or in toilets - as opposed to in seat with seatbelt off...

[Carbon Bootprint]

No, the flight was from IAD to LAX and it diverted to DIA (Denver International Airport).

And whilst the Denver Post and other locals commonly refer to it as DIA, officially it is known as DEN. (Or KDEN in ICAO-speak)

[protectthehornet]

wear seatbelts! it is even printed on the seatback in front of you.

pilots should be more alert for turbulence...many don't monitor the outside air temp (static air temp) for clues.

monitoring winds aloft constantly may help too. wonder what the forecasts/airmets/sigmets were for that day.

also...even though kansas is as flat as twiggy, mountain wave can be felt up to 700 miles downwind from the rockies.

just heard one passenger say that there were a few little bumps before the big one.

[BRE]

Are serving carts ever an issue during turbulence? Cannot remember reading about any instance where those caused injury.

[SeniorDispatcher]

They do the same thing at Kansas City, where locals call it KCI (Kansas City International) instead of the correct MCI/KMCI (for the originally named Mid-Continent International).

You'd think that if the folks in Los Angeles can resist the temption to call LAX LIA (Los Angeles International Airport) then folks in both Denver and Kansas City could properly refer to their own airports, but I reckon not... ;)

[GarageYears]

People who think seat belts are too uncool to wear usually aren't going to grasp their importance from seeing a safety demonstration, no matter how many times it's repeated.

And probably deserve a bump on the head because of it! :ooh: It might even do them some good... :eek:

- GY

[SaturnV]

Flight log here:
FlightAware > Track Log > UAL967 > 20-Jul-2010 > KIAD-KDEN (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL967/history/20100720/2125Z/KIAD/KDEN/tracklog)

[Lonewolf_50]

The article has all the data the Feds need on this case, yet I read on another online news outlet that the Feds are investigating.

The young lady clearly stated that she was in her seatbelt, and she had no problem.

Passengers are, on every flight I have been on for the last thirty years, cautioned more than once over the PA system to "wear you lap belts when in your seat" because all airlines know that you can hit clear air turbulence at the altitudes where airlines fly.

What needs investigating?

Anyone?

[Momonishiki]

It might be worthwhile to consider seatbelt policy as a cause of injuries in these instances. I'm just SLF, but I notice on domestic U.S. flights that carriers tend to leave the seatbelt sign on for most of the climb phase, during even light turbulence, and for the entire descent. The result? Lines of people at the bathroom when the seatbelt light goes off and therefore out of their seats in more vulnerable positions.

When I fly ANA to Japan, I notice they take the seatbelt sign off after takeoff and it generally stays off even when turbulence gets rather noticeable. So, lines rarely form at the toilets and more people are likely to be seated and at least have the chance to be buckled up should a sudden bad bump come along.

I realize long flight time permits toilet visits to be more spread out, but the more judicious use of the seatbelt sign is still a point to consider.

[OFSO]

Are serving carts ever an issue during turbulence? Cannot remember reading about any instance where those caused injury.

Yes. A colleague of mine was flying first on SABENA when they hit turbulance, a cart came flying down the aisle from the rear of the plane towards the open cockpit door (remember those happy pre-terrorist days), cabin staff getting out of the way, coffee and tea flying everywhere scalding passengers. My colleague tackled the cart and stopped it entering the cockpit and doing nasty things there.

SABENA - do we all remember for what the letters stood ?

[cats_five]

<snip>
The young lady clearly stated that she was in her seatbelt, and she had no problem.
<snip>


I guess the natural conclusion to where you are going is every seat a pottie.

[dl1812]

"Societe Anonyme Belgique Europe et Nord Afrique"
- or something similar, if my ageing brain recalls correctly ?

DL1812

[IGh]

Question posed several slots earlier:"... Are serving carts ever an issue ...?"
There should be a nice Cabin Safety web-site, citing past mishaps involving thrown carts, runaway carts (both on Takeoff roll and during landing roll).

For searching web -- nothing easily shows-up, with various groups and companies employing differing language, nomenclature: Bar Cart, Galley Cart, Beverage Cart, Serving Cart, Free Standing Wheeled Service Trolley, Galley Equipment, &ct.

Perhaps the best recent (last 20-years) exemplar -- involving several thrown Galley Carts -- was JAL 970 / 31Jan01 B747 JA8904, during NMAC- evasive maneuver (push-over). There is an "English" version that AAR Japan Transport Safety Board English Page - Aircraft Accident/Incident Investigation Reports (http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/airrep.html), pdf listed by its 2001- date near bottom of that list. One Galley Cart was thrown through the ceiling-panels, and there remained in the ceiling-crown area, one FA went up through the ceiling panels, into the crown-area, but then fell back down to main-deck floor. Most of the thrown carts landed in same aisle from which they had been thrown. AAR Section 3.2.15.3 “The Galley Cart above the ceiling” [AAR pg 174 bottom +):
“There was a risk of the galley cart that had been emplaced above the ceiling falling back into the cabin or damaging the aircraft’s flight control or other systems…. Difficult to bring the galley cart down during flight. Therefore, passengers in the vicinity were relocated … and the galley cart remained above the ceiling till landing….”

AAR Section 3.2.15.4 “Safety Measures regarding Galley Carts”
“… descends abruptly … due to turbulence etc, if galley carts are in use then there is the risk of them being thrown or toppling, resulting in possible injuries to passengers and crewmembers and also possibly causing damage to the aircraft’s flight control … systems…. it is necessary to examine new measures to strive to reduce the possibility of galley carts being thrown, by means of securing the galley carts during cabin services, etc.”
More recently, that A319 departing YVR had some issues with Galley Carts:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 2008 - A08W0007 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08w0007/a08w0007.asp)
Air Canada 190 / 10Jan08 , A319-114, C-GBHZ Encounter with Wake Turbulence upset FL366, climbing, about 8.1 miles behind eastbound B747-400, ATC provided sufficient separation, (ATC) did not issue ACA190 with an advisory ... APC, structural, upset, wake, coherent wind field, Bar Carts / Trolley hit ceiling:"Cabin Service Trolleys and Aircraft Interior Damage"
"Two cabin service trolleys were being used by flight attendants once the aircraft had leveled off at FL 350. When the aircraft entered the upset, both trolleys lifted off the floor. One trolley struck the ceiling, damaging a plastic panel and overhead bin door. The other trolley also lifted off the floor, damaging an overhead bin door. Material from both trolleys, including coffee pots and food items were strewn about the cabin. Free-standing wheeled service trolleys are the industry standard in transport category aircraft. It is an industry-wide practice to restrain the units when not in use; however, when in service, there are no effective retention systems to prevent displacement in cabins during abnormal vertical and lateral acceleration events.
During the event, a laptop computer held by a passenger struck an overhead bin door with sufficient force to transfer paint
Regarding runaway-trolley, during Takeoff-accel' and Landing-decel' , there have been cases, eg:Cabin Cart loose: ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT DATABASE, 19940415022719C
Departing ROME
15-APR-94, B767-300, N181DA, 3 PASSENGERS INJURED DURING CLIMBOUT WHEN SERVING CART BROKE LOOSE AND ROLLED DOWN THE AISLE.
The landing-decel' cases might be more interesting -- because with the Bar Cart on a rush-forward, into the cockpit: rumors assert the FA intentionally set-up the situation.

