AirCanada Diversion into HNL

[Longtimer]

Air Canada spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick said the plane was about two hours past Hawaii when it hit "severe clear air" turbulenceCTV Montreal Staff
Published Thursday, July 11, 2019 12:56PM EDT
Last Updated Thursday, July 11, 2019 1:43PM EDT An Air Canada flight from Toronto to Sydney, Australia, with a stop in Vancouver, made an emergency landing in Honolulu on Thursday.Air Canada Flight 33 was two hours west of Hawaii when it encountered unexpected severe turbulence over the Pacific Ocean.The plane then turned and requested an emergency landing in Honolulu, touching down at 6:45 a.m. Hawaiian Time (12:45 EDT).A source familiar with the situation tells CTV News that 20 to 25 passengers and one crew member were injured as a result.Many of the people hurt have head and neck injuries.In a statement Air Canada said that the injuries were considered minor and that medical personnel were examining the passengers."We are currently making arrangements for the passengers including hotel accommodations and meals in Honolulu, as well as options for resumption of the flight," said a spokesperson.The plane was a Boeing 777 with 269 passengers and 15 crew members.

[Grav]

That's why i never undo my seatbelt until the plane stops at the gate, i really don't understand why as soon as the seatbelt sign is turned off almost everyone removes them very quickly, as if the seatbelts were extremely uncomfortable. Maybe they don't know how many people every year get hurt in this type of events.

[Pilot DAR]

That's why i never undo my seatbelt until the plane stops at the gate

Me too! A few flights ago, the fellow seated next to me opened his seatbelt the moment the light went off. I asked him to put the belt back on. He seemed perplexed at my request. I explained that I don't want him hitting me if we encounter turbulence. He seemed annoyed, but complied with my request.

[WingSlinger]

People do not understand what CAT can do to an, otherwise, level flight, but the airlines do not want to show them, either, in fear of scaring the bejesus out of them.

[Eboy]

Update from Honolulu TV station, with a few photos:

"Of the 37 passengers with injuries, 21 had minor injuries and nine had serious injuries."

https://www.khon2.com/news/local-news/multiple-injuries-reported-after-an-air-canada-flight-diverted-to-honolulu-due-to-severe-turbulence/

[WingNut60]

Interesting that, from photo available, of 12 masks that dropped in one section, only one was used.
That the masks dropping was unrelated to cabin pressure is not really the point.
The passengers did not know that when the masks appeared out of the roof.
Did they wait to see if they needed them before making the decision? Should they?

[lomapaseo]

Interesting that, from photo available, of 12 masks that dropped in one section, only one was used.
That the masks dropping was unrelated to cabin pressure is not really the point.
The passengers did not know that when the masks appeared out of the roof.
Did they wait to see if they needed them before making the decision? Should they?

Do you mean, wait to see if they are told to use them? or wait to see if they passed out first ?

[Grav]

At FL360 the answer to the question if they actually needed the mask should be clear in a very short time.

to be serious, i think that considering the fact that only a limited number of oxygen mask door opened, the fact that the doors were clearly opened by people's head after a sudden "drop" of the aircraft, and the likely immediate intervention of the cabin crew members to assist the passenger ruled out quickly the hypotesis that a rapid cabin decompression had occoured. But i think that i would probably had tried to use mine,

[Bangkokian]

In fairness, there is almost never one bit of explanation of *why* people are asked to do these things. I fly in the developing world a lot and no one from places like China has decades of education about the dangers of anything, not that the seat belt part is that much better anywhere else. Cabin crew don't set the agenda for what's discussed in the safety briefing, I know, it's just that the bureaucracy has forgotten the human factor. Mentioning why people need to buckle up would go a long way to helping enforcement. I end up having to explain to people to buckle their kid up because I don't want him breaking my neck, or his, if he flies out of his seat - and often they're actually pretty thankful that someone explained it.

There is zero, zero education about this stuff for the general public who don't actively seek out information or watch air crash / air disaster content, basically, so they just think it's like the train or the bus or a taxi.

"This one has a z-axis in all situations. Fasten the Goddamn belt!"

[WingNut60]

Are you sure about the masks dropping after being struck by peoples heads?
I'm pretty sure that they can sometimes just be dislodged and drop from violent movement of the aircraft.

I think that I'd have had mine on in a flash, needed or not.
If they had actually needed the masks, at FL360, then it may NEVER have become clear to them, if they waited.

[timgill]

Are you sure about the masks dropping after being struck by peoples heads?
I'm pretty sure that they can sometimes just be dislodged and drop from violent movement of the aircraft.

I remember a very hard landing at Philadelphia that resulted in about 50 masks dropping down.

[On Track]

It doesn't take much to make the masks fall down. I saw it happen on a Lauda B777 when the tug suddenly failed during pushback at Vienna. Another tug had to be called in to complete the task.

[Kooka]

Air Canada spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick said the plane was about two hours past Hawaii when it hit "severe clear air" turbulence
I'm calling bull**** on the "clear air" turbulence.

[ACMS]

Kooka......why do you say that?

[Kooka]

Because it is much, much more likely they went through the top of a buildup. You should look at all these “clear air” turbulence incidents with a great deal of cynicism. Night time, they’re always at night. In the tropics. Nowhere near a jet stream.

