Experienced pax vs very experienced CC seatbelt thread
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the balmy beautiful south
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough Flaps Forty. All I was getting at is that it is inevitable that passengers will get out of their seats to use the facilities if the FSB sign has been left on for length periods of time (over an hour) in smooth conditions with no information from the flight deck. When I deadhead I would say that the majority of the time flight attendants become complacent during these situations and do not enforce the fasten seatbelt protocol. The passengers have a valid concern and complaint when it comes to the FSB sign protocol at many major airlines. Unless actually experiencing or truly expecting moderate turbulence it is unacceptable to keep everyone seated for hours at a time.
However, when passengers are seated I think they should be required by law to keep their seatbelts fastened.
However, when passengers are seated I think they should be required by law to keep their seatbelts fastened.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the balmy beautiful south
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We usually then agree that during night flights there will be no announcements made abut the FSB sign.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DHC6 Tropics
This is a very sharp observation and I see this regularly, too.
The unfortunate lack of intervention reinforces the behaviour, which is wrong, when negative reinforcement* would make much more sense. (*telling pax that if they wish to avoid being injured, they should remain strapped in.)
Regarding being strapped in for hours, I once endured a flight from BOS to LHR with the belt sign on for the entire 6.5 hours! Therere may have been a very good reason for it, but I don't recall a single bump apart from the landing gear contacting terra firma at London.
People just ignored the belt sign after an hour or two, which is not conducive to flight safety.
When I deadhead I would say that the majority of the time flight attendants become complacent during these situations and do not enforce the fasten seatbelt protocol.
The unfortunate lack of intervention reinforces the behaviour, which is wrong, when negative reinforcement* would make much more sense. (*telling pax that if they wish to avoid being injured, they should remain strapped in.)
Regarding being strapped in for hours, I once endured a flight from BOS to LHR with the belt sign on for the entire 6.5 hours! Therere may have been a very good reason for it, but I don't recall a single bump apart from the landing gear contacting terra firma at London.
People just ignored the belt sign after an hour or two, which is not conducive to flight safety.
It's a gamble in the end. In recent years when I have crossed the atlantic on US carriers the SB sign was on for the entire trip. We had the odd little ripple here and there which couldn't even be described as light "turbulence". Now, let me be clear, I always keep my SB fastened, but on an 8.5 hour sector I'm going to need the loo. Could be just my luck that having kept my SB on up to that point the moment I release it, "bang wallop" 3 secs of significant turb and I'm kissing the ceiling! Not the crew's fault, not my fault., just an "act of God" as they say.
In contrast to the above experience with US carriers, I find that European carriers tend to be more realistic with the SB sign. The outcome is that when it is illuminated it will generally be respected. On my last eastbound oceanic flight we never saw the SB sign despite a number of encounters with, albeit light, turbulence.
I believe that the warning given by (most) crews in their speel to pax to keep their SB on when seated should be considered legal enough protection for them from being held responsible for any pax injuries sustained during unexpected turbulence.
In contrast to the above experience with US carriers, I find that European carriers tend to be more realistic with the SB sign. The outcome is that when it is illuminated it will generally be respected. On my last eastbound oceanic flight we never saw the SB sign despite a number of encounters with, albeit light, turbulence.
I believe that the warning given by (most) crews in their speel to pax to keep their SB on when seated should be considered legal enough protection for them from being held responsible for any pax injuries sustained during unexpected turbulence.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ingerland
Age: 42
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are Right Van Horck...I sat on some flights and they kept belts sign on all of the flight...
In a different situation...Singapore Airlines, I recognised how attentive the pilots were at switching them on and off at the appropriate times...Some pilots probably forget and leave the belt sign on...some actually think about the cabin more...
In a different situation...Singapore Airlines, I recognised how attentive the pilots were at switching them on and off at the appropriate times...Some pilots probably forget and leave the belt sign on...some actually think about the cabin more...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Middle East
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps, once again, I am rather bemused at the tone of your second-but-last post, albeit the most recent one appeared to be written in a more level-headed stance. Please do not take this the wrong way or be offended by my imminent comments, but your approach in the participation of this now-divorced (from the original) thread has only served to weaken your argument, IMO. It would have been much better to employ the tact and wit and diplomacy that CC are known for with the ultimate objective of achieving a result, rather than go on a barbaric offensive which only served to alienate the audience.