[ettore]

@ OFSO

SABENA - do we all remember for what the letters stood ?

Such A Bloody Experience Never Again :}

or

Société Anonyme Belge d'Exploitation de la Navigation Aérienne. :8

You choose :E

[protectthehornet]

you know your own body better than I know turbulence. so plan your bathroom needs accordingly and ASSUME that the seat belt sign will be on for the whole flight.

while I understand that long flights can make this tough, think about your needs before you get on the plane.

it is better to pee your self than to become a cripple by breaking your neck...it happens

[p51guy]

Know when you get on the airplane you may not be authorized to use the Lav's during climbout and initial cruise. Plan accordingly. If the seat belt sign is on your movement in the cabin is at your risk. A peek out the window might help if you think maybe it is safe but it can't insure your safety if turbulence is hit not in your seat. So far I have gotten away with this procedure as most other passengers in front of me waiting for the Lav but in cases like this one it didn't work.

[p51guy]

My worst turbulance case was when my FO who was flying was going around a cell and we had a blind lady in the fwd lav of our 727 near Cozumel, Mexico. He turned the radar up to our altitude and couldn't see the cell so turned over it. I never saw him move the pitch angle so seeing no wx let him turn. Nobody got hurt but it was really rough for a while. It was very preventable but I didn't see him move the radar to level returns.

[UAL Furlough]

I love it.....again, everyone wants to blame somebody else!!!

Lets see, you are moving 500 mph at 35,000 feet, in an aluminum tube, travelling through an airmass moving at 100 mph, with high and low pressure causing rising and falling of the air mass, you are told to wear your seat belt when seated, then when you don't you want to blame someone else for your injury....so typical of today's world where the question is always "what are you going to do for me?"

When the seat belt sign is off and you have to go to the toilet, by all means get up and go to the toilet. There is some risk management involved in the whole process. But to just sit in your seat with your seatbelt unfastened is not only dangerous and stupid, but it poses a huge threat to the other passengers that are smart enough to have their seat belts fastened.

Grow up people, quit complaining and take some personal responsibility for your own lives. The world would be a much better place if EVERYBODY took this advice.

[SummerLightning]

Totally agree. Sleeping in your own bed is not a risk-free undertaking. Neither is driving around minding your own business (I've been rear-ended twice in the last ten days, for no good reason I can think of).

I was in the loo when a flight from FAO to EMA hit unexpected turbulence about eight years ago. I managed to stop myself pitching into any hard or sharp surfaces, and after that not very frightening but quite sobering experience, I've made damn sure I go for a pee before short-haul flights and then I keep my seatbelt fastened throughout.

The only observation I would make is that airlines would be better employed instructing px pre-takeoff on what may very well arise (and what they therefore might need to do something about) during any given flight rather than filling their heads with fantastical twaddle about ditching in the ocean, manning the liferafts and blowing whistles or something (whilst remembering where the emergency exits are and trying to reach them while they gurgle down through the depths).

[Madbob]

Ok, I've bitten.....I agree that loose trolly carts could be (are) a major hazard in severe turbulence both to SLF and especially the cabin crew.

I think the answer is to have a track that was fitted flush with the floor level and central to the aisle. The section could be exactly like the tracks used in yachts used to adjust the angle of the boom, to which the mainsheet is attached. The sheets are then attached by very durable low friction ball bearings and if a cart was fitted with a tether that had a snap-on fitting it would be a quick and simple way to secure the cart to the floor whilst allowing movement up the aisle whilst prevent it taking off under negative G.

For those ex-military types the clip could be of a similar design to the Martin-Baker clip used to connect one's PSP.....simple, strong and proven. It ought not to be too costly to implement either.

MB

[etrang]

I think the answer is to have a track that was fitted flush with the floor level and central to the aisle

Who do you suggest pays for installing the tracks, the new carts, certifying them flight safe, the cost of aircraft out of service as they are fitted, maintenance, etc,?

What happens if some foreign object gets in the track and the trolley gets jammed? What if this happens during an emergency?

[RatherBeFlying]

For securing carts, I would suggest hinged flanges at the bottom that would catch under the seats when in the aisle. Flip them back for stowage.

As a glider pilot, I find freezer bags quite handy for relief -- perhaps we need to make that standard issue for the SLF:\

[Lonewolf_50]

I guess the natural conclusion to where you are going is every seat a pottie.
I think you are being humorous here. :E But actually, no that isn't where my thought goes.

What I was getting at is that it doesn't take an investigation to figure out that things can fly loose in the cabin when turbulence is encountered.

From the young lady's testimony, those passengers who are in their seats and belted (as pax are advised by the flight deck on every flight I've been on for the past thirty years or so) weren't at risk.

If you are up and about, and encounter turbulence (which can't always be predicted, clear air turbulence can surprise one, can it not?) it becomes part of the risk of air travel. We cannot legislate against Mother Nature doing what she does. :cool:

Maybe the investigation covers "how many cabin crew and pax were not in their seats" but ... I ask again, what is it that needs investigating? I may simply be missing the point. Is the point of investigating this to find out if the crew did their usual caution to the passengers? Given what was found by the NTSB in the Hudson, the great bulk of pax blow off cabin announcements. If the crew expect to encounter turbulence based on a PIREP or other input/data, the typical action is that they put the seat belt light on and advise pax to keep their seat belts on.

