The seatbelt sign is on

[bigbeerbelly]

NTSB Identification: IAD02LA039

Scheduled 14 CFRPart 129 operation of Foreign BRITISH AIRWAYS
Accident occurred Monday, April 01, 2002 at Atlantic Ocean, AO
Aircraft:Boeing 747-400, registration: G-BNLS
Injuries: 1 Serious, 213 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On April 1, 2002, about 2005 eastern daylight time, a Boeing 747-400, G-BNLS, operated by British Airways as flight 214, was not damaged when it encountered turbulence shortly after takeoff from Boston/General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Boston Massachusetts. The 2 certificated airline transport pilots, 15 flight attendants, and 196 passengers were not injured. One passenger sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the flight destined for London-Heathrow Airport (LHR), London, England. The scheduled international passenger flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 129.

In a written statement, the flight crew reported that 20 minutes after departure they encountered "moderate turbulence" while climbing through Flight Level (FL) 350, to their assigned altitude of FL 370. Several minutes later, they requested a descent from air traffic control to FL 330 to maneuver around the turbulence. During the descent, a flight attendant informed the flight crew that a passenger fell during the turbulence encounter and broke her right ankle. The flight crew then initiated a return to Boston, and landed without further incident. After landing, the passenger was transported to the hospital and the airplane was inspected for damage. When no damage was observed, the flight departed again at 2214, and continued to London uneventfully.

The flight crew reported that windshear advisories had been issued at Boston prior to their departure; however, no turbulence was forecasted for their route of flight. The seat belt sign was illuminated for the entire fight.

According to flight attendant interviews conducted by British Airways, the flight conditions were described as "fairly smooth" and the seat belt sign was illuminated as they prepared for the in-flight service. About 20-30 minutes into the flight, the airplane "shook briefly" and experienced a "sudden jolt." During the encounter, a passenger in seat 17J, was returning to her seat from the lavatory, when she fell and was injured. A flight attendant administered first aid to the passenger, and notified the flight crew of the injury. The flight crew then informed the flight attendants and passengers that the flight would be returning to Boston.

The weather reported at Boston, at 1954, included wind from 270 degrees at 18 knots, gusting to 31 knots, 10 miles visibility, clear skies, temperature 8 degrees Celsius, dewpoint -3 degrees Celsius, and altimeter setting 29.80 in Hg.

The weather reported at Bar Harbor Airport, at 1955, included wind from 230 degrees at 7 knots, 10 miles visibility, broken clouds at 4,300 feet, temperature 5 degrees Celsius, dewpoint 3 degrees Celsius, and altimeter setting 29.52 in Hg.

I picked up this posting from the NTSB website. I wonder how many millions are spent each year on passenger ignoring the seatbelt sign? Good thing it was just a broken ankle in this example. I read an interesting letter to the editor in an ALPA magazine from a Delta captain. He said when it comes to the seatbelt sign announcements he tells it like it is, regardless of company policy. Instead of saying it is going to get a little bumpy, he tells the passengers we are expecting moderate turbulence. Instead of saying there are a few rain showers in the area, he says there are thunderstorms. The letter he wrote goes on to talk about how he has witnessed passengers over the years ignoring the risks in travelling because they don't realize they are in any potential danger. Furthermore, when told to sit down by the FAs, passengers often become angry these days.

[Kalium Chloride]

That DL skipper is spot on. You can't really blame the passengers. Turbulence-related events might be a leading cause of injury, but they're still relatively rare, and passengers simply are not made aware of the risks.

Airlines want to convey a reassuring image of smooth flights. Turbulence is unnerving, uncomfortable, sometimes even downright frightening. So it's not talked about -- least of all on the PA announcements.

The result is that passengers are kept unwittingly in the dark about the risk of injury. If they're walking around the aircraft when they ought to be sat down, it's because they're being given the wrong information.

[falps]

Flew on an Amrican carries last year and noticed to my very great surprise that quite a large number of pax started moving around the cabin long before the fasten seat belt had been switched off.
The cabin crew remained strapped into their seats and quite ignored the fact that these people were walking around.
Which struck me as very strange. :confused:

Asked the lead FA about this later and she told me it was quite common. "they don't listen anyway, so we don't bother".
Which struck me as even stranger since in our mob, or any other European carrier I've ever flown on, there is just no way pax are allowed to move around before the sign is switched off.
And for the few that do decide to ignore the FSB sign, a few chosen words via the PAS always does the trick. ;)
Question: Is it normal for American carriers to allow pax to ignore the whole thing or was this an exeption?

