View Poll Results: Do you think passengers have become more angry and disrespectful
Yes
61
58.65%
Yes, but only to the cabin crew
15
14.42%
No
18
17.31%
Who cares?
10
9.62%
Voters: 104. This poll is closed
The seatbelt sign is on
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the problem derives from a crew attitude, or is it company policy, that the seat belt sign stays on til TOC + 10-15 minutes, when not a cloud is visible, and an absolutely smooth ride is felt. Then the cockpit says something like "We might let you up for a few minutes, so you 120 pax can share 3 toilets" (but only when the F/A's aren't serving; otherwise the aisle is blocked), leaving 4.5 minutes for all of them during a 3 hour flight to pee. My point is, if the air is obviously clear & smooth, then climbing thru 10,000' let 'em up. If you don't, you invite contempt for the signs; which boomerangs when they really should be on. Maybe the answer is pax pee bags?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic,
several types of turbulence have been mentioned, including CAT which is obviously more likely to cause problems.
I don't know the name of the phenomena, it was a while since i learned of it, but it can cause an a/c to lose altitude extremely rapidly for several hundred feet and is related to changes in air density if my memory serves me correctly, i recall some pilots suffering severe leg injuries in a full motion simulator when the computor tried to simulate a drop of thousands of feet!!
I would have thought that would pose a pretty big hazard or is it quite rare and/or easily detectable?
thanks
G
several types of turbulence have been mentioned, including CAT which is obviously more likely to cause problems.
I don't know the name of the phenomena, it was a while since i learned of it, but it can cause an a/c to lose altitude extremely rapidly for several hundred feet and is related to changes in air density if my memory serves me correctly, i recall some pilots suffering severe leg injuries in a full motion simulator when the computor tried to simulate a drop of thousands of feet!!
I would have thought that would pose a pretty big hazard or is it quite rare and/or easily detectable?
thanks
G
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't know what the big deal is. If the pax want to get up and wander about while the seat belt sign is on, that should be their problem. Chlorine in the gene pool and all that...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew MAN-ATL last month, and had a pretty smooth flight - a few wobbles a couple of times, but very minor compared to what I would regard as turbulence. However the seatbelt signs stayed on for about 45 minutes after everything went smooth on both occasions - there may have been a very good reason for this, but after a while people started making their own decisions about standing up. I guess my point is that although the seatbelt signs may not always be at the top of the tree as far as flightdeck activity is concerned, prolonged periods of smooth flight with them switched on causes the SLF to take less notice of them - with unfortunate consequences when the aircraft hits something rough.
That flight contrasted with a BA flight back from Orlando a few years ago where the seatbelt signs were on for quite a while, with minor turbulence (but sufficient that I think most crews would have used them). After a bit people started going to the toilet anyway, which triggered an announcement from the cabin crew about sitting down. The first officer then came on having overheard this, and reiterated the message firmly, but not (I thought) in an unreasonable manner. Obviously someone took exception to this, as a short while later he came back on to apologise for being too forceful! You can't win!
That flight contrasted with a BA flight back from Orlando a few years ago where the seatbelt signs were on for quite a while, with minor turbulence (but sufficient that I think most crews would have used them). After a bit people started going to the toilet anyway, which triggered an announcement from the cabin crew about sitting down. The first officer then came on having overheard this, and reiterated the message firmly, but not (I thought) in an unreasonable manner. Obviously someone took exception to this, as a short while later he came back on to apologise for being too forceful! You can't win!
I read in Flight magazine about 20 years ago that around 60 pax a year were injured over the North Atlantic because of ignoring seat belt signs and turbulence. Since then, I ALWAYS wear the seatbelt when seated......when the sign comes on, I then check it. But my several recent flights with BA to Stockholm have seen the seat belt sign only when necessary, so getting to the loo hasn't been a problem.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was flying JFK-LHR on a US carrier once, with the seat belt sign on in light chop that had been going on for about 30 minutes. In the opposite aisle, a couple of Americans were standing up having a chat, totally ignoring the sign. The flight attendants were ignoring the men.