How often do the flight deck ask the pax to stay in their seats until the turbulence is over? I've been on a few bumpy flights, but none lately, and I seem to recall advisories from the Captain on such occasions.

People need to use the rest room from time to time, else there wouldn't be one. One cannot cacoon the pax in immense bubble wrap packages and guarantee against All Hazards, as the Insurance industry refers to it. Nearly all of the avoidable hazards can be mitigated for. If ya gotta go, ya gotta go, and if while going a patch of bad air is hit, particularly if it is unforecast CAT, how the hell is that the flight crew's fault?

[protectthehornet]

I think there could be certain structural changes to the inside of the cabin and the restrooms to minimize human to airplane crunching.

some sort of pliable netting over your head while seated upon the throne

cushioning on the ceiling of the aircraft (fireproof)

definitely, reduce the carry on bags and their weight in case they go flying too.

my airline had a CAT encounter that left one man (in the bathroom) a paraplegic due to neck injury. The seat belt sign WAS ON!!! he risked his life and although a court might have found against him in a lawsuit, our airline paid him off.

IF YOU ARE A PASSENGER and the seat belt sign is on, DO NOT GET UP> if you have to use the restroom, ask the FA to ask the pilots about the seat belt sign...they may have forgotten or might give you an idea of how long it might be.

I remind people that during flights to certain airports in the USA you may have to remain seated for the thirty minutes going and coming for security reasons.

[etrang]

I ask again, what is it that needs investigating?

There were injuries to passengers and damage the the aircraft, so an investigation is quite appropriate.

Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and newspaper reports even more so. The NTSB certainly would not rely on the former and would not even consider the latter. So until they investigate they have no way of knowing what happened. Had the press report claimed that the "Fasten Seat-belts" sign was OFF would you still assume the story was correct and that no investigation was necessary?

Even if the report in the paper is complete and accurate in every respect it does not provide a full understanding of what happened, only a very partial one.

Edited: to provide a more helpful response.

[Lonewolf_50]

The reason I ask, etrang, is that perhaps in this room full of industry professionals, someone knows on what basis, in their company, such an investigation is warranted due to having been through one.

When investigations crop up, fault finding and finger pointing are usually neighbors. :p Why do I know this? I've done investigations before, complete with findings of fact and opinions, and all that goes with it.
Edited:

Ah, etrang, thanks for your update, and this, which as I reflect, makes much sense.
There were injuries to passengers and damage the the aircraft, so an investigation is quite appropriate.
Now that I think of it, the NTSB, being a government body, probably has a reg that requires an investigation if injuries occur (interstate commerce and all that).

Question answered. Gracias. :)

[411A]

Are serving carts ever an issue during turbulence? Cannot remember reading about any instance where those caused injury.

Yes, the carts can go flying about the cabin as well.
After takeoff one dark and stormy night from CMB (enroute NRT) we firmly told the hosties to say buckled in ...they thought otherwise in back and started serving adult beverages.
BAM.
Two carts went flying, one overturning, smashing every bottle.
Fortunately, the girls were able to get out of the way, but it took at least an hour to sweep up the carts contents.
A big mess.

[IGh]

Latest release from NTSB states the LOCATION -- definitely NOT over the front range. Board did not mention any nearby convective-activity.

From the Board:... Safety Board is investigating yesterday's [20July] turbulence event ... United ...967 (N773UA). ... 777-200, en route from ... Dulles) to ... LAX .. severe turbulence ... 6:14 p.m. (MDT) about 60 miles southeast of Kansas City ... 40 miles north of Springfield, Missouri ... 34,000 feet.... diverted ... Denver ... Seventeen passengers and four flight attendants ... minor injuries.... minor damage to the interior of the cabin. ... data recorder was downloaded ... received at NTSB headquarters [21Jul] ... Bill English ... Investigator- in-Charge.

That rpt says "minor injuries ... minor damage". So maybe the NTSB could ignore that case. In fact, TURB- injury data may be understated, note some of industry's disclaimers:

2008 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Commercial Airplane Accidents, TBC’s Commercial Airplane division JULY 2009“This publication excludes events that result in nonfatal injuries from atmospheric turbulence, maneuvering, etc.”
Similarly the NTSB injury-data focuses on their class of "accident" -- ignoring other cases with turb-injury. Data is derived from injury-producing “accidents” (note this does NOT include those non- “accident” occurrences, where injuries were suffered during turbulence-mishaps)

Annual Review of Air Carrier Accident Data 2006 [NTSB, released 2010] .
NTSB Abstract ARC-10/01 (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2010/ARC1001.htm)
Pg 13“Turbulence ... a cause or factor in 6 (18%) of the Part 121 accidents in 2006 and accounted for 75% of all serious-injury accidents (table 11). Turbulence was a cause or factor in 21.5% of ... accidents from 1997–2006 and produced half (95) of the serious-injury accidents.... turbulence resulted in serious injuries but caused little or no damage to the aircraft.”
FAA made a commitment a few years ago, to reduce Turb-injuries:FAA’s “Flight Plan 2004 – 2008”
Performance Target
"Reduce serious injuries from turbulence accidents by 33% by FY 2008 (from the FY 1996–2000 average of 18 serious injuries per year to no more than 12).

Turbulence: Staying Safe (http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_safe/turbulence/)
In nonfatal accidents, in-flight turbulence is the leading cause of injuries to airline passengers and flight attendants. AC 120-88A - Preventing Injuries Caused by Turbulence - Document Information (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/99831)

“F/A injuries occur at a disproportionately high rate compared to other crewmembers and other cabin occupants because F/As spend more time in the passenger cabin unseated …”
Graph shows Turbulence Accidents per Million Departures (slope increasing, higher rates in recent decades)
During thunderstorm season, by late afternoon, between the Gulf of Mexico and Hudson Bay, the high levels get widely covered by that upper level blow-off from the cell-tops. Today's pilots often seem biased toward staying up high in that bumpy-cloudy blow-off. Often they think that TAS gets too low, & the fuel-burn might get excessive, if they were to descend, and cruise in the smooth clear air far beneath the high-level bumpy-blow-off cloud, VMC, visually staying away from cells.

[protectthehornet]

interesting location...60 miles from Kansas City (MCI)...I'll bet if it was 20 years ago and they were TWA they would have gone to MCI and not Denver.

Denver is a big base for UAL.

Kansas city is a fine big area with lots of hospitals too.