Something else that I find puzling often............ "Hi flaps, Captain here. We're leaving the pax belted in but you guys can start the service".
So we start, and of course immediately get accosted by someone NEEDING the toilet right now. And asking me why it is safe for me to move around but not for him or her. :confused:

Never do know the answer to that one.
So is this leaving the pax belted in but letting us start moving around normal with other carriers as well? And is it a purely legal question; limiting liability and so forth?

[terminal_area]

Whenever I get into a plane, i got the seat belt arround me and if possible, i keep it the whole game (weeeeeell it easy: I always get sleeping before bird ever takes of...) I build those birds, and i know they will get through it, but a broken neck against the bins (and its not so difficult) is possible... my neck is not certified against -1.5 n!!!!

But sometimes crew messages are as mild as sugar... "mild turbulence" when things are jumping all arround is a very light way to see it, even if you see the attendands walking arround like mad.

just a tip: pass will do as they see, if they see attendants going arround just seconds before landing, they will end thinking that it´s no danger at all!!!

Just one more shot: on my last flight to MAD, a pass got a BIG BIG BIG one from the attendans as he got up just after landing... no broken ankles, but i´ve never seen an att shouting so loud!!!

(She got up to put OFF her mobile: she left it on during all flight and gotta SMS as she landed...) those crazy pax....






:eek: :eek:

[AtlPax]

On those very rare occasions when I ride a bus somewhere, the first thing I look for is the seatbelt (there won't be one on a bus).

I feel utterly naked without a seatbelt on! :(

[PPRuNeUser0171]

Last year I flew London Jersey and flew through minor turbulence, If that was minor I NEVER want to know what moderate or serve feel like!!

On a similar note, I take the train each day into central London and the amount of people that crowd round the doors before the train stops moving....
Sometimes it is quite funny to watch a 'domino effect' on them when the train suddenly accelerates when they are not holding on to anything, So far no serious injuries but it's only a mter of time....

--
Gary Williams

[Kalium Chloride]

FAA database over the past few days has these cases logged:

Continental 767 encountered CAT while en route, two FAs seriously injured, one passenger minor injuries, landed Newark.

Northwest Airlines A319 declared medical emergency after FA sustained serious injury (broken collar-bone) during possible turbulence encounter.

American Trans Air 757 encountered severe turbulence in vicinity of Springfield at FL370, at least 10 passengers reportedly injured, four of them seriously. :eek:

Quite extraordinary.




[It also mentions a couple of FAs getting injured while opening wine bottles and getting attacked by a coffee pot, not your lot I presume Flaps? :D ]

[mainfrog2]

Also for the record of any passengers, just because the've spent the last hour and a half in the terminal at the bar and then don't have time to use the loo before boarding doesn't mean that they can ignore the seatbelt sign and go immediately after take off. They may be dying for the loo but they'll be dying of something else if the aircraft hits turbulence during the climb.

This kind of situation happens all the time: crew where in the galley after take off and a/c still had seatbelt sign on. Pax appears in galley wanting to use the toilet. Crew spend nearly as much time arguing with them about it and trying to get them back in their seats as let them use the toilet.

... and another thing why do pax always "simply have to go now" about 2 seconds after the seatbelt signs are put on for landing 4 hour flight and they all need to go in the last ten minutes...

Tirade over.
:mad:

[Heliport]

Just a thought as mere SLF on airlines, and I've got my tin hat ready in case it's not an acceptable thought, but could it be that the important instructions have become devalued in the seemingly endless list of do's and don'ts, and even warnings of prosecution, with which we now seem to be bombarded by some airlines on every flight?

[G.Khan]

Falps - I think it is a case of containment. The captain assumes you know when you can and can't work and will sit down accordingly, pax, as you have seen, don't know. Additionally, letting 400 pax wander around the cabin during any turbulence exposes the company/their insurers to a massive liability whereas a number of F/As who know what they are doing is seen as an acceptable risk.
My policy was: general uncomfortableness but nothing violent then OK to work at your discretion, anyting beyond mild discomfort then everyone sit down until it gets acceptable again but always at your discretion. FWIW.

[gofer]

As a frequent PAX - 1 of the problems is that the slightest rattle is often reported by the Captain as turbulence. From previous experience in Prop & Turpoprop equipment - it is very much a case of crying wolf too early (because of liability I assume, but perhaps in the hope of wishing that the pax consider them a 'careful & careing airline').