Now, I'm curious to know what the legal position would be (i.e. who would be liable) if we had suddenly hit more severe turbulence, and one of the blokes standing up had fallen on me heavily, injuring me in some way (say a broken arm or nose, worst case scenario). The men? The individual flight attendant? The airline? Just curious...
By contrast, one of the FAs on a BA LAX-LHR a couple of years ago must have had a word with the flight deck - the F/O put on his best butch voice and said "We don't put the seat belt sign on for our amusement. We put it on for your safety. Now will you please make sure your belt's fastened!"
Now, I'm curious to know what the legal position would be (i.e. who would be liable) if we had suddenly hit more severe turbulence, and one of the blokes standing up had fallen on me heavily, injuring me in some way (say a broken arm or nose, worst case scenario). The men? The individual flight attendant? The airline? Just curious...
By contrast, one of the FAs on a BA LAX-LHR a couple of years ago must have had a word with the flight deck - the F/O put on his best butch voice and said "We don't put the seat belt sign on for our amusement. We put it on for your safety. Now will you please make sure your belt's fastened!"
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devaluing the Seatbelt Sign
This question of reducing the impact of the setbelt sign is an interesting one. Not long ago I flew with BA to SFO. At the first signs of even a slight bump the signs came on and stayed on for at least ten minutes of smooth flight. On the first time the crew came thru the cabin and checked that everyone was secure, but as this process was repeated they seemed to take less and less notice of the sign. After several hours they pretty much ignored it.
In defence of the captain, he was on a final command check and may have been anxious to go by the book. Also there may have been forecast CAT and each bump may have seemed like it could be the onset of a prolonged bout of turbulence. However, this illustrates the dangers of indiscriminate use of the seatbelts sign.
Another good example is when we encounter en-route Cbs that we have to weave around. Naturally the seatbelt signs come on, but because of our obvious skill as pilots (!) the passengers don't feel a thing. In those situations a PA explaining what is about to happen will reinforce the fact that, although everything will appear smooth, the signs are on for a good reason.
In general I try and use the signs sparingly, reinforcing them with PAs when I do use them. Also, a call to the cabin crew, explaining why the signs are on and how long I expect them to remain on, indicates to them that I would like them to check that the cabin is secure. I also start my stopwatch or fasten my shoulder harness as the signs come on as it acts as a reminder to me that they are still on.
In defence of the captain, he was on a final command check and may have been anxious to go by the book. Also there may have been forecast CAT and each bump may have seemed like it could be the onset of a prolonged bout of turbulence. However, this illustrates the dangers of indiscriminate use of the seatbelts sign.
Another good example is when we encounter en-route Cbs that we have to weave around. Naturally the seatbelt signs come on, but because of our obvious skill as pilots (!) the passengers don't feel a thing. In those situations a PA explaining what is about to happen will reinforce the fact that, although everything will appear smooth, the signs are on for a good reason.
In general I try and use the signs sparingly, reinforcing them with PAs when I do use them. Also, a call to the cabin crew, explaining why the signs are on and how long I expect them to remain on, indicates to them that I would like them to check that the cabin is secure. I also start my stopwatch or fasten my shoulder harness as the signs come on as it acts as a reminder to me that they are still on.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: LTN
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a SLF I do suspect that the Seatbelt sign is often used for crowd control purposes. About 10 minutes into a flight on Go last year a travelling companion was SCREAMED at by a Flight Attendant for getting up to go to the toilet while the Seatbelt Sign was still on.
Fair enough you say - however the FA was pushing a trolley down the aisle at the time - if it is safe for the crew to manipulate a very large and heavy object with all manner of lose cans of drink etc rattling around on it then I must say I felt it was probably safe for my pal to use the toilet - expecially given that we had been delayed on the ground for almost an hour between boarding and take off.
Fair enough you say - however the FA was pushing a trolley down the aisle at the time - if it is safe for the crew to manipulate a very large and heavy object with all manner of lose cans of drink etc rattling around on it then I must say I felt it was probably safe for my pal to use the toilet - expecially given that we had been delayed on the ground for almost an hour between boarding and take off.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too long ago I was travelling on a ChippyFryer ATR. One passenger got up during the climb (only about 2 mins after takeoff). The CC#1 (a big bloke) went and asked him to sit down, which he did after a little discussion.