I work in the industry. I am not employed by an airline, as such, directly. I DO however fly a heck of a lot. I know a lot about the superficial aspects of the service (it's not rocket science when one does it so often). I don't get down to the nitty-gritty of timings to switch on or off the seat belt signs. But the original poster made a very valid comment. I know - for a fact - that some airline crew maintain the signs illuminated longer than normal to allow the cabin crew to complete the service asap, not because the cabin crew wants to put their feet up, but because the sector time is so short that having pax in the aisle would make full service delivery extremely difficult within the alloted time.
I have been on many flights and stood in the galley and actually witnessed a cabin crew member coming forward and requesting the purser to ask the captain to switch on the seatbelt signs and make a PA about "imminent" turbulence (phantom turbulence) to ensure that a crowd of lager louts assembled near the rear galley takes their seats and stops causing such hassle to the cabin crew. I have seen this done many times.
As such, whilst still maintaining my earlier statement of UTMOST respect for those in the cabin crew profession, your original post was way off beam and did not permit evaluation of both sides of the story!!
By the way, I love your purple ink........................Happy Flying!! xx
I work in the industry. I am not employed by an airline, as such, directly. I DO however fly a heck of a lot. I know a lot about the superficial aspects of the service (it's not rocket science when one does it so often). I don't get down to the nitty-gritty of timings to switch on or off the seat belt signs. But the original poster made a very valid comment. I know - for a fact - that some airline crew maintain the signs illuminated longer than normal to allow the cabin crew to complete the service asap, not because the cabin crew wants to put their feet up, but because the sector time is so short that having pax in the aisle would make full service delivery extremely difficult within the alloted time.
I have been on many flights and stood in the galley and actually witnessed a cabin crew member coming forward and requesting the purser to ask the captain to switch on the seatbelt signs and make a PA about "imminent" turbulence (phantom turbulence) to ensure that a crowd of lager louts assembled near the rear galley takes their seats and stops causing such hassle to the cabin crew. I have seen this done many times.
As such, whilst still maintaining my earlier statement of UTMOST respect for those in the cabin crew profession, your original post was way off beam and did not permit evaluation of both sides of the story!!
By the way, I love your purple ink........................Happy Flying!! xx
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've had your fun now with a nice session of mod-bashing. I'll remind you that posting on PPRuNe is a purely voluntary: If you are that disgusted by the moderation of this, or any other forum, you always have the option of simply not visiting. There are more complicated explanations that could be offered about how and why moderation takes place on PPRuNe - I've explained them before, to little effect, so I don't propose to waste your time and mine by repeating them once more.
From now on, this thread will concern itself solely with discussion of the topic. Comments about moderators and moderation are off-topic and will be deleted. If you do not like this policy, then there will be little point in your continuing to read the thread.
From now on, this thread will concern itself solely with discussion of the topic. Comments about moderators and moderation are off-topic and will be deleted. If you do not like this policy, then there will be little point in your continuing to read the thread.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Eastern England UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A measure of common sense
My experience when flying as SLF is that short, clear instructions which seem to have a purpose achieve better compliance than broadly scoped "rules". For example, explaining to SLF that they can't take a large bag on board because it won't fit is better than stating that the bag size "exceeds company policy".
It is the same with SBs. If pax know why the sign is on they are more likely to follow. They know that on takeoff and landing there may well be "bumps" so comply. persuasion rather tha legal sanction will deliver a greater likelihood of the belt staying on when the sign is off. keeping the signs on for longer doesn't achieve anything for safety or goodwill. I have seen crews explain the benefits of keeping belts fastened and noted good compliance. I have also seen cres demanding compliance and being sworn at.
My crews keep the sign on for as short a period as possible, commensurate with safety requirements.
If anyone on this thread thinks that an announcement to keep belts on throughout the flight is going to prevent legal action in the event of CAT and injury, they are living in some land way, way beyond the clouds. If a pax is injured, s/he will sue. That's it.
It is the same with SBs. If pax know why the sign is on they are more likely to follow. They know that on takeoff and landing there may well be "bumps" so comply. persuasion rather tha legal sanction will deliver a greater likelihood of the belt staying on when the sign is off. keeping the signs on for longer doesn't achieve anything for safety or goodwill. I have seen crews explain the benefits of keeping belts fastened and noted good compliance. I have also seen cres demanding compliance and being sworn at.
My crews keep the sign on for as short a period as possible, commensurate with safety requirements.