Previous comments about the US pax are worrying - because of the crew attitude. What really gets me is the middle-east flights where everybody gets up when the plane is still taxiing at relatively high speeds - I mean we all know that a 30-50Kph impact in a car - even belted in - causes GBH - so how come they don't realise.

What about a clear warning by the crew in all languages needed along the lines of.

'Dear passengers, we are paid and trained to work in flight conditions and, in many cases can recognise turbulence and estimate the dangers - you are not and that is why you WILL obey the seat belts sign & warnings.'

Also perhaps on finals adding - 'Anybody who gets up before the seat belt sign is switched off, does so at his own risk and will be reported to the black list of 'potentially dangerous passengers' who the airlines may refuse to carry in future.'

Just possible ideas - comments ?

[GrahamK]

Last year I was flying back from Mahon to Newcastle on Airtours as a passenger, we hit what I thought was very heavy turbulence(it forced the overhead TVs to come down :D ). The captain said it was caused by clear-air turbulence or something. Forgive my stupidness but whats clear-air turbulence?
:confused:

[mainfrog2]

Crews don't intentionally cry wolf about turbulence, sometimes they will get a warning of turbulence and sometimes not. Be aware that air is a natural environment which is constantly changing and so sometimes is more or less severe than originally thought, so the seatbelt signs will go on for turbulence which doesn't always amount to much.

I watched an interesting program the other night on natural effects on aircraft and it likened air to water. Air of different density flows around the earth like a river flows. Imagine aircraft are like boats floating on a 'river' of dense air when you go through turbulence this river of air is disturbed you just can't see the river.

[Kalium Chloride]

GrahamK,

Clear-air turbulence (CAT) is a particularly nasty type of air disturbance usually caused when two layers of air are moving against each other at different speeds -- the boundary between them gets churned up, and anything flying through it gets bounced about.

While "regular" turbulence is normally associated with heavy weather (which shows up on radar and therefore can be generally avoided), clear-air turbulence is nastier because:

* It doesn't necessarily lurk around stormy areas, hence the name "clear-air" turbulence. CAT can develop as a result of air patterns over mountains, for example. It's practically invisible and cannot be detected by the usual techniques.

* Patches of CAT can develop and dissipate very rapidly, so there's usually no way for controllers or pilots to warn other pilots ahead of an encounter.

* In the worst cases CAT can exert forces strong enough to cause structural damage to aircraft. Sorry for that bit of bad news, but there's a couple of famous cases proving it.

[GrahamK]

Ah thanks :)
The A320 I was on was bouncing about everywhere during the turbulence which lasted for about 10-15 mins. It was over France so that could explain for mountains.

[Pilot Pete]

Mainfrog 2

You will undoubtably be referring to the 'Turbulence Switch' on the overhead panel? AKA the seatbelt signs!

Sod's law dictates that when you encounter a few bumps, unless they are pretty big straight off you will use your experience, skill and judgement to refrain for a few seconds before forcing everyone to sit down and belt up. Then the bumps get a bit heavier and you've been in it for approaching a minute and you decide "we'll have to strap 'em in". The PNF's hand reaches up to the seat belt sign switch and exactly at the same time as hearing the familiar 'ding'.......................... the turbulence disappears.

PP

[mainfrog2]

Thats the switch I'm on about Pete.

[under_exposed]

Turbulance always plots against you. I always make sure I am not in need prior to boarding the plane and well before we are due to land. I was on a flight to JFK from LHR once and after a couple of hours and a couple of lagers it was time to visit the toilets. Just as I was about to stand up on went the fasten setbelts. After about 45 minutes of very minor vibrations I was getting desparate. With only one suit with me (very short notice of the trip) what should I do ? In the end I asked the stewardess if she knew how much longer it would last. She (not suprisingly) did not know but as I was only 2 rows from the toilet said I could at my own risk go. Do you guys think I acted wrongly in going ? I can see that this is not an easy problem to solve, having seen much worse turbulance I can see how easy it would be for a pax to injure themselves or others and most pax do not fly often enough to know to be careful but when you need to go you need to go.

[christep]

I have to say that in my couple of hundred flights on CX in the last few years they have seemed to get it right pretty well all the time. And they do seem to manage to avoid the turbulence better than some, as far as I can judge from the frequency that some people here indicate. (And no go arounds, aborted takeoffs or anything else untoward.)

This tends to mean that when - with the seatbelt sign already on - the captain comes on the PA and says "cabin crew take your seats NOW!" it has a suitably immediate impact. (And it was indeed a bit bumpy for a while :) .) A few pax looked a bit scared though - I've only ever heard that once.