After landing, whilst still taxying to the gate, same bloke was up and out of his seat, rummaging in the overhead bins.
The #1 made the following announcement:-
"Ladies and Gentlemen, as we have not yet reached the arrival gate, until we have come to a stop and the captain has switched off the Fasten Seatbelts sign, please remain seated with your seatbelt securely fastened and yes, sir, this DOES INCLUDE YOU."
He got a silent three cheers from me for that.
After landing, whilst still taxying to the gate, same bloke was up and out of his seat, rummaging in the overhead bins.
The #1 made the following announcement:-
"Ladies and Gentlemen, as we have not yet reached the arrival gate, until we have come to a stop and the captain has switched off the Fasten Seatbelts sign, please remain seated with your seatbelt securely fastened and yes, sir, this DOES INCLUDE YOU."
He got a silent three cheers from me for that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having a PPL and some notion of the dangers posed by turbulence, I obey the seat belt signs diligently.
However, it is not helpful when the signs are on, the FO announces reports of SEVERE turb from flights in the vicinity and then the FAs continue to serve hot drinks.
This happened to me a couple of years ago on a Brit charter airline.
Other non flying pax were heard to comment that it couldnt be that bad if they were still serving drinks and started to move around.
The turb experienced was mainly slight, probably mod from time to time, but never severe.
However, the pax had a learning experience that the seat belt sign isn't that important.
I think that is really dangerous.
However, it is not helpful when the signs are on, the FO announces reports of SEVERE turb from flights in the vicinity and then the FAs continue to serve hot drinks.
This happened to me a couple of years ago on a Brit charter airline.
Other non flying pax were heard to comment that it couldnt be that bad if they were still serving drinks and started to move around.
The turb experienced was mainly slight, probably mod from time to time, but never severe.
However, the pax had a learning experience that the seat belt sign isn't that important.
I think that is really dangerous.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Pub
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It says in FCO's that if a PAX gets up while the seatbelt sign is swithced on then they are disobeying the captains orders and can be prosecuted under UK law.
That's good enough for me. If I don't tell people to sit down I could lose my job or one of my collegues could if I don't tell them to do it should the CAA be watching.
SImple.....and deffinately no contest.
That's good enough for me. If I don't tell people to sit down I could lose my job or one of my collegues could if I don't tell them to do it should the CAA be watching.
SImple.....and deffinately no contest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: HK
Age: 49
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very interesting points, so far. There has been a lot of mention of clear air turbulence, which is almost impossible to foresee. I try to ask ATC every sector about ride reports ahead. That seems to be accurate about 70% of the time. I was surprised by pegasus912's response - Obviously not a pilot, I hope. Here is an example how it can effect you even if you are seated:
United Airlines Statement On Flight 862
May 01, 2002 1:49:00 PM ET
CHICAGO, May 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- United Airlines UAL today issued the following statement regarding a clear-air turbulence incident overnight onboard UA Flight 862, a Boeing 747-400 from Sydney, Australia to San Francisco:
"United can confirm that flight UA862, a Boeing 747-400 that departed Sydney on May 1st at 1:35PM (Sydney time) encountered clear-air turbulence approximately three hours into its flight. Clear-air turbulence is not currently detectable by even the industry's most sophisticated weather technology. The flight diverted to Auckland Airport in New Zealand and landed safely without further incident at 11:06PM (Auckland time).
"United Airlines staff at Auckland airport met flight UA862 when the aircraft arrived and ambulances were standing by to transport injured crewmembers and customers to local hospitals. Seven injuries were reported, including two United Flight Attendants. Four of the five have what local medical officials called minor injuries such as cuts, bruises and lacerations. The fifth, a crew member, suffered multiple fractures and has been classified in a moderate condition, at an Auckland Hospital. Two of the injured taken to the hospital have been treated and released. The remaining two passengers were treated at the airport on arrival before being taken with the other passengers to local hotels.
