20 Hurt In Severe Turbulence Over Alaska
 

More than 20 people have been hurt by turbulence on a flight from Washington DC to Tokyo.
Although there were no serious injuries, at least one passenger may have fractured a leg, and others have complained of pain and bruising.

Police at Tokyo's Narita International airport said the United Airlines flight hit turbulence over Alaska but the Boeing 747 eventually managed to land on schedule.

United Airlines spokesman Mike Trevino said that about halfway into the 13-hour flight, the pilot advised passengers to put on their seat belts.

A short time later, the plane "experienced moderate turbulence."

Turbulence Hits US To Japan Flight And Injures About 20 People - Plane En Route From DC To Narita | World News | Sky News

For those not wearing their seat belts they deserve everything they suffered. The same for those not wearing them reasonably tight. :=

Don't "Misunderestimate" Alaska
 

When the winter winds come howling out of the north, Mt. McKinley and other mountains and ranges generate lots of severe turbulence. The winter bump is known to the locals flying out of Anchorage, who stay slow until climbing through it, but the pilots of a C-47 load of jumpers in about 1948 were apparently unaware. The plane split apart, and the only survivors were some of the jumpers.

An Evergreen 747 taking off out of ANC in March, 1993, hit severe turbulence, and found damage to control surfaces upon landing JFK. A second EV 747 taking off from a cross runway just after that hit severe turb at 2,700 feet, which tore a pylon in half. The engine landed in a parking lot in downtown Anchorage, harming no one.

GB

My favourite thing about this thread so far is the word 'misunderestimate'....it's awesome. I will use it in my PA tonight.

A second EV 747 taking off from a cross runway just after that hit severe turb at 2,700 feet, which tore a pylon in half. The engine landed in a parking lot in downtown Anchorage, harming no one.

GB in regard to the B747 that had the engine torn of, this is only a small part of the story, when the engine came of as it was designed to do it went over the wing unfortunately as the A/C was on the climb out the LE & TE flaps were still deployed the engine took out a fair amount of them, Elmendorf were requested to shadow the A/C which as you said landed safely, it was later revealed that the damage that occured was never foreseen and could/should have caused it to crash. The Capt. was a certain Larry. BRAn. an old Friend from my days at polar.

Misunderestimate
 

Oh, I didn't invent the word; Pres. George W. Bu$h did. His English is legendary.

"The terrorists are trying to harm Americans, and so are we." "Nukular"

GB

I've had the cabin crew strapped in descending through FL200 inbound to Anchorage; the highly professional Anchorage ATCOs put a turbulence warning below that level on the ATIS; and they were bloody well right!

The entire North Pacific Rim can be very turbulent in my experience. It makes sense really. Big body of water meeting a big land mass with high terrain. I have had severe turbulence all over the world but it is uncommon and usually on the Pacific and the Bay of Bengal.
My worst ever event was over Biscay from Cork to Malaga in a 146 about 10 years ago. Tough old bird that 146.

Tom

It never ceases to amaze me how many people immediately undo their belts when the sign goes off (Mrs DG included) and are terribly resistant to putting them back on even when the sign is on - and then try only to do them up as loosely as they can get away with. Maybe a video of the dangers of severe turbulence as part of the safety brief would help avoid the injuries.

My gut feel tells me that there are far more injuries due to turbulence than anything else so why not make a far harder point ? Or is the publicity deemed to be too negative ?

It is that woman Sarah Palin's fault if it happened in her airspace !!!!

Not much of the milk of human kindness in your veins, eh?

But a great deal of reality as people not belted are a hazard to themselves and others. On a recent flight at night, in the climb through a decaying area of convective activity, the seat belt sign was not turned off after take off though the cabin crew were gonged to start their duties.

Seated in an exit row on a 777, as soon as the crew in the seats facing us got up, the Frenchman next to me undid his belt. He was asked to refasten it, which he did. As soon as the crew disappeared he undid the belt again and hid it under his blanket.

A while later, in the cruise, we hit some moderate turbulence (overhead bins creaking, sideways and vertical motion, acceleration and deceleration). The seatbelt lights were flashed and gonged and the cabin crew came around to check belts (on departure the Captain had mentioned turbulence and asked for people to keep their seatbelts fastened - at least until the seatbelt lights went out and even then to keep them fastened - and the Purser had given BA's excellent briefing on seatbelt use whilst we were in the climb). The crew noticed one end of the Frenchman's belt hanging down from under his blanket and asked him to fasten it over his blanket - as had been mentioned by both the Captain and Purser. This he did but within minutes he released the belt and hid it in the folds of the blanket.