Also, the NTSB requires notification and investigation for a number of reasons...injuries are one of the reasons.

I hope someone does some nice Forensic Meteorology work to find out what was going on.


(and please, I do know a plane can't go straight down....a bit of circling might have been involved for a divert to MCI...but not so very much)

[protectthehornet]

IGH makes a fine point about altitude selection. One very, very, very bumpy day between Baltimore and Fort LAUDERDALE , I ended up at FL180 in my 737 to avoid turbulence. A consult with dispatch showed an increase of fuel burn by 300 pounds...quite worth it for a smooth ride.

[p51guy]

Flying my normal 757 route MIA to TGU Honduras was only two hours but for a week or two the turbulence in the mid altitudes was bad. I chose either 410 or 240 because everything else was rough. 410 was normally the smooth altitude I flew. My buddies in the 727 were stuck down low so had to jab them with 410 is smooth. A 727 could go to that altitude but only very light with standard engines.

[avicurious]

SLF here, first post, some years reading technical oriented threads.
Just a small contribution.

I think the aviation industry has a problem that was created by its own success.

On the one hand there is mass PR and overall promotion of flying as a very relaxed experience (as taking a “Bus”) and the safer way of travel – being true in general this effort has been mostly highly successful.

At the same time, many times security information and announcements are inaudible or not clear, the actual meaning of the seatbelt lights on/off are not well explained or understood, the difference between “electronic equipment” and “mobile phones” a puzzle, among other communication issues.

On the other hand, big surprise from professionals and a couple of not so nice adjectives for people that took the above advice of the relaxed experience very seriously.

This is exaggerated because most passengers just don’t travel enough to meet severe turbulence once, and fortunately, for the large majority, smooth experiences are the rule.

Thank you for carrying me
:ok:

[aterpster]

protectthehornet:
(and please, I do know a plane can't go straight down....a bit of circling might have been involved for a divert to MCI...but not so very much)

Very little with spoilers out.

They must have flown for almost an hour to get to KDEN. They could have been on the ground at KMCI in 10-15 minutes.

I suspect more than a few questions are being asked about "nearest suitable."

[protectthehornet]

aterpster, yes I agree with you. I put that bit in for some of the guys who would say that you need a long time to get down etc. I figure about 102 flying miles to get down, with slow down at 10k.

MCI would have been just fine, the choice of Denver was money related(plane would be on the ground for awhile getting checked over) in my view as a convenience to United. Granted, finding a plane to continue would be easier at Denver, though it could have been flown quickly to MCI to pick up people.

I think MCI is an under utilized airport these days.

[SaturnV]

protectthehornet, the remain in your seat rule for KDCA flights (for 30 minutes after takeoff and for 30 minutes before landing) was ended around 2005 or 2006.

[SaturnV]

aterpster:

at 8:00PM EDT, began descending from FL 380 to 340, and changed heading from 255 to 247. Groundspeed 464 knots.

at 8:14 PM EDT (time of the turbulence) was at FL 340 and a heading of 254. Groundspeed of 459 knots. (Had been at 482 knots at 8:09 PM.) Then ramped up the groundspeed to as high as 499 knots.

Began the descent into Denver at 9:07 PM; at FL 240 at 9:19PM; at FL 146 at 9:27 PM; at FL 54 at 9:35 PM; landed at 9:40 PM.

Doubt they could have been on the ground at MCI in 10 or 15 minutes.

[aterpster]

SaturnV:
at 8:00PM EDT, began descending from FL 380 to 340, and changed heading from 255 to 247. Groundspeed 464 knots.

at 8:14 PM EDT (time of the turbulence) was at FL 340 and a heading of 254. Groundspeed of 459 knots. (Had been at 482 knots at 8:09 PM.) Then ramped up the groundspeed to as high as 499 knots.

Began the descent into Denver at 9:07 PM; at FL 240 at 9:19PM; at FL 146 at 9:27 PM; at FL 54 at 9:35 PM; landed at 9:40 PM.

Doubt they could have been on the ground at MCI in 10 or 15 minutes.


I based my previous statement on an earlier statement that the encounter happened 60 miles west of MCI.

Your time-line of the events does not have position, but nonetheless strongly suggests landing at MCI would have been the nearest suitable airport (assuming reasonable terminal area weather).

[protectthehornet]

I read in an earlier post that theplane was 60 miles SouthEast of MCI when it hit turbulence. MCI was 10 minutes flying time to over the top of the airport (direct) Even at a relaxed 2000fpm, the plane would have been over the top at about 14000feet or so. Vectors for final and descent another 10 minutes or so and that is being pretty conservative.

Granted, the crew would have had to declare an emergency to get priority handling and I don't know what the surface wx was at MCI.

I've got alot of respect for a nearby first class airport with a major city nearby. But flying another hour plus 26 minutes isn't my first choice.

(didn't know thay had dropped the DCA rule...thanks)

[pattern_is_full]

According to the radar track: FlightAware > United Air Lines #967 > 20-Jul-2010 > KIAD-KDEN (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL967/history/20100720/2125ZZ/KIAD/KDEN)

the diversion turn begins about 1/2 way across Kansas (actually south into Oklahoma) - so more like 200 nm from KMCI, not 60 nm.

The actual event may have occured closer to KMCI, but presumably it took a few flying minutes for the shaken-up cabin crew to triage the injuries and report to the cockpit, and for the cockpit to decide a diversion was in order - at which point the difference in flight time between KDEN and KMCI (with a 180 turn) may have been less significant.

Also - IF the event took place near Kansas City, somehow turning back into the same weather pattern does not seem like a prime choice. "Hey, that was fun! Let's go back and see if we can hit that bump again!"

[lomapaseo]

pattern is Full

the diversion turn begins about 1/2 way across Kansas (actually south into Oklahoma) - so more like 200 nm from KMCI, not 60 nm.

The actual event may have occured closer to KMCI, but presumably it took a few flying minutes for the shaken-up cabin crew to triage the injuries and report to the cockpit, and for the cockpit to decide a diversion was in order - at which point the difference in flight time between KDEN and KMCI (with a 180 turn) may have been less significant.

Also - IF the event took place near Kansas City, somehow turning back into the same weather pattern does not seem like a prime choice. "Hey, that was fun! Let's go back and see if we can hit that bump again!"