"The safety of passengers and crew is always the company's number one priority. United's teams in Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. worked closely with the crew to establish a response plan that enabled the aircraft to land as soon as possible so as to ensure that all injuries were dealt with quickly.
"United over-nighted the customers and crew in Auckland, New Zealand and the flight is scheduled to depart Auckland, May 2nd at 6:30PM (Auckland time) with a 10:55AM (pacific time) scheduled arrival in San Francisco.
"There were 269 passengers and 21 crew members onboard flight 862."
MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT - Click Here
http://tbutton.prnewswire.com/prn/11690X27977644
© 2002 PRNewswire
Radeng, the number of passenger injured each year is well more than 60 these days. If you are interested you can take a peek at the ntsb website that has accidents and incidents summarized by day. Almost every other day someone is breaking a bone.
Keep up the interesting posts, and buckle up!
BBB
United Airlines Statement On Flight 862
May 01, 2002 1:49:00 PM ET
CHICAGO, May 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- United Airlines UAL today issued the following statement regarding a clear-air turbulence incident overnight onboard UA Flight 862, a Boeing 747-400 from Sydney, Australia to San Francisco:
"United can confirm that flight UA862, a Boeing 747-400 that departed Sydney on May 1st at 1:35PM (Sydney time) encountered clear-air turbulence approximately three hours into its flight. Clear-air turbulence is not currently detectable by even the industry's most sophisticated weather technology. The flight diverted to Auckland Airport in New Zealand and landed safely without further incident at 11:06PM (Auckland time).
"United Airlines staff at Auckland airport met flight UA862 when the aircraft arrived and ambulances were standing by to transport injured crewmembers and customers to local hospitals. Seven injuries were reported, including two United Flight Attendants. Four of the five have what local medical officials called minor injuries such as cuts, bruises and lacerations. The fifth, a crew member, suffered multiple fractures and has been classified in a moderate condition, at an Auckland Hospital. Two of the injured taken to the hospital have been treated and released. The remaining two passengers were treated at the airport on arrival before being taken with the other passengers to local hotels.
"The safety of passengers and crew is always the company's number one priority. United's teams in Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. worked closely with the crew to establish a response plan that enabled the aircraft to land as soon as possible so as to ensure that all injuries were dealt with quickly.
"United over-nighted the customers and crew in Auckland, New Zealand and the flight is scheduled to depart Auckland, May 2nd at 6:30PM (Auckland time) with a 10:55AM (pacific time) scheduled arrival in San Francisco.
"There were 269 passengers and 21 crew members onboard flight 862."
MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT - Click Here
http://tbutton.prnewswire.com/prn/11690X27977644
© 2002 PRNewswire
Radeng, the number of passenger injured each year is well more than 60 these days. If you are interested you can take a peek at the ntsb website that has accidents and incidents summarized by day. Almost every other day someone is breaking a bone.
Keep up the interesting posts, and buckle up!
BBB
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with turbulence....
If I could tell the CC how long the turbulence was going to last, I'd have patented it by now, and retired on the profits!
It causes far too much chat on 123.45, especially when it's never worse than light chop.
The value of the Seatbelt sign has become devalued. I get bloody frustrated when I'm in the back and people are blatantly ignoring the signs. Flew AA a few months ago; the Capt advised the CC to take their seats (obviously going to get a bit rough, thinks I) and STILL there's some wazzock getting up to visit the gents.
Th other gripe is standing up before we reach the gate....I find a judicious dab of excess brake pressure usually sorts that one out
It causes far too much chat on 123.45, especially when it's never worse than light chop.
The value of the Seatbelt sign has become devalued. I get bloody frustrated when I'm in the back and people are blatantly ignoring the signs. Flew AA a few months ago; the Capt advised the CC to take their seats (obviously going to get a bit rough, thinks I) and STILL there's some wazzock getting up to visit the gents.
