United 967 diverted to DIA -- turbulence injuries

[IGh]

Cart through Ceiling, runaway down aisle, &ct

Question posed several slots earlier:

"... Are serving carts ever an issue ...?"

There should be a nice Cabin Safety web-site, citing past mishaps involving thrown carts, runaway carts (both on Takeoff roll and during landing roll).

For searching web -- nothing easily shows-up, with various groups and companies employing differing language, nomenclature: Bar Cart, Galley Cart, Beverage Cart, Serving Cart, Free Standing Wheeled Service Trolley, Galley Equipment, &ct.

Perhaps the best recent (last 20-years) exemplar -- involving several thrown Galley Carts -- was JAL 970 / 31Jan01 B747 JA8904, during NMAC- evasive maneuver (push-over). There is an "English" version that AAR Japan Transport Safety Board English Page - Aircraft Accident/Incident Investigation Reports, pdf listed by its 2001- date near bottom of that list. One Galley Cart was thrown through the ceiling-panels, and there remained in the ceiling-crown area, one FA went up through the ceiling panels, into the crown-area, but then fell back down to main-deck floor. Most of the thrown carts landed in same aisle from which they had been thrown.

AAR Section 3.2.15.3 “The Galley Cart above the ceiling” [AAR pg 174 bottom +):
“There was a risk of the galley cart that had been emplaced above the ceiling falling back into the cabin or damaging the aircraft’s flight control or other systems…. Difficult to bring the galley cart down during flight. Therefore, passengers in the vicinity were relocated … and the galley cart remained above the ceiling till landing….”

AAR Section 3.2.15.4 “Safety Measures regarding Galley Carts”
“… descends abruptly … due to turbulence etc, if galley carts are in use then there is the risk of them being thrown or toppling, resulting in possible injuries to passengers and crewmembers and also possibly causing damage to the aircraft’s flight control … systems…. it is necessary to examine new measures to strive to reduce the possibility of galley carts being thrown, by means of securing the galley carts during cabin services, etc.”

More recently, that A319 departing YVR had some issues with Galley Carts:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 2008 - A08W0007
Air Canada 190 / 10Jan08 , A319-114, C-GBHZ Encounter with Wake Turbulence upset FL366, climbing, about 8.1 miles behind eastbound B747-400, ATC provided sufficient separation, (ATC) did not issue ACA190 with an advisory ... APC, structural, upset, wake, coherent wind field, Bar Carts / Trolley hit ceiling:

"Cabin Service Trolleys and Aircraft Interior Damage"
"Two cabin service trolleys were being used by flight attendants once the aircraft had leveled off at FL 350. When the aircraft entered the upset, both trolleys lifted off the floor. One trolley struck the ceiling, damaging a plastic panel and overhead bin door. The other trolley also lifted off the floor, damaging an overhead bin door. Material from both trolleys, including coffee pots and food items were strewn about the cabin. Free-standing wheeled service trolleys are the industry standard in transport category aircraft. It is an industry-wide practice to restrain the units when not in use; however, when in service, there are no effective retention systems to prevent displacement in cabins during abnormal vertical and lateral acceleration events.
During the event, a laptop computer held by a passenger struck an overhead bin door with sufficient force to transfer paint

Regarding runaway-trolley, during Takeoff-accel' and Landing-decel' , there have been cases, eg:

Cabin Cart loose: ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT DATABASE, 19940415022719C
Departing ROME
15-APR-94, B767-300, N181DA, 3 PASSENGERS INJURED DURING CLIMBOUT WHEN SERVING CART BROKE LOOSE AND ROLLED DOWN THE AISLE.

The landing-decel' cases might be more interesting -- because with the Bar Cart on a rush-forward, into the cockpit: rumors assert the FA intentionally set-up the situation.

[ettore]

What "SABENA" stood for ?

@ OFSO

SABENA - do we all remember for what the letters stood ?

Such A Bloody Experience Never Again

or

Société Anonyme Belge d'Exploitation de la Navigation Aérienne.