[Kalium Chloride]

Turbulence is also caused by my asking for any drink which would stain my suit if it spills. :rolleyes:

[Semaphore Sam]

Part of the problem derives from a crew attitude, or is it company policy, that the seat belt sign stays on til TOC + 10-15 minutes, when not a cloud is visible, and an absolutely smooth ride is felt. Then the cockpit says something like "We might let you up for a few minutes, so you 120 pax can share 3 toilets" (but only when the F/A's aren't serving; otherwise the aisle is blocked), leaving 4.5 minutes for all of them during a 3 hour flight to pee. My point is, if the air is obviously clear & smooth, then climbing thru 10,000' let 'em up. If you don't, you invite contempt for the signs; which boomerangs when they really should be on. Maybe the answer is pax pee bags?

[Giorgio]

Interesting topic,

several types of turbulence have been mentioned, including CAT which is obviously more likely to cause problems.

I don't know the name of the phenomena, it was a while since i learned of it, but it can cause an a/c to lose altitude extremely rapidly for several hundred feet and is related to changes in air density if my memory serves me correctly, i recall some pilots suffering severe leg injuries in a full motion simulator when the computor tried to simulate a drop of thousands of feet!!

I would have thought that would pose a pretty big hazard or is it quite rare and/or easily detectable?

thanks

G

[Pegasus912]

I really don't know what the big deal is. If the pax want to get up and wander about while the seat belt sign is on, that should be their problem. Chlorine in the gene pool and all that...

[Curious Pax]

Flew MAN-ATL last month, and had a pretty smooth flight - a few wobbles a couple of times, but very minor compared to what I would regard as turbulence. However the seatbelt signs stayed on for about 45 minutes after everything went smooth on both occasions - there may have been a very good reason for this, but after a while people started making their own decisions about standing up. I guess my point is that although the seatbelt signs may not always be at the top of the tree as far as flightdeck activity is concerned, prolonged periods of smooth flight with them switched on causes the SLF to take less notice of them - with unfortunate consequences when the aircraft hits something rough.

That flight contrasted with a BA flight back from Orlando a few years ago where the seatbelt signs were on for quite a while, with minor turbulence (but sufficient that I think most crews would have used them). After a bit people started going to the toilet anyway, which triggered an announcement from the cabin crew about sitting down. The first officer then came on having overheard this, and reiterated the message firmly, but not (I thought) in an unreasonable manner. Obviously someone took exception to this, as a short while later he came back on to apologise for being too forceful! You can't win!

[radeng]

I read in Flight magazine about 20 years ago that around 60 pax a year were injured over the North Atlantic because of ignoring seat belt signs and turbulence. Since then, I ALWAYS wear the seatbelt when seated......when the sign comes on, I then check it. But my several recent flights with BA to Stockholm have seen the seat belt sign only when necessary, so getting to the loo hasn't been a problem.

[Sid Compton]

I was flying JFK-LHR on a US carrier once, with the seat belt sign on in light chop that had been going on for about 30 minutes. In the opposite aisle, a couple of Americans were standing up having a chat, totally ignoring the sign. The flight attendants were ignoring the men.

Now, I'm curious to know what the legal position would be (i.e. who would be liable) if we had suddenly hit more severe turbulence, and one of the blokes standing up had fallen on me heavily, injuring me in some way (say a broken arm or nose, worst case scenario). The men? The individual flight attendant? The airline? Just curious...

By contrast, one of the FAs on a BA LAX-LHR a couple of years ago must have had a word with the flight deck - the F/O put on his best butch voice and said "We don't put the seat belt sign on for our amusement. We put it on for your safety. Now will you please make sure your belt's fastened!"

[eeper]

This question of reducing the impact of the setbelt sign is an interesting one. Not long ago I flew with BA to SFO. At the first signs of even a slight bump the signs came on and stayed on for at least ten minutes of smooth flight. On the first time the crew came thru the cabin and checked that everyone was secure, but as this process was repeated they seemed to take less and less notice of the sign. After several hours they pretty much ignored it.

In defence of the captain, he was on a final command check and may have been anxious to go by the book. Also there may have been forecast CAT and each bump may have seemed like it could be the onset of a prolonged bout of turbulence. However, this illustrates the dangers of indiscriminate use of the seatbelts sign.