Agree:ok:

I've been aboard a similar flight where it took some time (more than a hundred miles of flight) to assess the injuries, coordinate with ground and then decide on the availability of emergency resources to treat the injuries on the ground the quickest. Ultimately we continued for 2 more hours to our destination and were met by several ambulances to take the injured off.

Importantly the first priority was to determine if the persons were in a stable or worsening condition. Lots of help is available both on the flight as well as from ground communications to lessen the load on the captain.

[protectthehornet]

in many modern jetliners, the turbulence is ''felt'' more in the back than the front.

However, do you really think it took 10 minutes for the cabin crew to intercom the pilots and say...we have injuries back here.?

And certainly, descending while changing heading would likely take you out of the area of turbulence. it wasn't convective turbulence ,or so we have been lead to believe.

with some 30 injuries, triage, while a nice term, should have been almost immediate...people screaming, thrown around the cabin and so forth.

while coordinating with the ground is nice, situational awareness (nearest good airport) and command decisions should have been a bit quicker.

and how do you know the turbulence near the rockies and Denver wouldn't be worse?

Turbulenece...(as pilot, control the plane, check on pax)

hear of injuries...do I waste time and call the doctor on the sat phone (many airlines have medical advisory units available)? Or do I say, Kansas City, one of the largest metro areas in the midwest, with an airport designed with the SST in mind (ancient history now) is 10 minutes away?

Yeah, 1hour and 26 minutes to Denver...

Well, we truly don't know all the details, but I will say this, over and over: its time to remember SAFETY over money and convenience.

But good United Pilots do what they are told by dispatch...oh forget that I even wrote that!!! I wonder what they would have done if all the engines quit out of LGA? Would they have called dispatch for an idea?

[IGh]

Suggestion in message #37:"... hope someone does some nice Forensic Meteorology work to find out what was going on..."
The surface wx-reports tell why the pilots elected to NOT descend into MCI.

?? Please, could one of you computer-guys post the image of the MCI (EAX) Radar Summary Chart for 21July at 0015z ???

“… about 60 miles southeast of Kansas City ... 40 miles north of Springfield, Missouri …”

Mishap turbulence reported on 20Jul, at "1814 MDT" =1914 CDT (= 21Jul/0014z)

Here are surface wx rpts near that mishap position ---

KSZL (SE of Kansas City, aka Sizzling Misery, a bomber base)
OBS:Whiteman Air Force Base (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=ggw&sid=KSZL&num=168&raw=0&dbn=m&banner=off)

At Whiteman AFB, 20July was a hot summer day, 91F; until TRW moved-in after 5pm CDT;
temperatures then cooled 21 degrees-F between 5pm and 7:18pm.

Time............ Temp. Dew Relative... Wind ..Visibility... WX Clouds
(CDT) ............ (f) .... (f) ..... (%) .... (mph).. (miles)

20 Jul 4:55 pm 91 78 67 S9 10.00 FEW210

20 Jul 5:27 pm 88 79 75 SSE6 6.00 -TSRA BKN035

20 Jul 5:41 pm 86 79 79 CALM 4.00 TSRA BKN016 BKN030

20 Jul 5:55 pm 84 79 86 SSE6 3.00 -TSRA BKN017 BKN032CB BKN095

20 Jul 6:38 pm 79 72 79 WNW30 10.00 TS SQ BKN039

20 Jul 6:46 pm 75 72 89 NW23G48 1.50 +TSRA FEW002 SCT022CB OVC040

20 Jul 6:48 pm 73 70 89 NNW23G48 1.00 +TSRA BR FEW002 SCT022CB OVC040

20 Jul 6:55 pm 73 70 90 NNW18G40 0.75 +TSRA BR FEW002 BKN017 OVC040

20 Jul 7:18 pm 70 68 94 NNE16G31 3.00 -TSRA BR FEW002 SCT008 OVC055

20 Jul 7:55 pm 72 67 87 NE7 6.00 -TSRA BKN080

20 Jul 8:43 pm 73 68 83 NE3 7.00 -TSRA BKN044CB SCT095

[protectthehornet]

airport wx observations are very important and I mentioned that I didn't have them for MCI at the time.

I still don't. You didn't post MCI.

Now, if MCI had thunderstorms in progress and no one else was landing or taking off, your point will be quite valid.

When I spoke of Forensic meteorology, I meant for the cause of the turbulence...and if there were Thunderstorms nearby, well, NO one should have been out of their seats. So far, i am under the impression it was not due to convective activity...but we shall see.

[IGh]

MCI obs' are available for seven days, go look:
OBS:Kansas City, Kansas City International Airport (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=ggw&sid=KMCI&num=168&raw=0&dbn=m&banner=off)

I was more interested to see if convective activity was passing near that SZL- mishap location. Judging from surface wx-obs, it appears there were cells passing that mishap area. Hope somebody can recover the archived EAX radar composite at 21Jul/ 0015z.

[SaturnV]

IGh, the archived composite radar for 21 July is not up yet. The image from 2300 hours on July 20 suggests a deviation north was not an inviting option.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/nexrad/natcompnew/2010/07/20100720_2300_nowrad.gif

Here is the link to the composite radar archives (national)
Selected NEXRAD National Mosaic Reflectivity Image (http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwNexrad~SelectedImage~20100720~2300)

[protectthehornet]

if the image is along the flight path as I might think...everyone should have been in their seats including the FA's... we shall see

[Loose rivets]

There's a growing tendency for the skipper to play safe and leave the seat belts on for hours at a time - once recently after a prolonged announcement about staying put in one's seat. This is fine, for freight, but hundreds of people can't do without the loos. They've become miniaturized and down in number anyway, saying you can't get to them is just another last straw. (about the 10th last straw on one flight, last time.)

I was one of the first people I know of that asked my passengers to 'Keep your seat-belts lightly fastened whenever possible when the lights are not on.' People knew what I meant, and when I put the SB lights on, it meant I needed people to get strapped in.

Last 10 SLF I did, the lights were on so much that they were meaningless. There was some occasional light chop, and of course, I wasn't privy to met reports, but there was nothing but blue sky. People just gave up waiting for permission to go to the loo. CC made no comment during the whole 10 hours.

[aterpster]

pattern is full:

Also - IF the event took place near Kansas City, somehow turning back into the same weather pattern does not seem like a prime choice. "Hey, that was fun! Let's go back and see if we can hit that bump again!"

If TRWs were involved I qould agree. But, if it were only CAT, turning around at a significantly lower altitude would almost certainly avoid a repeat.