You choose

[protectthehornet]

toilet vs. turbulence

you know your own body better than I know turbulence. so plan your bathroom needs accordingly and ASSUME that the seat belt sign will be on for the whole flight.

while I understand that long flights can make this tough, think about your needs before you get on the plane.

it is better to pee your self than to become a cripple by breaking your neck...it happens

[p51guy]

Know when you get on the airplane you may not be authorized to use the Lav's during climbout and initial cruise. Plan accordingly. If the seat belt sign is on your movement in the cabin is at your risk. A peek out the window might help if you think maybe it is safe but it can't insure your safety if turbulence is hit not in your seat. So far I have gotten away with this procedure as most other passengers in front of me waiting for the Lav but in cases like this one it didn't work.

[p51guy]

My worst turbulance case was when my FO who was flying was going around a cell and we had a blind lady in the fwd lav of our 727 near Cozumel, Mexico. He turned the radar up to our altitude and couldn't see the cell so turned over it. I never saw him move the pitch angle so seeing no wx let him turn. Nobody got hurt but it was really rough for a while. It was very preventable but I didn't see him move the radar to level returns.

[UAL Furlough]

I love it.....again, everyone wants to blame somebody else!!!

Lets see, you are moving 500 mph at 35,000 feet, in an aluminum tube, travelling through an airmass moving at 100 mph, with high and low pressure causing rising and falling of the air mass, you are told to wear your seat belt when seated, then when you don't you want to blame someone else for your injury....so typical of today's world where the question is always "what are you going to do for me?"

When the seat belt sign is off and you have to go to the toilet, by all means get up and go to the toilet. There is some risk management involved in the whole process. But to just sit in your seat with your seatbelt unfastened is not only dangerous and stupid, but it poses a huge threat to the other passengers that are smart enough to have their seat belts fastened.

Grow up people, quit complaining and take some personal responsibility for your own lives. The world would be a much better place if EVERYBODY took this advice.

[SummerLightning]

Totally agree. Sleeping in your own bed is not a risk-free undertaking. Neither is driving around minding your own business (I've been rear-ended twice in the last ten days, for no good reason I can think of).

I was in the loo when a flight from FAO to EMA hit unexpected turbulence about eight years ago. I managed to stop myself pitching into any hard or sharp surfaces, and after that not very frightening but quite sobering experience, I've made damn sure I go for a pee before short-haul flights and then I keep my seatbelt fastened throughout.

The only observation I would make is that airlines would be better employed instructing px pre-takeoff on what may very well arise (and what they therefore might need to do something about) during any given flight rather than filling their heads with fantastical twaddle about ditching in the ocean, manning the liferafts and blowing whistles or something (whilst remembering where the emergency exits are and trying to reach them while they gurgle down through the depths).

[Madbob]

How to prevent runaway carts.......

Ok, I've bitten.....I agree that loose trolly carts could be (are) a major hazard in severe turbulence both to SLF and especially the cabin crew.

I think the answer is to have a track that was fitted flush with the floor level and central to the aisle. The section could be exactly like the tracks used in yachts used to adjust the angle of the boom, to which the mainsheet is attached. The sheets are then attached by very durable low friction ball bearings and if a cart was fitted with a tether that had a snap-on fitting it would be a quick and simple way to secure the cart to the floor whilst allowing movement up the aisle whilst prevent it taking off under negative G.

For those ex-military types the clip could be of a similar design to the Martin-Baker clip used to connect one's PSP.....simple, strong and proven. It ought not to be too costly to implement either.

MB

[etrang]

I think the answer is to have a track that was fitted flush with the floor level and central to the aisle

Who do you suggest pays for installing the tracks, the new carts, certifying them flight safe, the cost of aircraft out of service as they are fitted, maintenance, etc,?

What happens if some foreign object gets in the track and the trolley gets jammed? What if this happens during an emergency?

[RatherBeFlying]

For securing carts, I would suggest hinged flanges at the bottom that would catch under the seats when in the aisle. Flip them back for stowage.

As a glider pilot, I find freezer bags quite handy for relief -- perhaps we need to make that standard issue for the SLF

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by cats five

I guess the natural conclusion to where you are going is every seat a pottie.

I think you are being humorous here. But actually, no that isn't where my thought goes.

What I was getting at is that it doesn't take an investigation to figure out that things can fly loose in the cabin when turbulence is encountered.

From the young lady's testimony, those passengers who are in their seats and belted (as pax are advised by the flight deck on every flight I've been on for the past thirty years or so) weren't at risk.

If you are up and about, and encounter turbulence (which can't always be predicted, clear air turbulence can surprise one, can it not?) it becomes part of the risk of air travel. We cannot legislate against Mother Nature doing what she does.