Another good example is when we encounter en-route Cbs that we have to weave around. Naturally the seatbelt signs come on, but because of our obvious skill as pilots (!) the passengers don't feel a thing. In those situations a PA explaining what is about to happen will reinforce the fact that, although everything will appear smooth, the signs are on for a good reason.

In general I try and use the signs sparingly, reinforcing them with PAs when I do use them. Also, a call to the cabin crew, explaining why the signs are on and how long I expect them to remain on, indicates to them that I would like them to check that the cabin is secure. I also start my stopwatch or fasten my shoulder harness as the signs come on as it acts as a reminder to me that they are still on.

[btmtdi]

As a SLF I do suspect that the Seatbelt sign is often used for crowd control purposes. About 10 minutes into a flight on Go last year a travelling companion was SCREAMED at by a Flight Attendant for getting up to go to the toilet while the Seatbelt Sign was still on.

Fair enough you say - however the FA was pushing a trolley down the aisle at the time - if it is safe for the crew to manipulate a very large and heavy object with all manner of lose cans of drink etc rattling around on it then I must say I felt it was probably safe for my pal to use the toilet - expecially given that we had been delayed on the ground for almost an hour between boarding and take off.

[Captain Stable]

Not too long ago I was travelling on a ChippyFryer ATR. One passenger got up during the climb (only about 2 mins after takeoff). The CC#1 (a big bloke) went and asked him to sit down, which he did after a little discussion.

After landing, whilst still taxying to the gate, same bloke was up and out of his seat, rummaging in the overhead bins.

The #1 made the following announcement:-

"Ladies and Gentlemen, as we have not yet reached the arrival gate, until we have come to a stop and the captain has switched off the Fasten Seatbelts sign, please remain seated with your seatbelt securely fastened and yes, sir, this DOES INCLUDE YOU."

He got a silent three cheers from me for that.

[Final 3 Greens]

Having a PPL and some notion of the dangers posed by turbulence, I obey the seat belt signs diligently.

However, it is not helpful when the signs are on, the FO announces reports of SEVERE turb from flights in the vicinity and then the FAs continue to serve hot drinks.

This happened to me a couple of years ago on a Brit charter airline.

Other non flying pax were heard to comment that it couldnt be that bad if they were still serving drinks and started to move around.

The turb experienced was mainly slight, probably mod from time to time, but never severe.

However, the pax had a learning experience that the seat belt sign isn't that important.

I think that is really dangerous.

[Shadowpurser]

It says in FCO's that if a PAX gets up while the seatbelt sign is swithced on then they are disobeying the captains orders and can be prosecuted under UK law.

That's good enough for me. If I don't tell people to sit down I could lose my job or one of my collegues could if I don't tell them to do it should the CAA be watching.

SImple.....and deffinately no contest.

[bigbeerbelly]

Some very interesting points, so far. There has been a lot of mention of clear air turbulence, which is almost impossible to foresee. I try to ask ATC every sector about ride reports ahead. That seems to be accurate about 70% of the time. I was surprised by pegasus912's response - Obviously not a pilot, I hope. Here is an example how it can effect you even if you are seated:

United Airlines Statement On Flight 862
May 01, 2002 1:49:00 PM ET

CHICAGO, May 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- United Airlines UAL today issued the following statement regarding a clear-air turbulence incident overnight onboard UA Flight 862, a Boeing 747-400 from Sydney, Australia to San Francisco:

"United can confirm that flight UA862, a Boeing 747-400 that departed Sydney on May 1st at 1:35PM (Sydney time) encountered clear-air turbulence approximately three hours into its flight. Clear-air turbulence is not currently detectable by even the industry's most sophisticated weather technology. The flight diverted to Auckland Airport in New Zealand and landed safely without further incident at 11:06PM (Auckland time).

"United Airlines staff at Auckland airport met flight UA862 when the aircraft arrived and ambulances were standing by to transport injured crewmembers and customers to local hospitals. Seven injuries were reported, including two United Flight Attendants. Four of the five have what local medical officials called minor injuries such as cuts, bruises and lacerations. The fifth, a crew member, suffered multiple fractures and has been classified in a moderate condition, at an Auckland Hospital. Two of the injured taken to the hospital have been treated and released. The remaining two passengers were treated at the airport on arrival before being taken with the other passengers to local hotels.

"The safety of passengers and crew is always the company's number one priority. United's teams in Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. worked closely with the crew to establish a response plan that enabled the aircraft to land as soon as possible so as to ensure that all injuries were dealt with quickly.