Th other gripe is standing up before we reach the gate....I find a judicious dab of excess brake pressure usually sorts that one out
Guest
Posts: n/a
britbusdriver,
I've heard some of my colleagues bandy this about, but if someone falls over and injures themselves or others, you may have to spend some time post a long duty day filling in endless forms. As far as I'm concerned, passengers can be cretinously stupid when it comes to their own safety aboard aeroplanes. However, there is a strong argument that the airline and you are not liable if the seatbelt signs are illuminated, a lawful command of the Pilot in Command.
If it happens, try this instead.
Bring aircraft to a halt on the taxiway. Set parking brake and advise ATC you will be stationary for about 5 minutes. Call in the Purser/No. 1 and advise them that you are about to make a PA and would like them to carry out the standard cabin secure check just like thet do before take-off. Then get on the PA and lecture passengers about safety, possibility of having to bring aircraft to halt suddenly in case of fire, brake fire, you name it. (Sometimes I think you can justify scaring the bejeezus out of the passengers if they are so complacent as to wander about the aircraft whilst taxying.) Add in some preaching about no point in rushing as they will only have to wait at baggage reclaim for their bags.
Finally, advise pax that you will not be moving again until pax are all seated, belted up and secure check satisfactorily complete.
A slight rant maybe, but I hope you find it a useful idea.
Anyway, it worked a treat when I tried it.
I've heard some of my colleagues bandy this about, but if someone falls over and injures themselves or others, you may have to spend some time post a long duty day filling in endless forms. As far as I'm concerned, passengers can be cretinously stupid when it comes to their own safety aboard aeroplanes. However, there is a strong argument that the airline and you are not liable if the seatbelt signs are illuminated, a lawful command of the Pilot in Command.
If it happens, try this instead.
Bring aircraft to a halt on the taxiway. Set parking brake and advise ATC you will be stationary for about 5 minutes. Call in the Purser/No. 1 and advise them that you are about to make a PA and would like them to carry out the standard cabin secure check just like thet do before take-off. Then get on the PA and lecture passengers about safety, possibility of having to bring aircraft to halt suddenly in case of fire, brake fire, you name it. (Sometimes I think you can justify scaring the bejeezus out of the passengers if they are so complacent as to wander about the aircraft whilst taxying.) Add in some preaching about no point in rushing as they will only have to wait at baggage reclaim for their bags.
Finally, advise pax that you will not be moving again until pax are all seated, belted up and secure check satisfactorily complete.
A slight rant maybe, but I hope you find it a useful idea.
Anyway, it worked a treat when I tried it.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly with our airline, when the sign goes on, a PA is made ,
a cabin check is carried out,and confirmed to the flight-crew.
If someone gets up, they are always politely asked to take a seat, and if they refuse,then at least they have been told and have no comeback.
Similarly, if they really need to visit,then they are warned of the possible danger/implications and that any resultant injury is their own responsibilty. simple.As long as you remove yourself/your company from their actions .
a cabin check is carried out,and confirmed to the flight-crew.
If someone gets up, they are always politely asked to take a seat, and if they refuse,then at least they have been told and have no comeback.
Similarly, if they really need to visit,then they are warned of the possible danger/implications and that any resultant injury is their own responsibilty. simple.As long as you remove yourself/your company from their actions .
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neo,
Can I have your ops manual so that i can send it to that lot with the 'fastest growing airline' that wins lost of awards (how?) in a certain Gulf emirate?
If they do you what you suggest I would prably not have sustained a large lump on my head, when a SLF on BOM-DXB sector, just as we were taxying to the stand, took it upon himself to undo his seatbelt, move forward and open the cabin locker above my head, bringing down a very heavy object on my head, causing bruising and grazing across the back of my head.
Although the crew were exemplary in ensuring that the correct paperwork was filled in for a complaint, the pax departed the a/c without even a slight rebuttal from the airline about his actions.
The airline wrote to say that it was unfortunate incident I had experienced however avoided any mention of an apology lest it open themselves up to legal action. Public relations doesnt seem to be their strong point....
However this was not an isolated incident with carrier as on several occasions on the DXB-BOM sectors where pax gathered their belongings and began trail down the aisle toward the front of the a/c before it came to a complete halt. It became obvious that the cabin crew:-
1) Couldnt care....