Maybe the investigation covers "how many cabin crew and pax were not in their seats" but ... I ask again, what is it that needs investigating? I may simply be missing the point. Is the point of investigating this to find out if the crew did their usual caution to the passengers? Given what was found by the NTSB in the Hudson, the great bulk of pax blow off cabin announcements. If the crew expect to encounter turbulence based on a PIREP or other input/data, the typical action is that they put the seat belt light on and advise pax to keep their seat belts on.

How often do the flight deck ask the pax to stay in their seats until the turbulence is over? I've been on a few bumpy flights, but none lately, and I seem to recall advisories from the Captain on such occasions.

People need to use the rest room from time to time, else there wouldn't be one. One cannot cacoon the pax in immense bubble wrap packages and guarantee against All Hazards, as the Insurance industry refers to it. Nearly all of the avoidable hazards can be mitigated for. If ya gotta go, ya gotta go, and if while going a patch of bad air is hit, particularly if it is unforecast CAT, how the hell is that the flight crew's fault?

[protectthehornet]

I think there could be certain structural changes to the inside of the cabin and the restrooms to minimize human to airplane crunching.

some sort of pliable netting over your head while seated upon the throne

cushioning on the ceiling of the aircraft (fireproof)

definitely, reduce the carry on bags and their weight in case they go flying too.

my airline had a CAT encounter that left one man (in the bathroom) a paraplegic due to neck injury. The seat belt sign WAS ON!!! he risked his life and although a court might have found against him in a lawsuit, our airline paid him off.

IF YOU ARE A PASSENGER and the seat belt sign is on, DO NOT GET UP> if you have to use the restroom, ask the FA to ask the pilots about the seat belt sign...they may have forgotten or might give you an idea of how long it might be.

I remind people that during flights to certain airports in the USA you may have to remain seated for the thirty minutes going and coming for security reasons.

[etrang]

I ask again, what is it that needs investigating?

There were injuries to passengers and damage the the aircraft, so an investigation is quite appropriate.

Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and newspaper reports even more so. The NTSB certainly would not rely on the former and would not even consider the latter. So until they investigate they have no way of knowing what happened. Had the press report claimed that the "Fasten Seat-belts" sign was OFF would you still assume the story was correct and that no investigation was necessary?

Even if the report in the paper is complete and accurate in every respect it does not provide a full understanding of what happened, only a very partial one.

Edited: to provide a more helpful response.

[Lonewolf_50]

The reason I ask, etrang, is that perhaps in this room full of industry professionals, someone knows on what basis, in their company, such an investigation is warranted due to having been through one.

When investigations crop up, fault finding and finger pointing are usually neighbors. Why do I know this? I've done investigations before, complete with findings of fact and opinions, and all that goes with it.
Edited:

Ah, etrang, thanks for your update, and this, which as I reflect, makes much sense.

There were injuries to passengers and damage the the aircraft, so an investigation is quite appropriate.

Now that I think of it, the NTSB, being a government body, probably has a reg that requires an investigation if injuries occur (interstate commerce and all that).

Question answered. Gracias.

[411A]

Are serving carts ever an issue during turbulence? Cannot remember reading about any instance where those caused injury.

Yes, the carts can go flying about the cabin as well.
After takeoff one dark and stormy night from CMB (enroute NRT) we firmly told the hosties to say buckled in ...they thought otherwise in back and started serving adult beverages.
BAM.
Two carts went flying, one overturning, smashing every bottle.
Fortunately, the girls were able to get out of the way, but it took at least an hour to sweep up the carts contents.
A big mess.

[IGh]

NTSB-case, & turb-injury data lacking

Latest release from NTSB states the LOCATION -- definitely NOT over the front range. Board did not mention any nearby convective-activity.

From the Board:

... Safety Board is investigating yesterday's [20July] turbulence event ... United ...967 (N773UA). ... 777-200, en route from ... Dulles) to ... LAX .. severe turbulence ... 6:14 p.m. (MDT) about 60 miles southeast of Kansas City ... 40 miles north of Springfield, Missouri ... 34,000 feet.... diverted ... Denver ... Seventeen passengers and four flight attendants ... minor injuries.... minor damage to the interior of the cabin. ... data recorder was downloaded ... received at NTSB headquarters [21Jul] ... Bill English ... Investigator- in-Charge.

