American Turbulence
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, I have found that turbulence comes up as a discussion item much more frequently in N. American skies than, for example, in European ones.
It might be that the meteo people in the U.S. are more vocal and more focussed about tracking/ forecasting/reporting turbulence than their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere. Likely they have more tools for observing than many places, and a yearning to make some good use of all the data that comes from their observations.
Any negative forecast analysis inevitably filters up thru the system, even when turbulence is not a go/nogo criterion. By definition, more or less, negative forecast info must be propogated, once it is in the pipe.
It could be a cultural difference, perhaps, or just some folks out in the windy mountain-stippled reaches who are working harder to do their jobs so they can collect a pension someday.
It might be that the meteo people in the U.S. are more vocal and more focussed about tracking/ forecasting/reporting turbulence than their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere. Likely they have more tools for observing than many places, and a yearning to make some good use of all the data that comes from their observations.
Any negative forecast analysis inevitably filters up thru the system, even when turbulence is not a go/nogo criterion. By definition, more or less, negative forecast info must be propogated, once it is in the pipe.
It could be a cultural difference, perhaps, or just some folks out in the windy mountain-stippled reaches who are working harder to do their jobs so they can collect a pension someday.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 53
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking purely as SLF, I have to say that US pilots do seem to be much more conscious of turbulence ('rough air!'), and as a passenger, I appreciate that. A little bit of customer service, that comes from a professional approach?
Are US pilots more likely to encounter more variable weather than European pilots? I ask only because we in Europe tend to miss the hurricane season, that the American mid-west and Atlantic seaboard suffers from.
Are US pilots more likely to encounter more variable weather than European pilots? I ask only because we in Europe tend to miss the hurricane season, that the American mid-west and Atlantic seaboard suffers from.
Tsamaya sentle
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bazzaman96,
interesting points, but (although you also point out how difficult negligence is to prove) is it really that simple? What if you´re on the loo and the seatbelt sign goes on? What if you MUST go to the loo after the seatbelt sign has been on for 2 hours and still is? Etc., etc., etc.
I could never understand the negligence of some of my fellow pax, when the signs go on and they don´t care. Cabin crew are often having a hard time to get them seated and buckled up. Slightly off-topic legal question: what are the chances for airlines to sue resisting pax for not fastening their seat belts, if the signs are off but a PA has been made advising to always keep belts fastened when seated?
interesting points, but (although you also point out how difficult negligence is to prove) is it really that simple? What if you´re on the loo and the seatbelt sign goes on? What if you MUST go to the loo after the seatbelt sign has been on for 2 hours and still is? Etc., etc., etc.
I could never understand the negligence of some of my fellow pax, when the signs go on and they don´t care. Cabin crew are often having a hard time to get them seated and buckled up. Slightly off-topic legal question: what are the chances for airlines to sue resisting pax for not fastening their seat belts, if the signs are off but a PA has been made advising to always keep belts fastened when seated?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These days, any SLF in the US with an interest in the ride ahead can simply go to:
http://adds.aviationweather.gov/turbulence/
and scan the graphed forecasts between FLs 210 and 450 over the next 12 hours.
http://adds.aviationweather.gov/turbulence/
and scan the graphed forecasts between FLs 210 and 450 over the next 12 hours.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's exactly the sort of thing that the barristers would argue in court! Everything hinges around what is 'reasonable' - did the airline/pilot/cabin crew do what was reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the safety of their passengers? If they were less than reasonable, they were negligent.
It's a question with no answer really. To give extremes as examples, a pilot who puts his 737 through barrel-rolls and deliberate steers into known turbulent territory, or who ignores the warnings about wake turbulence and fails to keep sufficient separation...well, that's clearly unreasonable, and so negligent.
However, the example you quote, is more about whether the PASSENGER is 'contributorily negligent'.
Contributory Negligence is kinda like a defence (though lawyers would criticise me for calling it that). If a pilot is found to be negligent, by flying deliberately into turbulence, then court may reduce the level of damages awarded if the claimant (the unlucky passenger) is to blame. The extent to which they would reduce the damages depends on how 'negligent' the passenger is.
