Question about procedure following turbulence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question about procedure following turbulence
Hi, hope this is the right place, not many people appear to read the Safety forum compared to the others!
I have a question regarding the appropriate procedure following an incident of severe turbulence.
A friend recently flew back from MLE in the Maldives to LGW with Monarch. The aircraft used was an A300, I believe it should usually be an A330. Approximately four hours into the flight, the aircraft experienced two bouts of severe CAT, bad enough to bounce people and drinks trolleys off the ceiling. Apparantly, the aftermath, as far as my friend could establish, was one of the passengers was injured by a trolley and may have suffered a broken hip. I can't confirm that for certain. He also stated that at least two of the cabin crew were knocked unconscious and a further four were injured or shaken to the extent that they were unable to continue with their duties. This left four cabin crew working.
With 361 seats, the minimum requirement for cabin crew is eight. My question is what action should the captain have taken with that flight?
What he actually did was continue the flight (for 6 1/2 hours) to LGW where the aircraft was met at the gate by paramedics, 2 who dealt with the injured passenger and 6 who dealt with the cabin crew.
Speaking with a colleague who has flight ops experience, he expressed considerable surprise at the fact the flight continued to destination, something I had already considered myself.
I just wanted to get some other views on the subject.
I have a question regarding the appropriate procedure following an incident of severe turbulence.
A friend recently flew back from MLE in the Maldives to LGW with Monarch. The aircraft used was an A300, I believe it should usually be an A330. Approximately four hours into the flight, the aircraft experienced two bouts of severe CAT, bad enough to bounce people and drinks trolleys off the ceiling. Apparantly, the aftermath, as far as my friend could establish, was one of the passengers was injured by a trolley and may have suffered a broken hip. I can't confirm that for certain. He also stated that at least two of the cabin crew were knocked unconscious and a further four were injured or shaken to the extent that they were unable to continue with their duties. This left four cabin crew working.
With 361 seats, the minimum requirement for cabin crew is eight. My question is what action should the captain have taken with that flight?
What he actually did was continue the flight (for 6 1/2 hours) to LGW where the aircraft was met at the gate by paramedics, 2 who dealt with the injured passenger and 6 who dealt with the cabin crew.
Speaking with a colleague who has flight ops experience, he expressed considerable surprise at the fact the flight continued to destination, something I had already considered myself.
I just wanted to get some other views on the subject.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since yours is a second hand report, one can only guess how severe the situation was for the cabin crew. Maybe they were able to fullfill their durty in the galleys or even entirely after some time out.
If, however, the number of cabin crew able for duty was indeed reduced to the number you specified, I should have expected the flight to divert to the nearest suitable airport for medical assistance and maybe crew replacement.
The decision of the commander, though, always depends on the information he/she has available...
If, however, the number of cabin crew able for duty was indeed reduced to the number you specified, I should have expected the flight to divert to the nearest suitable airport for medical assistance and maybe crew replacement.
The decision of the commander, though, always depends on the information he/she has available...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, I have been trying to "clarify" things as it is a second hand report.
My friend did say that a number of the cabin spent the rest of the flight strapped in and not working, he has said twice only 4 appeared to still be able to carry on working.
My friend did say that a number of the cabin spent the rest of the flight strapped in and not working, he has said twice only 4 appeared to still be able to carry on working.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: beds, UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that the flight should be continued unless one believes that the a/c has suffered from some sort of structural failure or damage requiring imediate rectification.
The fact that only 4 of the cc were doing their normal duties does NOT mean that they cannot do their main task, which is to ensure the well-being of the px in the event of an emergency; ie look out for their safety.
Continuing the flt prolongues the time to landing, giving the crew who were shaken by the experiece time to recover, enabling them to carry out their duties on decent and landing in the most proficient manner possible.
Basicly, there is no need to divert unless the safety of the a/c, px or crew are in jeopardy.
The fact that only 4 of the cc were doing their normal duties does NOT mean that they cannot do their main task, which is to ensure the well-being of the px in the event of an emergency; ie look out for their safety.
Continuing the flt prolongues the time to landing, giving the crew who were shaken by the experiece time to recover, enabling them to carry out their duties on decent and landing in the most proficient manner possible.
Basicly, there is no need to divert unless the safety of the a/c, px or crew are in jeopardy.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SINGLE bout of CAT occurred just over an hour in to the flight. One c/c member was incapacitated, the others bruised & shaken but OK. The aircraft was also OK, and doctors on board said there was no need for an immediate landing (- at the time the F/D were preparing to divert to Amman if required. A landing there would have been well overweight, with the condition of the flaps uncertain - not recommended). Seat belt signs were thankfully on at the time; one pax badly injured because she had undone her seatbelt.
After checking on the ground it was established that the aircraft had NOT been overstressed, but had gone from +2.08G to -.24G in 3 seconds, several times !
(Horse's mouth too.)
After checking on the ground it was established that the aircraft had NOT been overstressed, but had gone from +2.08G to -.24G in 3 seconds, several times !
(Horse's mouth too.)
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever Aircraft Type it was, the word SUITABLE AIRPORT probabaly was the main consideration for the Captain and the facilities and the time of day it happened, would be a factor. Amman,BAH, Abu Dabai or Dubai would be your only options, Id say that have reasonable Medical Facitilies. The rest of the countries in that area would meet you litterally with a meat wagon on the tarmac if any. Then there all the unecessary paperwork and crud to go thru if ya land in say Iran or alike. Thats my guess anyway..
Were the Cabin staff stil K/O d on arrival? Assuming the previous horses mouth comments were due to very large sugar lumps...
Regards
Sheep
Maldives is long haul to LGW which would be more likely an A340 or an A330 youd think. A300 is a Gas guzzler...
Were the Cabin staff stil K/O d on arrival? Assuming the previous horses mouth comments were due to very large sugar lumps...
Regards
Sheep
Maldives is long haul to LGW which would be more likely an A340 or an A330 youd think. A300 is a Gas guzzler...
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the CAT ALL the cabin crew hit the ceiling, followed by the floor, several times. Incredibly, only one was seriously injured - concussed for a long time. She was taken to hospital on arrival and released next day with black eyes and shock. The others were OK during flight, albeit shocked not surprisingly.
The passenger who ignored the seat-belt sign turned out to have a fractured hip which turned the incident in to an official AAIB accident.
Cabin service was cancelled for the duration of forecast (med) CAT, then scrapped, to allow the cabin crew time to recover - this is why many of them were sitting down for so long.
The aircraft was an A300-600, routing MLE-BAH-LGW.
The passenger who ignored the seat-belt sign turned out to have a fractured hip which turned the incident in to an official AAIB accident.
Cabin service was cancelled for the duration of forecast (med) CAT, then scrapped, to allow the cabin crew time to recover - this is why many of them were sitting down for so long.
The aircraft was an A300-600, routing MLE-BAH-LGW.
Last edited by jshg; 6th Feb 2003 at 18:49.