"United over-nighted the customers and crew in Auckland, New Zealand and the flight is scheduled to depart Auckland, May 2nd at 6:30PM (Auckland time) with a 10:55AM (pacific time) scheduled arrival in San Francisco.

"There were 269 passengers and 21 crew members onboard flight 862."

MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT - Click Here
http://tbutton.prnewswire.com/prn/11690X27977644
© 2002 PRNewswire


Radeng, the number of passenger injured each year is well more than 60 these days. If you are interested you can take a peek at the ntsb website that has accidents and incidents summarized by day. Almost every other day someone is breaking a bone.

Keep up the interesting posts, and buckle up!

BBB

[brit bus driver]

If I could tell the CC how long the turbulence was going to last, I'd have patented it by now, and retired on the profits!

It causes far too much chat on 123.45, especially when it's never worse than light chop.

The value of the Seatbelt sign has become devalued. I get bloody frustrated when I'm in the back and people are blatantly ignoring the signs. Flew AA a few months ago; the Capt advised the CC to take their seats (obviously going to get a bit rough, thinks I) and STILL there's some wazzock getting up to visit the gents.:mad: :mad:

Th other gripe is standing up before we reach the gate....I find a judicious dab of excess brake pressure usually sorts that one out:D

[Neo]

britbusdriver,

I've heard some of my colleagues bandy this about, but if someone falls over and injures themselves or others, you may have to spend some time post a long duty day filling in endless forms. As far as I'm concerned, passengers can be cretinously stupid when it comes to their own safety aboard aeroplanes. However, there is a strong argument that the airline and you are not liable if the seatbelt signs are illuminated, a lawful command of the Pilot in Command.

If it happens, try this instead.

Bring aircraft to a halt on the taxiway. Set parking brake and advise ATC you will be stationary for about 5 minutes. Call in the Purser/No. 1 and advise them that you are about to make a PA and would like them to carry out the standard cabin secure check just like thet do before take-off. Then get on the PA and lecture passengers about safety, possibility of having to bring aircraft to halt suddenly in case of fire, brake fire, you name it. (Sometimes I think you can justify scaring the bejeezus out of the passengers if they are so complacent as to wander about the aircraft whilst taxying.) Add in some preaching about no point in rushing as they will only have to wait at baggage reclaim for their bags.

Finally, advise pax that you will not be moving again until pax are all seated, belted up and secure check satisfactorily complete.

A slight rant maybe, but I hope you find it a useful idea.

Anyway, it worked a treat when I tried it.

[Anti-ice]

Certainly with our airline, when the sign goes on, a PA is made ,
a cabin check is carried out,and confirmed to the flight-crew.

If someone gets up, they are always politely asked to take a seat, and if they refuse,then at least they have been told and have no comeback.

Similarly, if they really need to visit,then they are warned of the possible danger/implications and that any resultant injury is their own responsibilty. simple.As long as you remove yourself/your company from their actions .

[gulf_slf]

Neo,

Can I have your ops manual so that i can send it to that lot with the 'fastest growing airline' that wins lost of awards (how?) in a certain Gulf emirate?

If they do you what you suggest I would prably not have sustained a large lump on my head, when a SLF on BOM-DXB sector, just as we were taxying to the stand, took it upon himself to undo his seatbelt, move forward and open the cabin locker above my head, bringing down a very heavy object on my head, causing bruising and grazing across the back of my head.

Although the crew were exemplary in ensuring that the correct paperwork was filled in for a complaint, the pax departed the a/c without even a slight rebuttal from the airline about his actions.

The airline wrote to say that it was unfortunate incident I had experienced however avoided any mention of an apology lest it open themselves up to legal action. Public relations doesnt seem to be their strong point....

However this was not an isolated incident with carrier as on several occasions on the DXB-BOM sectors where pax gathered their belongings and began trail down the aisle toward the front of the a/c before it came to a complete halt. It became obvious that the cabin crew:-
1) Couldnt care....
2) Were not always aware that Pax were moving as their jump seats were obscured from seeing to the rear of the A/C (install CCTV??)
3) When asked about the matter the senior cabin crew whilst sympathetic and in agreement stated that they had little authority to back up their insistence that the pax sit sit down while the a/c was moving, i.e. no real punitive measure that could be taken lest they offended their adoring passengers and lost another coveted airline award!!

I would like to agree with BritishBaus Driver that hitting the brakes is a good deterent for future incidents, but each time that you do it the plonker in the aisle is likely to land on top of me,(or other innocent) rather than injure himself/herself!!