If anyone on this thread thinks that an announcement to keep belts on throughout the flight is going to prevent legal action in the event of CAT and injury, they are living in some land way, way beyond the clouds. If a pax is injured, s/he will sue. That's it.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FarFarAway
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am guilty as charged!
I do ask the F/D to put the SB sign on when there is a rather loud, all over the place stag due on board, clearly out of control. I can't just sit them down, i have to ask everyone to do the same;
I do ask the F/D to put the SB sign on when i think the turbulence is worst at the back than the front of the cabin; again, i can't sit down just the pax at the back, i have to ask everyone to sit down and fasten their seatbelt.
I do ask the F/D to put the SB sign on when i have a medical emergency on board; it's not required, but i chose to do it so i have no pax in my way when i deal with the casualty.
I can't say anything when it comes to long haul, i don't have the (CC) experience.
However, having some serious experience in short haul as CC, i fail to understand why some pax (some being the operative word), would keep their seatbelt on in a 2 hrs car journey, without stopping to use the loo, but they won't do it in a 2hrs flight.
And why some (again, the above applies) pax complain after take off that the seatbelt sign is still on but they wanna go to the loo... You are a grown up who just left the terminal building, a terminal building with, I'm sure, more than one toilets you could use; cleaner and bigger may i add.
flapsforty, in my opinion, stated the obvious in her posts ( i would've done the same if i would've been around when it started). Very heated posts, however, we are allowed to have a personality outside uniform you know...
Where in Pprune's rules says that a Mod is not allowed to express his/her opinion?
Anyhow, that's only my opinion. But then again, there's always going to be someone who knows better...
Rgds,
ATS
I do ask the F/D to put the SB sign on when there is a rather loud, all over the place stag due on board, clearly out of control. I can't just sit them down, i have to ask everyone to do the same;
I do ask the F/D to put the SB sign on when i think the turbulence is worst at the back than the front of the cabin; again, i can't sit down just the pax at the back, i have to ask everyone to sit down and fasten their seatbelt.
I do ask the F/D to put the SB sign on when i have a medical emergency on board; it's not required, but i chose to do it so i have no pax in my way when i deal with the casualty.
I can't say anything when it comes to long haul, i don't have the (CC) experience.
However, having some serious experience in short haul as CC, i fail to understand why some pax (some being the operative word), would keep their seatbelt on in a 2 hrs car journey, without stopping to use the loo, but they won't do it in a 2hrs flight.
And why some (again, the above applies) pax complain after take off that the seatbelt sign is still on but they wanna go to the loo... You are a grown up who just left the terminal building, a terminal building with, I'm sure, more than one toilets you could use; cleaner and bigger may i add.
flapsforty, in my opinion, stated the obvious in her posts ( i would've done the same if i would've been around when it started). Very heated posts, however, we are allowed to have a personality outside uniform you know...
Where in Pprune's rules says that a Mod is not allowed to express his/her opinion?
Anyhow, that's only my opinion. But then again, there's always going to be someone who knows better...
Rgds,
ATS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seeing as we now have a changed thread......
DC-ATE wrote
This is almost apologetic in tone, it certainly does not demand compliance.
Consider the health warning on the front of a pack of cigarettes, e.g.
"Stopping smoking reduces the risk of fatal heart and lung diseases"
As we know, some people choose to ignore this warning, but there is nothing mealy mouthed about it, how about a similar sign on the seat in front....
"Wearing your safey belt when seated reduces the risk of severe injury", supported by a PA or short video on the effects of turbulence.
Do you think the industry will go for this??
DC-ATE wrote
The Seat Belt Sign is ON as you can see. While we are expecting a smooth flight, however, turbulence up here can NOT be forcast any better than the weather at your house can. There's always a CHANCE for it, just as there's always a chance for rain or snow at your house. There's even a CHANCE for rain in the desert.
Consider the health warning on the front of a pack of cigarettes, e.g.
"Stopping smoking reduces the risk of fatal heart and lung diseases"
As we know, some people choose to ignore this warning, but there is nothing mealy mouthed about it, how about a similar sign on the seat in front....
"Wearing your safey belt when seated reduces the risk of severe injury", supported by a PA or short video on the effects of turbulence.
Do you think the industry will go for this??
Guest
Posts: n/a
ATS
Appreciate the honesty and all of your reasons for asking for the FSB sign seem fair enough to me.
One of the reasons people need the loo on planes for a short flight, but not in cars is simply the physiological effect of their bodies reaction to stress.
Most pax are nervous when they fly.