2) Were not always aware that Pax were moving as their jump seats were obscured from seeing to the rear of the A/C (install CCTV??)
3) When asked about the matter the senior cabin crew whilst sympathetic and in agreement stated that they had little authority to back up their insistence that the pax sit sit down while the a/c was moving, i.e. no real punitive measure that could be taken lest they offended their adoring passengers and lost another coveted airline award!!
I would like to agree with BritishBaus Driver that hitting the brakes is a good deterent for future incidents, but each time that you do it the plonker in the aisle is likely to land on top of me,(or other innocent) rather than injure himself/herself!!
I reckon that if Skippers could see half of what was going on during the taxi, they would halt the a/c and come back with a whip until all pax were back in their seat and belted up!!
Can I have your ops manual so that i can send it to that lot with the 'fastest growing airline' that wins lost of awards (how?) in a certain Gulf emirate?
If they do you what you suggest I would prably not have sustained a large lump on my head, when a SLF on BOM-DXB sector, just as we were taxying to the stand, took it upon himself to undo his seatbelt, move forward and open the cabin locker above my head, bringing down a very heavy object on my head, causing bruising and grazing across the back of my head.
Although the crew were exemplary in ensuring that the correct paperwork was filled in for a complaint, the pax departed the a/c without even a slight rebuttal from the airline about his actions.
The airline wrote to say that it was unfortunate incident I had experienced however avoided any mention of an apology lest it open themselves up to legal action. Public relations doesnt seem to be their strong point....
However this was not an isolated incident with carrier as on several occasions on the DXB-BOM sectors where pax gathered their belongings and began trail down the aisle toward the front of the a/c before it came to a complete halt. It became obvious that the cabin crew:-
1) Couldnt care....
2) Were not always aware that Pax were moving as their jump seats were obscured from seeing to the rear of the A/C (install CCTV??)
3) When asked about the matter the senior cabin crew whilst sympathetic and in agreement stated that they had little authority to back up their insistence that the pax sit sit down while the a/c was moving, i.e. no real punitive measure that could be taken lest they offended their adoring passengers and lost another coveted airline award!!
I would like to agree with BritishBaus Driver that hitting the brakes is a good deterent for future incidents, but each time that you do it the plonker in the aisle is likely to land on top of me,(or other innocent) rather than injure himself/herself!!
I reckon that if Skippers could see half of what was going on during the taxi, they would halt the a/c and come back with a whip until all pax were back in their seat and belted up!!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe pilots should also remember to switch off the seatbelt sign if it's not necessary. I just recently flew Sao Paulo - Paris (an 11 hour flight) and the pilot managed to keep on the seatbelt sign on for almost the entire flight. Apparantly the pilot forgot to switch off the sign as apart from some turbulence in the first hour of the flight everything went very smoothly and on final approach to Paris he first switched off the seatbelt sign before switching it back on. Needless to say every passenger ignored the sign as on an 11 hour flight you must (at one point) visit the toilet.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lgtj, pilots sometimes forget to do things. Inevitable, the seat belt sign will be one of them on occasion. On such occasions, it should not be beyond the wit of the cabin crew to ask whether it is remaining on for a reason. Cabin crew being too afraid to question pilots' actions was one of the factors of the Kegowrth 737 crash.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N. Ireland U.K.
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About time to.....
Perhaps it's now time to start getting someone at government level to legislate that it would be illegal to not wear a seatbelt as instructed on a plane (or even a bus if it ever happens) - just because we have personal responsibiilty for the safety in our own transport i.e. cars, why should it be any different as passengers on someone elses i.e. planes. If not obeying seatbelt signs was as illegal as carrying offensive weapons now is, then perhaps people would take a slight bit more notice, although the old problem of enforcing the issue would still remain. Presumably details could be passed to police on landing though??
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tikki, I'm not sure what you think "Disobeying a captain's lawful command" is doing in the ANO, but it's there. Not wearing a seatbelt when the sign is illuminated is illegal.