So, for example, if the passenger didn't have their seatbelt on when they were sitting in the seat, and the pilot's had switched the 'fasten seatbelts' light on, the court probably wouldn't look very sympathetically on them, as they contributed a lot to their own misfortune.
If, after two hours of the light being on, they really need the loo, and are injured in the toilet by turbulence, then the court would probably be more sympathetic, as they weren't being 'unreasonable' by using the loo. As much as pilots warn passengers to stay in their seats, I have been in situations where I've been, shall we say, quite in need of the loo, and the fasten seatbelts light is on.
In these cases, the courts would probably reduce the damages awarded, but not by much.
To give you a more domestic example - take driving on a road.
If someone is driving dangerously and crashes into you - they are guilty of negligent driving. The court may, hypothetically, award you 100k compensation for your injuries.
If, however, you weren't wearing a seatbelt, this probably increased the injuries you suffered, so the courts would reduce the damages you got (to, for example 80k), to take into account your own unreasonableness.
If, to make this an extreme example, you crashed into a guy driving negligently, but you yourself were driivng on the wrong side of the road, you're very much contributorily negligent, and the courts would probably agree with your case, but award you what is known as 'nominal damages'. The court, where the claimant is themselves largely to blame, give them perhaps a couple of pounds compensation, as a token symbol of their legal victory, but insignificant to represent their shared blame.
Ultimately, it's up for lawyers to argue what is and what isn't 'reasonable' for the passengers and pilots to do in flight. I'll have a dig around and see what British and American cases have debated this point (not many I fear!) and will see if I can put forward the picture from both sides of the Atlantic.
Sorry, just to add, I didn't notice the last part of your question.
If passengers ignore the advice given to them to fasten their safety belt, and they encounter turbulence, I'm fairly sure that, as I suggested, the courts would find them contributorily negligent and would award them either no, or nominal damages.
Sadly, this are of law - 'tort' (from the French meaning 'wrung', or 'wrong'), is quite 'simple' in the sense that companies often 'give in' to claimants rather than going through costly litigation. Hence the Director's wife in the above example was awarded out of court damages. Most companies just 'assume' they will be liable and cough up, but this isn't good - it sets a precedent for other airlines.
The way to combat this of course is for the airline industry to take a hard stance and tell the passengers to grow up, listen to what the Flight Attendants are saying and respect the fact that these are multi-tonne pieces of metal hurtling through the air at hundreds of miles an hour - you're going to expect a few bumps. Sit up and buckle up, or expect to get knocked.
The 'claim culture' isn't so prevalant here in the UK - but in the States it is (witness the litigants that successfully sued MacDonalds for 'making them fat'). We're moving that way though, with advertisements for 'have you had an accident in the past twelve months that wasn't your fault?'
They are the bane in the lives of the legal system (though generate a lot of work for tort lawyers), and they could start wrecking the aviation industry too unless a harder line is taken.
Sorry if all this is a bit boring!
Baz
It's a question with no answer really. To give extremes as examples, a pilot who puts his 737 through barrel-rolls and deliberate steers into known turbulent territory, or who ignores the warnings about wake turbulence and fails to keep sufficient separation...well, that's clearly unreasonable, and so negligent.
However, the example you quote, is more about whether the PASSENGER is 'contributorily negligent'.
Contributory Negligence is kinda like a defence (though lawyers would criticise me for calling it that). If a pilot is found to be negligent, by flying deliberately into turbulence, then court may reduce the level of damages awarded if the claimant (the unlucky passenger) is to blame. The extent to which they would reduce the damages depends on how 'negligent' the passenger is.
So, for example, if the passenger didn't have their seatbelt on when they were sitting in the seat, and the pilot's had switched the 'fasten seatbelts' light on, the court probably wouldn't look very sympathetically on them, as they contributed a lot to their own misfortune.