Appreciate the honesty and all of your reasons for asking for the FSB sign seem fair enough to me.
One of the reasons people need the loo on planes for a short flight, but not in cars is simply the physiological effect of their bodies reaction to stress.
Most pax are nervous when they fly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ATS
The fact that they feel the need to say this speaks volumes 
The body can directly cause physiological reactions, even though the cognitive (thinking) functions know that these are inappropriate.
Do you drive a car? If so, think about a time when you had a near miss, maybe someone braked hard and unexpectedly,causing you to so this same.
Even though you 'know' you didn't crash and there wasn't time to think about it as you were reacting, your body still goes into FOF (flight or flight) mode and you get the increased heart rate etc.
So, the pax are cognitively aware that the experience is safe, but the body circumvents the conscious part of the mind.......
Ask your old man if he ever suffered from 'the leans' when flying on instruments and had to really force himself to ignore what his inner ear was telling him - it's a similar thing.
However, why (in my experience) do the same slightly nervous pax admit "Flying is the safest way to travel"?...
The body can directly cause physiological reactions, even though the cognitive (thinking) functions know that these are inappropriate.
Do you drive a car? If so, think about a time when you had a near miss, maybe someone braked hard and unexpectedly,causing you to so this same.
Even though you 'know' you didn't crash and there wasn't time to think about it as you were reacting, your body still goes into FOF (flight or flight) mode and you get the increased heart rate etc.
So, the pax are cognitively aware that the experience is safe, but the body circumvents the conscious part of the mind.......
Ask your old man if he ever suffered from 'the leans' when flying on instruments and had to really force himself to ignore what his inner ear was telling him - it's a similar thing.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Middle East
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, don't some carriers have a rule that seatbelts fastened whilst seated at all times is mandatory? Isn't that a Lufthansa policy?
Incidentally, as a FFFFFFFFP (note the number of F's), I always wear my seatbelt whilst seated. I fail to see what's so difficult about it. Over the blanket as well! It's easy! Nice and loose, but nonetheless capturing, if you know what I mean.
What do you mean about the "leans"? What is that exactly?
Incidentally, as a FFFFFFFFP (note the number of F's), I always wear my seatbelt whilst seated. I fail to see what's so difficult about it. Over the blanket as well! It's easy! Nice and loose, but nonetheless capturing, if you know what I mean.
What do you mean about the "leans"? What is that exactly?
Guest
Posts: n/a
A300 Man
Sensory illusions.....
Sensory illusions in aviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your body is screaming at you, telling you to do something that is wrong.
Not exactly the same as needing the loo on a flight, but the commonality is the body overriding (or trying to) the cognitive functions.
If you look for autokinetic illusion on the page, you'll then understand how I once took avoiding action in a light plane 3,000' over the fens, when confronted by what I later realised to be a large greehouse with the sun reflecting on it
What do you mean about the "leans"? What is that exactly?
Sensory illusions in aviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your body is screaming at you, telling you to do something that is wrong.
Not exactly the same as needing the loo on a flight, but the commonality is the body overriding (or trying to) the cognitive functions.
If you look for autokinetic illusion on the page, you'll then understand how I once took avoiding action in a light plane 3,000' over the fens, when confronted by what I later realised to be a large greehouse with the sun reflecting on it
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Eastern England UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I need the loo?
Aside from the stress, comes the boredom. When I am driving/flying I am busy and my body doesn't think about the need for a break in the same way as when I am sitting looking at the back of the seat in front.
Also have you ever seen the pax facilities at the toilets at say LGW? STN? or worst - LHR T2/T3? The gutter outside is the more sanitary option.
Also have you ever seen the pax facilities at the toilets at say LGW? STN? or worst - LHR T2/T3? The gutter outside is the more sanitary option.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Continental Europe
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure I've heard 'It is a Qantas requirement that you keep your seatbelts fastened while seated' or something to that effect.
VanHorck: The seatbelt signs are there for pax safety, not to stop you being a hindrance, that's what the restraint kit is for.
JohnMc: the need for displayed tone is because VH's comment is so far from reality it warrants a trolley to the kneecap.
DC-ATE: if you sue, ticket prices have to go up, and PAX end up paying the price anyway.... or you could just wear your seatbelt.
FlapsForty: your analogy is accurate, some FFlyers and PPL holders say the most darndest things sometimes.