[pattern_is_full]

"However, do you really think it took 10 minutes for the cabin crew to intercom the pilots and say...we have injuries back here.?" PTH

I'm just going by the radar track - for whatever reason, the flight did not deviate off course (and towards Denver) until about 200 nm past the reported location of the upset.

I suppose the crew may have made the decision earlier and was just staying south to avoid that long line of storms (a pretty impressive demarkation of the "dry line," BTW) - the same line that ends in a big patch of red right over KMCI. Their eventual path to KDEN goes through/over the thinnest part of the line.

[IGh]

SaturnV -- Thanks for that 23z radar image. AND thanks for posting the B777's TRACK, showing that pilots had TURNED (?perhaps a deviation around TRW displayed on the ship's Wx-Radar ?).

The mishap happened about one-hour later than that 23z Radar image. The B777 was south EAST of Kansas City at 1914cdt (21st/0014z).

Surface obs' suggest the squall line was passing MCI more than an hour before it pushed over KSZL. With that typical squall line there, I wouldn't try to penetrate in the lower altitudes, for fear of too many adjacent-cells composing the LINE of TRWs. Be easier just to keep laterally far from cells.

No Cockpit Image Recorder onboard to show just what the pilots observed on their Wx-Radar displays. Since today's airliners now have ONBOARD internet, ??? I wonder if now pilots can use the real-time web-display of the midwest thunderstorms, far before ship's Wx-Radar begins to show the 160mn display??? [Maybe only the passengers get to see the EAX dopplar composite on their laptops, pilots still must not use any modern real-time ground-based radar images for planning TRW-avoidance.]

[vanHorck]

Loose rivets,

Thank you for that. Your statement is 100% true. It has to do with the psychology of dealing with the clients, but last time I attempted to state the same here, I got slammed by several "pilots"....

[IGh]

Aterpster -- can't find the records on that L10 that topped that cell over Salina, FO told me that the erupting HAIL from the cell-top engulfed the L10 for more than a minute, busted (cracks) the Windscreen too badly for any forward visibility, crew cont'd to LAX, then did an autoland at LAX, found baseball sized dings in the Wing LE and Eng Cowl. (Someone wrote-up that case but I can't locate the records.)

You surely recall that case --- ? when was that ?

= = = = // = = ==

Looking at past TRW-Turb injury cases, I see that Air France 4 / 13May74 encountered Moderate/ Severe Turb, over O'Neil Nebraska, lasting four minutes, with serious injuries -- pilots elected to continue to Paris, landed Orly seven hours after the injuries were suffered.

[grumpyoldgeek]

Agreed. Pax could fly for 20-30 years a couple times a year and never feel anything worse than slight turbulence. Perhaps some pictures of the inside of a cabin after hitting severe turbulence would be educational to the general public.

[aterpster]

IGh:

? L1011 atop cell over Salina -- cont'd to LAX ?
Aterpster -- can't find the records on that L10 that topped that cell over Salina, FO told me that the erupting HAIL from the cell-top engulfed the L10 for more than a minute, busted (cracks) the Windscreen too badly for any forward visibility, crew cont'd to LAX, then did an autoland at LAX, found baseball sized dings in the Wing LE and Eng Cowl. (Someone wrote-up that case but I can't locate the records.)

You surely recall that case --- ? when was that ?

I do recall that one, but don't remember the date. It happened when I was still working so it had to be prior to summer of 1990. If I remember correctlly that cell was easily avoidable, and they were deviating but not by enough. I think they were under very high overhang when it hit.

The L-1011 had a very good radar for that era.

[protectthehornet]

I do hope we find out if this incident was a result of convective activity or some sort of clear air turbulence.

a reminder that all t storms should be avoided by at least 20 miles while at high altitude and that all precautions, such as passengers and flight attendants secured in their seats should be taken. Also, pilots should tighten their seatbelts/harnesses, engine ignition on, even anti ice at times...check out the AIM for all sorts of good advice.

if you are in clear air, monitor your outstide temp for changes...if it changes be ready! watch your ground speed too for changes.

and please make darn sure you are always painting something with your radar.

[aterpster]

protectthehelment:
I do hope we find out if this incident was a result of convective activity or some sort of clear air turbulence.

Some of the worst brief-duration turbulence that I experienced a few times was in clear air at high altitude when too close to a massive TRW

[Mr Optimistic]

I presume that the fasten seat belts warning is a relic of the distant past when passengers were assumed not to want to be belted in: imagine this was a widespread assumption and unquestioned for years. Now, if you expect the default state to be for passengers to be seated and strapped in, what are we to make of the fasten seat belt sign going out ?

Wouldn't be surprised if there were people who interpreted this as encouragement to unfasten.

So the fasten seat belt sign is now redundant as the default is belt-up when seated. Perhaps replace it with a 'return to seat' warning (with the rule that when seated you fasten up).

The uncertainty about the message sent out when the fasten seat belt sign goes off, when you really want the pax to stay seated and strapped in, is perhaps why some leave the sign on.

[protectthehornet]

how about a sign that says:

if you really, really, really have to pee now, you can go to the lavatory and get back to your seat in reasonable time.

others, stay seated with seatbelt fastened and be quiet

[aterpster]

Mr. Optimistic:
(Turning off the seat belt sign) Wouldn't be surprised if there were people who interpreted this as encouragement to unfasten.

Much of the time the first turn off of the sign is accompanied these days by a PA from the flight deck telling the pax to keep it fastened while seated.

[vanHorck]

Nevertheless Mr Optimistic has a point.

The rule should be to always be strapped in, but that under certain flying conditions and at your own peril, you may unstrap.

That also saves the bus drivers to keep the seatbelt sign on for the convenience of the CC moving around unrestricted.

[White Knight]

if the image is along the flight path as I might think...everyone should have been in their seats including the FA's... we shall see

Shows what a prat you really are; pontificating about an event you weren't and aren't privy too:ugh: I guess you keep the signs on anyway as you handfly from take-off to cruise, and from TOD to landing - wobbly handflying and all that:ugh::ugh::ugh:
Keep smiling armchair flyer:}

[LoboTx]

Must every thread deteriorate into the pro-cons of automation ? :rolleyes:

Methinks the A/C must be off in Dubai or some such. :}

[skyken]

The IATA and ICAO airport codes of DEN and KDEN were then transferred to the new DIA, to coincide with the same changes in airline and ATC computers, to ensure all flights to Denver would land at the new DIA. Original DEN was Stapleton (http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CO/Airfields_CO_Denver_NE.htm#stapelton). New one is DIA (http://flydenver.com/exploredia).