I reckon that if Skippers could see half of what was going on during the taxi, they would halt the a/c and come back with a whip until all pax were back in their seat and belted up!!
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[lgtjanssen]

Maybe pilots should also remember to switch off the seatbelt sign if it's not necessary. I just recently flew Sao Paulo - Paris (an 11 hour flight) and the pilot managed to keep on the seatbelt sign on for almost the entire flight. Apparantly the pilot forgot to switch off the sign as apart from some turbulence in the first hour of the flight everything went very smoothly and on final approach to Paris he first switched off the seatbelt sign before switching it back on. Needless to say every passenger ignored the sign as on an 11 hour flight you must (at one point) visit the toilet.

[Captain Stable]

lgtj, pilots sometimes forget to do things. Inevitable, the seat belt sign will be one of them on occasion. On such occasions, it should not be beyond the wit of the cabin crew to ask whether it is remaining on for a reason. Cabin crew being too afraid to question pilots' actions was one of the factors of the Kegowrth 737 crash.

[TikkiRo]

Perhaps it's now time to start getting someone at government level to legislate that it would be illegal to not wear a seatbelt as instructed on a plane (or even a bus if it ever happens) - just because we have personal responsibiilty for the safety in our own transport i.e. cars, why should it be any different as passengers on someone elses i.e. planes. If not obeying seatbelt signs was as illegal as carrying offensive weapons now is, then perhaps people would take a slight bit more notice, although the old problem of enforcing the issue would still remain. Presumably details could be passed to police on landing though?? :D

[Captain Stable]

Tikki, I'm not sure what you think "Disobeying a captain's lawful command" is doing in the ANO, but it's there. Not wearing a seatbelt when the sign is illuminated is illegal.

[simfly]

With regard to the poll question - are pax disrespectfull, I was slf taking off on a BA flight from ABZ to LGW in Jan. As we rotated the C/A yelled across the P/A for us to remain in our seats. To my amazment, I looked round and saw a pax behind me standing, opening up a locker! Getting out of your seat during turbulence because of the risk of wetting yourself is bad enough, getting out of your seat whilst taking off is inexcuseable. With millions of pax travelling frequently, it does not surprise me that there are some numptys out there.

[Fox Lima]

Before 9/11 I had an open cockpit door on almost all flights and many of our pax visited the cockpit.

From their questions I learned that the majority of pax has absolutely no idea of what turbulence is. They even talk about holes in the air and the aircraft is falling into it, but who of us pilots has not heard these funny things??
So I thought of a short comparison to make an explanation.

My intention was (and still is) to tell my pax that turbulence is nothig to worry about if it is handled correctly, but if not it may be harmful.

So, here is my little story:

Air can be compared with water. There exist no holes in the air as there are no holes in water. As everyone knows there are waves on the surface of the water, either at sea or at rivers, especially if a river turns around a corner. The good thing with water is that you can see the waves and everybody knows what happens to a ship if the ship cruises over the waves.
Well, the same thing happens to the air. The daily weather forecast on tv shows satelite pictures of our weather and you can easily see that clouds and air moves not only straight but in curves. Unfortunately our routing today guides us along the edge of such a curve.
The same thing that happens to water in a curve happens to the air, the only difference is that we cannot see the air as we can see the water. Our aircraft behaves like a ship on waves with the little difference that we a just a little bit faster than a ship and therefore the waves we feel are not felt as a smooth up and down, they are felt as hard strokes and chokes.
Our aircraft is constructed to resist these chocks and we have to secure ourself with the seatbelt in order not to be thrown through the cabin.
I am sorry for any discomfort caused by the turbulence but we do our best to have the flight as smooth as possible and I ask you to remain seated with your seatbelt fastened for your own security as long as the seatbelt sign is on.
Thank you.

I have received a lot of positive feedback from our pax for this 2 minutes time, which are required for this anouncement and after my announcement there is no problem for the cabin crew with passengers not obeying the seatbet sign.

Fly safe
Fox Lima

[throw a dyce]

Came back recently with SIA from Singapore to Heathrow and twice the seatbelt sign was switched on for chop for about 30mins.On each occasion after 5 mins the cabin crew lost interest rapidly followed by the pax,and everyone was moving around with the plane bouncing along,in moderate turbulence.
On the other side of the fence when I was working in ATC in Hong Kong,we had a China Southern who encountered severe CAT over Macau inbound to CLK.However the pilot said absolutely nothing about it either to Radar or Tower,and the first anyone knew was when they opened the door and out spewed numerous injured pax.
I just keep the belt fastened tight all the time especially on Far East airlines.Some don't give a toss even if you do hit the ceiling.