If, after two hours of the light being on, they really need the loo, and are injured in the toilet by turbulence, then the court would probably be more sympathetic, as they weren't being 'unreasonable' by using the loo. As much as pilots warn passengers to stay in their seats, I have been in situations where I've been, shall we say, quite in need of the loo, and the fasten seatbelts light is on.
In these cases, the courts would probably reduce the damages awarded, but not by much.
To give you a more domestic example - take driving on a road.
If someone is driving dangerously and crashes into you - they are guilty of negligent driving. The court may, hypothetically, award you 100k compensation for your injuries.
If, however, you weren't wearing a seatbelt, this probably increased the injuries you suffered, so the courts would reduce the damages you got (to, for example 80k), to take into account your own unreasonableness.
If, to make this an extreme example, you crashed into a guy driving negligently, but you yourself were driivng on the wrong side of the road, you're very much contributorily negligent, and the courts would probably agree with your case, but award you what is known as 'nominal damages'. The court, where the claimant is themselves largely to blame, give them perhaps a couple of pounds compensation, as a token symbol of their legal victory, but insignificant to represent their shared blame.
Ultimately, it's up for lawyers to argue what is and what isn't 'reasonable' for the passengers and pilots to do in flight. I'll have a dig around and see what British and American cases have debated this point (not many I fear!) and will see if I can put forward the picture from both sides of the Atlantic.
Sorry, just to add, I didn't notice the last part of your question.
If passengers ignore the advice given to them to fasten their safety belt, and they encounter turbulence, I'm fairly sure that, as I suggested, the courts would find them contributorily negligent and would award them either no, or nominal damages.
Sadly, this are of law - 'tort' (from the French meaning 'wrung', or 'wrong'), is quite 'simple' in the sense that companies often 'give in' to claimants rather than going through costly litigation. Hence the Director's wife in the above example was awarded out of court damages. Most companies just 'assume' they will be liable and cough up, but this isn't good - it sets a precedent for other airlines.
The way to combat this of course is for the airline industry to take a hard stance and tell the passengers to grow up, listen to what the Flight Attendants are saying and respect the fact that these are multi-tonne pieces of metal hurtling through the air at hundreds of miles an hour - you're going to expect a few bumps. Sit up and buckle up, or expect to get knocked.
The 'claim culture' isn't so prevalant here in the UK - but in the States it is (witness the litigants that successfully sued MacDonalds for 'making them fat'). We're moving that way though, with advertisements for 'have you had an accident in the past twelve months that wasn't your fault?'
They are the bane in the lives of the legal system (though generate a lot of work for tort lawyers), and they could start wrecking the aviation industry too unless a harder line is taken.
Sorry if all this is a bit boring!
Baz
Wherefore Art I?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near the pointy end... But not TOO near...
Age: 56
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saturn V:
Thanks for that link. Pretty cool. I'll actually forward that on to my teammates, as we fly all over the US every week. Personally, I don't really mind about turbulence (light to moderate). Just makes it tougher to use the lavs when needed.
SilverThunder:
It's not really that US pax ignore the seatbelt sign. They just have a difference perception. The seatbelt sign turning on means "Oops, better get up and go to the lav!" I see this every time I fly (usually four times a week), and especially just before landing (and I don't know why! We're gonna be on the ground in a couple minutes anyway! Hold your water, people!!!).
As far as the liability goes, though, it's all understandable considering the sue-happy society we Americans live in every day ("Your child sneezed on me! I'm going to SUE!!!). Go figure.
RD
Thanks for that link. Pretty cool. I'll actually forward that on to my teammates, as we fly all over the US every week. Personally, I don't really mind about turbulence (light to moderate). Just makes it tougher to use the lavs when needed.
SilverThunder:
It's not really that US pax ignore the seatbelt sign. They just have a difference perception. The seatbelt sign turning on means "Oops, better get up and go to the lav!" I see this every time I fly (usually four times a week), and especially just before landing (and I don't know why! We're gonna be on the ground in a couple minutes anyway! Hold your water, people!!!).
As far as the liability goes, though, it's all understandable considering the sue-happy society we Americans live in every day ("Your child sneezed on me! I'm going to SUE!!!). Go figure.
RD