Mozart21: your wealth of experience as SLF is for the most part irrelevant, because you are probably a reasonable person who complies with instructions. Whereas I might see up to 500 pax in any given work day and therefore have to deal with at least 5 nitwits per day (1% of pax) who are in the 'I'm too cool to wear a seatbelt, I'm too busy to turn off my computer, I'm to important to put my bag on the floor' category and therefore require a little 'OR ELSE' angry mommy attitude to get things done.
AbusingTheSky: And I would add sometimes we call the flightdeck to turn on the seatbelt sign because on occasion it can be terribly rough up the back near the tail while the flight deck is relatively smooth. You're right about going to the toilet, too.
My mother always told me, before travelling and going to sleep, go to the loo. She had a few other gems of advice, too, bless her.
Usually, pax will notice the seatbelt signs are still on after the cabin crew have been released (while the plane is still climbing). But this is not because we want to work unhindered, but because we are trained, experienced, able bodied and wearing appropriate footwear to be walking around in an unstable cabin. Pax are not, and even if Mr Frequent Flyer thinks he is, I cannot implement one rule for pax A, and one for frail lady pax B with weak bones.
So, if the seat belt sign is on, and you need to pee, may I suggest you press the call bell to ask an FA if it is safe to go to the toilet. If no-one comes, they are all probably strapped in too. If they say no, you can ask them to ask the Captain if they expect a change in circumstances soon, and convey your urgency
. Usually crew will say something like 'if you need to go, you need to go, but hold onto this grab rail, take care, and be aware that you are responsible if anything happens'.
Now, I'm not going to deny that bad unscrupulous airlines exist that have zero customer orientation and might have silly ideas like keeping seatbelt signs on a whole flight 'in case'. I've heard stories how crew used to count how many call bells could be on and left ignored until they hit the 'call reset' button... But fortunately these airlines are mostly on the way out and if you encounter this, don't fly them again.
VanHorck: The seatbelt signs are there for pax safety, not to stop you being a hindrance, that's what the restraint kit is for.
JohnMc: the need for displayed tone is because VH's comment is so far from reality it warrants a trolley to the kneecap.
DC-ATE: if you sue, ticket prices have to go up, and PAX end up paying the price anyway.... or you could just wear your seatbelt.
FlapsForty: your analogy is accurate, some FFlyers and PPL holders say the most darndest things sometimes.
Mozart21: your wealth of experience as SLF is for the most part irrelevant, because you are probably a reasonable person who complies with instructions. Whereas I might see up to 500 pax in any given work day and therefore have to deal with at least 5 nitwits per day (1% of pax) who are in the 'I'm too cool to wear a seatbelt, I'm too busy to turn off my computer, I'm to important to put my bag on the floor' category and therefore require a little 'OR ELSE' angry mommy attitude to get things done.
AbusingTheSky: And I would add sometimes we call the flightdeck to turn on the seatbelt sign because on occasion it can be terribly rough up the back near the tail while the flight deck is relatively smooth. You're right about going to the toilet, too.
My mother always told me, before travelling and going to sleep, go to the loo. She had a few other gems of advice, too, bless her.
Usually, pax will notice the seatbelt signs are still on after the cabin crew have been released (while the plane is still climbing). But this is not because we want to work unhindered, but because we are trained, experienced, able bodied and wearing appropriate footwear to be walking around in an unstable cabin. Pax are not, and even if Mr Frequent Flyer thinks he is, I cannot implement one rule for pax A, and one for frail lady pax B with weak bones.
So, if the seat belt sign is on, and you need to pee, may I suggest you press the call bell to ask an FA if it is safe to go to the toilet. If no-one comes, they are all probably strapped in too. If they say no, you can ask them to ask the Captain if they expect a change in circumstances soon, and convey your urgency
. Usually crew will say something like 'if you need to go, you need to go, but hold onto this grab rail, take care, and be aware that you are responsible if anything happens'.Now, I'm not going to deny that bad unscrupulous airlines exist that have zero customer orientation and might have silly ideas like keeping seatbelt signs on a whole flight 'in case'. I've heard stories how crew used to count how many call bells could be on and left ignored until they hit the 'call reset' button... But fortunately these airlines are mostly on the way out and if you encounter this, don't fly them again.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as SLF I'd like to know why some people who'll happily sit in a car for hours with their seatbelt on can't wait to get it off when they're thousands of feet up in the air ...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Continental Europe
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd love to know how a CC member can decide, with any certainty, whether it's safe to go to the loo, when the belt sign is on, without asking the aircraft commander.
Does that help F3G??