[IGh]

CAT-turb, or proximity to TRW --

Turbulence, & injuries:
?- Enforcement action? Maybe Pilot listed as “cause”?

Mostly, these turb-mishaps are regarded as a sort of “act of god”, & treated by the investigative authority, & the enforcement agency as no-fault.

There have been mishaps, with CAT or TRW turbulence, where either the Safety Board or the US enforcement agency did cite the pilot.

First below is a case where NTSB lists the pilot in the “probable cause”. Then, below that, is that case where FAA initiated enforcement action against PIC for operations near TRW.

flight7 / 19Apr01 A320-232, N654AW
… 30 minutes before the turbulence was encountered, the company flight dispatcher communicated to the flight crew … approaching an area of forecast moderate to severe turbulence associated with mountain wave activity between FL310 and FL390 …. dispatcher recommended that the flight descend below the area of forecast turbulence or alter course around it.
The crew advised they would "discuss the situation and get back … captain queried air traffic control, and upon receiving reports of smooth air at FL310, he descended from FL350 to FL310 and remained on the direct routing. Approaching the area of forecast turbulence, he illuminated the seat belt sign and advised the passengers of the potential for turbulence. He also advised the flight attendants to stow the galley equipment. Approximately 3 to 4 minutes later, the flight encountered Severe Clear Air Turbulence….

“… the probable cause(s) …:
The failure of the pilot-in-command to properly evaluate a hazardous weather advisory and his failure to adequately alter course and flight altitude to avoid the area of hazardous weather.”

From the full narrative:
“… more severe, turbulence and it became impossible to hold onto anything.... thrown about the galley; hitting the ceiling, counters, and doors before being ‘slammed’ to the floor. She landed face down on the floor and thought she had injured her back and both ankles.... crawled on her stomach to the last row of seats and held on to the seat frame. She reported the sounds were deafening and people were screaming. Some overhead bins opened and items fell out….”
= = = = = / / = = = = =
Enforcement Action example --

There is a press story suggesting FAA initiated Enforcement Action (certificate-suspended) against that Captain of NW1462 / 24Jun03 from Minneapolis to Sioux Falls:
“In its order suspending … the FAA said his flying 'was careless and endangered the lives and property of others'' and violated federal aviation law....' .”
I could NOT find any appeal shown (though press story cites “A June 22 [‘04] hearing is scheduled ... federal administrative law judge …”

Since the FAA’s enforcement/ certificate -actions are NOT easily available, it is difficult to know if FAA has cited any other airline pilots for TURBULENCE negligence, or for proximity too-close to TRW. [FAA ORDER 2150.3B, “… Enforcement Investigative Reports (EIR) … Privacy Act prohibits FAA investigative personnel from disclosing information contained in an EIR about an individual to third parties …”

So those are two TURB mishaps, odd-cases, where pilot was cited (in PC or for enforcement action).

Still can't find any report for that 8000' drop in turb, VS43/ 24Feb06 B747 near Greenland:
Flight attendant panics as jet falls 8,000ft in seconds - Americas, World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/flight-attendant-panics-as-jet-falls-8000ft-in-seconds-467951.html)

[p51guy]

It sounds like the captain used his good judgement to descend to the reported smooth altitude of 310. We have all used our judgement and
usually it has worked out well. Sometimes things change quickly so what was smooth might not be with time.

[protectthehornet]

I am reminded of an american DC10 flying near T storms, upper midwest, somewhere around chicago or michigan. hit really bad turbulence...sister of film maker steven speilberg aboard...she sued and or settled...settlement was in the millions.

turbulence associated with thunderstorms...welllll...just avoid it. CAT is harder of course.

someday, everyone will just turn around and go back to their departure point...too much risk of turbulence...then something will be done!

One bit of information to you all. At my airline, I was part of a WX investigation board after a tragic crash.

AS you all know, you can't fly in forecast or known severe turbulence...well, the weather service has seen fit to create something new just to get around this clause.

MOGR

do you know it? its not in Sigmets! its in Airmets...it means Moderate OR GREATER.

what a way around the no go for severe. after our investigation, we issued airmets as well as sigmets to our air crews with special precautions !

[Signalman]

It would appear that Pilots (or possibly companies instructing their pilots) have reduced the effectiveness of seat belts. Having been traveling for many years, the seat belt sign only use to go on during a flight if there was severe turbulence. You knew that there was a VERY good reason for this and you noticed the turbulence.

I remember years ago circling ORD for 45 min in a B727 with numerous CB's in close proximity. You needed your seat belt on !

However in more recent flights i have seen the seat belt sign turned on for the slightest bump, and then left on for 30-40 min. On one occasion the seat belt sign was left on for 4 hours without even the slightest turbulence (I think it was to make it easier for the cabin crew). :ugh:

Now people can say what they want about ignoring advice but until you believe it is good advice, people will ignore it. Look at speed limits on roads. We are all human, and as such human factors are involved. I am sure we all remember being told by our Mother about the boy who cried Woolf.:=

Personally I always leave my seat belt very loosely fastened during flight, irrespective of the seat belt sign, knowing that I can quickly tighten it. For TO & landing I pull it very tight, so in the event of ....without warning no submarining can take place. :D

[protectthehornet]

White Knight.

Even if everything you say is true (except for the armchair flyer bit, which I am not), at least no one has been injured by turbulence aboard my flights.

You are only wobbly at hand flying if you don't practice.

and if I am a pratt (whatever that means to someone on the old side of the pond), I hope I am also a whitney.

[IGh]

Regarding the investigative-authority's usual "cause" for TURB-injuries, the Board just released this P.C.:
ERA10CA174 ... Delta ... Thursday, March 11, 2010 in Titusville, FLProbable Cause Approval Date: 7/22/2010 ... A319-100 ... N319NB ... 1 Serious, 2 Minor ...