That rpt says "minor injuries ... minor damage". So maybe the NTSB could ignore that case. In fact, TURB- injury data may be understated, note some of industry's disclaimers:

2008 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Commercial Airplane Accidents, TBC’s Commercial Airplane division JULY 2009

“This publication excludes events that result in nonfatal injuries from atmospheric turbulence, maneuvering, etc.”

Similarly the NTSB injury-data focuses on their class of "accident" -- ignoring other cases with turb-injury. Data is derived from injury-producing “accidents” (note this does NOT include those non- “accident” occurrences, where injuries were suffered during turbulence-mishaps)

Annual Review of Air Carrier Accident Data 2006 [NTSB, released 2010] .
NTSB Abstract ARC-10/01
Pg 13

“Turbulence ... a cause or factor in 6 (18%) of the Part 121 accidents in 2006 and accounted for 75% of all serious-injury accidents (table 11). Turbulence was a cause or factor in 21.5% of ... accidents from 1997–2006 and produced half (95) of the serious-injury accidents.... turbulence resulted in serious injuries but caused little or no damage to the aircraft.”

FAA made a commitment a few years ago, to reduce Turb-injuries:

FAA’s “Flight Plan 2004 – 2008”
Performance Target
"Reduce serious injuries from turbulence accidents by 33% by FY 2008 (from the FY 1996–2000 average of 18 serious injuries per year to no more than 12).

Turbulence: Staying Safe

• In nonfatal accidents, in-flight turbulence is the leading cause of injuries to airline passengers and flight attendants.

AC 120-88A - Preventing Injuries Caused by Turbulence - Document Information

“F/A injuries occur at a disproportionately high rate compared to other crewmembers and other cabin occupants because F/As spend more time in the passenger cabin unseated …”
Graph shows Turbulence Accidents per Million Departures (slope increasing, higher rates in recent decades)

During thunderstorm season, by late afternoon, between the Gulf of Mexico and Hudson Bay, the high levels get widely covered by that upper level blow-off from the cell-tops. Today's pilots often seem biased toward staying up high in that bumpy-cloudy blow-off. Often they think that TAS gets too low, & the fuel-burn might get excessive, if they were to descend, and cruise in the smooth clear air far beneath the high-level bumpy-blow-off cloud, VMC, visually staying away from cells.

[protectthehornet]

interesting location...60 miles from Kansas City (MCI)...I'll bet if it was 20 years ago and they were TWA they would have gone to MCI and not Denver.

Denver is a big base for UAL.

Kansas city is a fine big area with lots of hospitals too.

Also, the NTSB requires notification and investigation for a number of reasons...injuries are one of the reasons.

I hope someone does some nice Forensic Meteorology work to find out what was going on.


(and please, I do know a plane can't go straight down....a bit of circling might have been involved for a divert to MCI...but not so very much)

[protectthehornet]

IGH makes a fine point about altitude selection. One very, very, very bumpy day between Baltimore and Fort LAUDERDALE , I ended up at FL180 in my 737 to avoid turbulence. A consult with dispatch showed an increase of fuel burn by 300 pounds...quite worth it for a smooth ride.

[p51guy]

Flying my normal 757 route MIA to TGU Honduras was only two hours but for a week or two the turbulence in the mid altitudes was bad. I chose either 410 or 240 because everything else was rough. 410 was normally the smooth altitude I flew. My buddies in the 727 were stuck down low so had to jab them with 410 is smooth. A 727 could go to that altitude but only very light with standard engines.

[avicurious]

Victim of its own success

SLF here, first post, some years reading technical oriented threads.
Just a small contribution.

I think the aviation industry has a problem that was created by its own success.

On the one hand there is mass PR and overall promotion of flying as a very relaxed experience (as taking a “Bus”) and the safer way of travel – being true in general this effort has been mostly highly successful.

At the same time, many times security information and announcements are inaudible or not clear, the actual meaning of the seatbelt lights on/off are not well explained or understood, the difference between “electronic equipment” and “mobile phones” a puzzle, among other communication issues.

On the other hand, big surprise from professionals and a couple of not so nice adjectives for people that took the above advice of the relaxed experience very seriously.

This is exaggerated because most passengers just don’t travel enough to meet severe turbulence once, and fortunately, for the large majority, smooth experiences are the rule.

Thank you for carrying me