[gulf_slf]

Have just arrived back from DOH to DXB on on that same airline that prides itself on so many awards!

Again the situation arose where we were taxying to the stand and there is a slight pause before the skipper completes his final move along the airbridge. It was an instant cue for a pax to be out of his seat and to open the overhead locker.

No CC on hand to tell him sit down as there jump seat positions are obscured from the cabin(need for CCTV?) and as the curtains have beewn fastened during the taxi so the great 'unwashed' at the back cannot see the forward cabin (surely a breach of the usual rules to have them closed before the a/c has finished docking ??)

Thus in order to inform the PAX that the a/c is still in motion & that he should sit down as his actions endanger others, I have to call across the cabin !!
(THIS IS NOT MY JOB BUT I DONT WANT RECURRENCE OF A BAG ON MY HEAD AS HAPPENED ON ONE OF THEIR FLIGHTS 2 YEARS AGO!!)

As I depart from the a/c I report the matter to the CC on the door, but there is little that they can do as they did not witness the incident and they again admit that there is little that they can do. My letter to airline is to follow in the next couple of days !!

However, on the walk ( Marathon ?) to the immigration hall, I am approached by the person's Levantine friend who berated me for calling across the cabin to tell his companion to sit down.

It is a long walk from the airbridge to immigration in DXB airport, so anybody who has been there will know the length of the conversation that took place, on the merits of cabin safety versus the embarassment and loss of face on his part!
Obviously there are cultural differences as to the perception of being polite versus having a 160kg body hurled at you with bags should the skipper have to brake suddenly!!

This is an issue for the CC's to rigorously apply (why else are they there?) and get the senioor CC to double up on announcements in the taxi and emphasise the safety aspect, or as NEO suggested earlier, get the skipper to halt the a/c in a safe location, until all PAX are secured!

Whilst it is law in the UK to obey the seat belt sign, but not in this part of the world, as far as I am concerned the skipper has 'de facto' rule of law for all souls aboard. (I wonder if PAX on this airlines A/C's at British airports indulge in this sort of carelesss beahviour?)

If this airline in question, does not enforce the rules strictly it will be only a matter of time before a pax takes out a legal action against them in the UK or US (when they start flying there!) or wherever an action will stick for endangering the pax on their flights!!
Nuff SAID!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[lgtjanssen]

What suprised me most is that cabin crew sometimes are apparantly afraid to do something about passengers who not obey the fasten your seatbelt sign. On my recent Sao Paulo - Paris flight a passenger opened the overhead locker (and left it opened) while the plane was taxiing at CDG airport. None of the cabin crew bothered to close the overhead locker and talk to that passenger even though one cabin crew member past the overhead locker.

Allthough it may be good there is a law against not wearing your seatbelt when the sign is illuminated you also have to have the cabin crew to enforce these laws. Unfortunately I don't see this happen.

[EGLKFlyer]

Flew LHR-SFO-PHX-ORD-LHR about a month ago. All UA and all except the ORD-LHR had one thing in common: neither the CC nor the PAX took one little bit of notice of the seatbelt signs. (Sorry to pick on one airline, I'm not saying that they're worse than anyone else...)

On the LHR-SFO leg, the CC were standing in a huddle next to my seat complaining to each other that the FSB sign was on and the PAX weren't sitting down. Not one made any effort to go and speak to those concerned. :confused:

The only person who made a difference was a steward on my last flight who, as soon as the signs went on, sat down on the crew seats beside the toilets (middle of cattle class, 777) and forcibly told the wayward PAX to go back - and cross their legs.



On the UA flights in question, they always repeated the same phrase at the end of the safety demo. "Federal Law requires all passengers to comply with lighted signs, placards and crew member instructions" (see, I was awake for those 3 minutes ;) ). So why not invoke Federal Law? On arrival at the gate, the sight of a big Marine + semi-automatic coming for Mr Awkward in 12C would probably make the others think twice on the return journey!

[flapsforty]

Not disputing that there might be some lazy/incompetent FA's out there.

But have you people ever thought about what kind of management these FA's work under?
If a pax complains to management in the companies mentioned here, does management back up their cabin crews?
Or does it send an apologetic letter to the complainer and calls in the "offending" FA for a warning?

In our mob, we all know that on this front management will back us up. So we don't have to be afraid to speak out, forcefully at times, and tell pax to sit-down-right-NOW.