A few moments later one of the cabin crew came back and sat down opposite us and started to fill out somekind of form. We hit a particularly hard "rock" moving sideways and downwards and our friend's belt fell out of his blanket. When the crew member asked him to fasten the belt he made out he did not understand (though his previous conversations with the crew were in English). By gesturing and pointing at the sign the crew member had him fasten the belt again and helped him adjust his blanket.

Once away from the area of turbulence the seat belt sign went off and he undid the belt. Throughout the night he was regularly visited by a female passenger who sat on his knee and spent long periods kissing and stroking his face.

After some hours we hit a little light turbulence which, whilst not particularly causing unexpected motion, was persisitent. After a while the belt sign went on. The woman was sitting on the Frenchman's knee at the time and did not move, nor did he fasten his belt. She only returned to her seat under protest and he made another "I don't understand" pantomime about his belt.

Some people lose all common sense when they travel by air. It can be seen in behaviour at airports and on board. To not keep the belt fastened unless moving round and to ignore the fasten seatbelt sign is sheer stupidity. To do this in an exit row with over 4 feet of clear space in front and a greart deal of headroom is nothing short of moronic and, had our friend ended up damaged as a result of his behaviour I, for one, would have shed no tears.

Anyone who reads these boards regularly knows I have little tolerance for people who disobey the belt sign.

But I would be upset if anyone was injured.

Sorry is this offends you.

Doesn't offend me at all. As far as I'm concerned, people who take risks and disobey sensible, logical rules which are there to protect them and are repeatedly pointed out to them, should have no recourse to the sympathy of others.

Unbelted FOD
 

How many are injured by unbelted pax falling on them?

I would have asked the CC to seat the guy somewhere else if there were empty seats. If he can't follow instructions in English, he has no business in exit row.

GB

As someone who sees it all the bliddy time I personally think there is something sociopathic about people who seem to think that the rules do not apply to them and that they feel the need to have control and indeed power over a situation as petty as a seatbelt! :}

Just like the moron I witnessed going through security in T1 a few hours ago... he refused to tear his Blackberry from his ear for a minute (or indeed wait and finish his call) in order to pass through the metal detector. When confronted by the security scanner people on the other side (who for a change where actually very well mannered and indeed friendly and helpful to everyone else from what I could see) he then started doing that really stupid and pathetic "Im an important person" counter arguement thing where he tried to poke holes at every explanation given to him. In the end however he was just hauled off by the Mets finest! I doubt his office will be too happy with him when they find out!

No, rather more than a bit.

The definition of a sociopath is a person who demonstrates extreme anti social attitudes or behaviour.

Having no sympathy for injured people is somewhere along the continuum between normal and sociopathic tendencies, thus my comments.

As for your ranting about my attitudes, you obviously have not read my opinions on here over the years, so for your benefit

• I regard people who disobey the seat belt sign as highly irresponsible
• I get annoyed when cabin crew do not enforce the belt sign
• I once pressed the call bell to alert the crew to someone playing games like the French guy you mention, even though I knew it would cause bad feelings

By the way, what action did you take to contribute to a safe flight? Did you report the actions of the French guy to the SCCM?

But I would not wish for someone to be harmed or be pleased if they were.

I hope that your comments are ill considered and bullish, for if they are not, your are not in a good place.

But he didn't when challenged by the crew, did he?

I was going to let this one pass, but it needs an answer.

Yes, I would. I would also feel sympathy for any relatives.

I would also feel that he was responsible for his own choices (locus of control, if you wish to reference that) and a danger to the community, as well as knowing that he had broken a criminal law.

Balanced people can see more than one perspective.

Hi Paddy

How are things?

Whether sociopathic or not (and it may be), it needs a firm reaction.

Too often, one sees people wandering around the cabin with the belt sign on and cabin crew not reacting (never on your mob :ok: in my experience.)

By failing to stop people behaving this way, the crew are conditioning them (training) that this behaviour is okay - and it is not.

The SLF who does not keep a belt on is not only a subject for Darwin's wrath, he becomes a missile that's a hazard to me and to others. The airline has a duty to prevent pax from harming each other.

OTOH, if his belt is loosely fastened, he's mostly a danger to himself.