... occasionally moderate, turbulence throughout the flight. The captain had asked the flight attendants to secure ... at flight level 240, when the flight attendants began the final preparation for landing.... with no echoes depicted on the weather radar ... unexpected severe turbulence for 1 to 2 seconds. The maximum g recorded was 1.773 and the minimum g recorded was 0.391.... flight attendants were standing ... they were jolted upward and then fell to the floor. Two ... sustained minor injuries, while one ... seriously injured. The airplane was not damaged ...
... Board determines the probable cause(s) ...:

An inadvertent in-flight encounter with turbulence, resulting in an injury to a cabin attendant.

[bratschewurst]

...At 0946, flight 7 transmitted: "we're just getting a little bit of a nibble here at three one zero but um i'm out looking ahead it looks like two eight zero might be little bit smoother altitude how's it look to you." The controller queried another aircraft at flight level 280, which reported "light ripples," and then told flight 7 that it would be about 3 minutes before he could clear flight 7 to descend to the lower flight level. At 0949:01, flight 7 transmitted: "we just got um a jolt of moderate ah turbulence and we request two eight zero." The controller replied: "traffic twelve oclock and four miles eastbound flight level two niner zero lower when clear." At 0950:02, the controller cleared flight 7 to descend to flight level 280.

ATC told the PIC he'd have to wait three minutes to descend; within that time frame (or perhaps few seconds afterwards) they hit the turbulence. How is that the fault of the PIC?

[IGh]

Question posed, about the Board's unusual P.C. against the PIC of "Cactus7" / 19Apr01, approaching front range, with new forecast of severe CAT:
"... ATC told the PIC he'd have to wait three minutes to descend ... they hit the turbulence. How is that the fault of the PIC?"

That P.C. and a "full narrative" is available: LAX01LA136 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010507X00899&key=1)
"... About 30 minutes before the turbulence ... dispatcher communicated to the flight crew that the flight was approaching an area of forecast moderate to severe turbulence ... mountain wave ... between FL310 and FL390.... The dispatcher recommended ... alter course and descend to FL280 ... The pilot remained at FL310 and remained on the existing routing...."

That "Cactus7" was an unusual P.C. for a Turb-injury case:
"... failure of the pilot-in-command to ... evaluate a hazardous weather ... and his failure to ... alter course and ... altitude to avoid ... hazardous weather."
Maybe that "Cactus7" P.C. is a good lesson for pilots, when they consider ignoring a forecast of severe turb'. Mostly, in Turb-injury cases, the Board was NOT so direct about the PIC's contribution to "cause".

Another element contributing to the Board's unusually direct P.C. in that case might be the industry's repeated war against turb-injuries. There were repeat initiatives against turb-injuries since 1971
NTSB/AAS-71-01 (http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aviation-special-studies/AAS71-01.pdf) - Study of Lessons to Be Learned From Accidents Attributed to Turbulence

[stator vane]

what with the min fuel we are pressed to carry all the time--
a weather report showing the conditions and possibility of severe turbulence--
pilot reports, as ambiguous as possible--
'do you feel lucky today?'--
the option of changing course? there's no way you can avoid the Rocky Mountains, or over here; the Alps, when your destination is on the other side-
can you imagine how long the pilot will be employed for refusing to fly over said mountains? on those days?--(all those other flights made it with out killing people!)
and then, when you do hit it and injure someone--
it's your fault?--

each time i did/do fly over the mountains-Rockies/Alps with cruise level winds above 100 knots-

i feel like we are back to the basics--exploration in an un-natural environment

[SassyPilotsWife]

May I ask why there are no cameras or streaming video of cabins inflight ? After riding on the 380 and seeing the 3 different views outside the aircraft, why not have cameras inside the cabins as one of the reasons being this very subject ? Cameras activate automatically upon certain mechanical criteria like dash cams do in an ambulance upon a certain brake force or impact and they actually record the 10 seconds prior to the event. Or cameras that could be pilot or CC activated in the event of a " situation" in the cabin with a pax. No I don't have all the medical records of all the reported injuries but I have been in the medical field long enough ( 10 years but it only takes about 1 month for this) to know that some of those " reported injuries" were sustained not from turbulance but rather the potential for financial gain.

Cameras would provide a true eyewitness account to what happened each second of the event. This could answer alot of investigational queries as well as determining " mechanism of injury" a term used to identify cause for trauma ie.. flying object, ejection from seat ( " what? no seatbelt on ? too bad buddy, you were warned, try and sue us"), self inflicted injury for financial gain ( yep, love those organized slip and falls caught on video) and the famous " My neck my back I want a new Cadillac"

Take portions of this video ( with respect to pt. privacy) and show it during the safety briefing before takeoff so that those pax who want to defy SB and gravity rules might think twice. Of course I can't provide an alternative for those who are scared out of their minds to fly in the first place, watch the video and request to be taken back to the gate :eek:

For me, I choose to have a couple of small jim beams and save them for turbulence. One good jolt, 2 straight shots and I'm the calmest, happiest pax and have a better chance a surviving the thrill ride just as drunk drivers survive car wrecks. Loose limbs :)

[physicus]

Maybe if the safety briefings would communicate what really happens in severe turbulence and in an explosive decompression people would pay attention? As it stands now, those briefings are somewhere between useless and annoying, but hardly pertinent to emergencies due to their softened down language.

I'm not saying put the fear of god in them, but show evidence of what can happen. I like the cabin camera idea!

[rapidanva]

It's pretty obvious that we need "a common strategy" on use of the seat belt sign. Right now, on US airlines, compliance with the sign is, it seems to me, in a state of anarchy. Pilots leave it on too much, passengers ignore it in smooth air and not, F/A's don't pay any attention to it and nobody enforces it. The result is an unacceptable exposure to serious injury and even death.

"Federal Regulations require passengers to comply with all lighted signs and placards ... except the seat belt sign"? Pilots need to inform passengers and F/A's about the need to sit down and buckle up IN REAL TIME (and not leave the SBS on when it's smooth and no forecast of bumps. I've noticed we have about 7 to 10 minutes in smooth air before people start getting up even with the sign illuminated).

We need to give our people every safe opportunity to leave their seats. It would appear to me we shouldn't "cry wolf" and create a situation where nobody is paying attention when the cry is real.

To have people up and about with the seat belt sign on makes the sign a disagreement light; either the people need to be seated because its dangerous for them to be up - or - pilots need to turn the sign off.

We need to contact ALPA Safety, our training departments and the FAA about this before somebody gets nailed.

I invite you to read this thread. In it I especially like the comment about Qantas:

Pilots And The Seatbelt Sign... — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4883133/)