[Joejosh999]

I always keep my belt on, no matter length or type of flight. A bit looser once at cruise, very snug on take off/landing.
Once prior to TO in Pittsburgh, in strong winds, the Captain came over the intercom and explained snug-seatbelt wisdom: “we’d like to keep you off the ceiling.”
That always stuck with me!

[lucille]

Because it is much, much more likely they went through the top of a buildup. You should look at all these “clear air” turbulence incidents with a great deal of cynicism. Night time, they’re always at night. In the tropics. Nowhere near a jet stream.
I suspect you may be right.

[misd-agin]

Because it is much, much more likely they went through the top of a buildup. You should look at all these “clear air” turbulence incidents with a great deal of cynicism. Night time, they’re always at night. In the tropics. Nowhere near a jet stream.

Daytime IMC is also when the 'fly into a buildup' occurs. About 15 yrs ago our Chief Pilot wrote "if it's night time, or daytime and you can't see the horizon, put the radar on. We've had 5 airplanes fly into the top of buildups in the last quarter."

Weather app showed no forecast turbulence for the area. It's not foolproof but it's pretty darn accurate. But it did show a small cluster of cells/buildups in the vicinity of where the event occurred.

The next question - what radar settings were being used? The calibrated settings won't show weather that you'd avoid if you could see it with your naked eye.

[Sholayo]

Me too! A few flights ago, the fellow seated next to me opened his seatbelt the moment the light went off. I asked him to put the belt back on. He seemed perplexed at my request. I explained that I don't want him hitting me if we encounter turbulence. He seemed annoyed, but complied with my request.

Hmmm, while I am one of those keeping my seat belts on, I would not criticize anyone unbuckling rith after 'Fasten seat belts' light is off.
After all - this is clear and obvious message that we do not have to keep our seat belts - correct?
.

&

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Hmmm, while I am one of those keeping my seat belts on, I would not criticize anyone unbuckling rith after 'Fasten seat belts' light is off.
After all - this is clear and obvious message that we do not have to keep our seat belts - correct?
.

&

You don't "have to" look both ways before crossing the road. I'd suggest it is a good idea though.

[WingNut60]

Hmmm, while I am one of those keeping my seat belts on, I would not criticize anyone unbuckling rith after 'Fasten seat belts' light is off.
After all - this is clear and obvious message that we do not have to keep our seat belts - correct?
.

&

Most announcements are of the nature "The seat-belt sign is now off to allow you to move about the cabin, however we recommend .....etc."
In which case no, it is not a clear and obvious message that we do not need to keep our seat belts fastened.

[601]

put the radar on
Not on all the time?
Not included in the scan?

[MurphyWasRight]

Most announcements are of the nature "The seat-belt sign is now off to allow you to move about the cabin, however we recommend .....etc."
In which case no, it is not a clear and obvious message that we do not need to keep our seat belts fastened.

The flip side of this is many flights where the seatbelt sign is left on for most of the flight, and not just on 1.5 hour hops one city over.
This leads to the fasten seatbelt sign being treated like a 'serving suggestion' with people feeling free to use the restrooms etc with no intervention by the flight attendants.

Seems that a better idea would be a "always fasten seatbelts" policy with the sign reserved and enforced as stay in your seats.

[Euclideanplane]

Seems that a better idea would be a "always fasten seatbelts" policy with the sign reserved and enforced as stay in your seats.
There is an interesting difference in safety policy between air and road traffic here. Where I live, traveling any larger distance by a bus that is not just local and uses a highway, the official policy is to punish a passenger who does not engage the seatbelt with a fine of just around €100. I never saw it enforced, and i doubt that it is widely known. And yet it is the actual rule. But imagine how unthinkable this would be in a passenger aircraft, regardless of how much. and possibly even more, sense it would make. The rules on wearing a seatbelt in an ordinary car are of course widely observed and enforced btw, with an important difference being that by disobedience you would harm yourself in an incident, rarely others.

[Pilot DAR]

We are too politically correct in trying to suppress the risks of injury during an unexpected event. Passengers should be told: "You are riding in a plane. It could unexpectedly and suddenly pull you downward with a force exceeding your body weight, or, in the event of an emergency landing, decelerate with a force exceeding 20 times your body weight - we'd like you to wear your seatbelt to hold you in." for your sake, and the safety of people around you.

Two years ago, I ripped a seatbelt right out of a plane, I have experience with being an occupant in a landing gone wrong.

[172driver]

Seems some airlines are more proactive in this regard than others. I fly Lufthansa long-haul on a regular basis and since about a year (two?) ago, part of the safety announcements is something along the lines 'you must keep your seatbelt fastened whenever you are in your seat'. Probably not the exact wording, but it's certainly worded in a pretty strong, unambiguous way.

[WingSlinger]

Here’s an idea. Install sensors in the seat and the belt buckles. Tell the people, when they buy their ticket that they would be fined if the belt is not on, when they are seated. Allow them several (dependent on the length of the trip) "excursions" to the loo or to get stuff from the overhead. If they exceed the allowance bill their credit card, after the trip.

Yeah, I know, I am dreaming.