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
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: HK
Age: 49
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The seatbelt sign is on
NTSB Identification: IAD02LA039
Scheduled 14 CFRPart 129 operation of Foreign BRITISH AIRWAYS
Accident occurred Monday, April 01, 2002 at Atlantic Ocean, AO
Aircraft:Boeing 747-400, registration: G-BNLS
Injuries: 1 Serious, 213 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On April 1, 2002, about 2005 eastern daylight time, a Boeing 747-400, G-BNLS, operated by British Airways as flight 214, was not damaged when it encountered turbulence shortly after takeoff from Boston/General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Boston Massachusetts. The 2 certificated airline transport pilots, 15 flight attendants, and 196 passengers were not injured. One passenger sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the flight destined for London-Heathrow Airport (LHR), London, England. The scheduled international passenger flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 129.
In a written statement, the flight crew reported that 20 minutes after departure they encountered "moderate turbulence" while climbing through Flight Level (FL) 350, to their assigned altitude of FL 370. Several minutes later, they requested a descent from air traffic control to FL 330 to maneuver around the turbulence. During the descent, a flight attendant informed the flight crew that a passenger fell during the turbulence encounter and broke her right ankle. The flight crew then initiated a return to Boston, and landed without further incident. After landing, the passenger was transported to the hospital and the airplane was inspected for damage. When no damage was observed, the flight departed again at 2214, and continued to London uneventfully.
The flight crew reported that windshear advisories had been issued at Boston prior to their departure; however, no turbulence was forecasted for their route of flight. The seat belt sign was illuminated for the entire fight.
According to flight attendant interviews conducted by British Airways, the flight conditions were described as "fairly smooth" and the seat belt sign was illuminated as they prepared for the in-flight service. About 20-30 minutes into the flight, the airplane "shook briefly" and experienced a "sudden jolt." During the encounter, a passenger in seat 17J, was returning to her seat from the lavatory, when she fell and was injured. A flight attendant administered first aid to the passenger, and notified the flight crew of the injury. The flight crew then informed the flight attendants and passengers that the flight would be returning to Boston.
The weather reported at Boston, at 1954, included wind from 270 degrees at 18 knots, gusting to 31 knots, 10 miles visibility, clear skies, temperature 8 degrees Celsius, dewpoint -3 degrees Celsius, and altimeter setting 29.80 in Hg.
The weather reported at Bar Harbor Airport, at 1955, included wind from 230 degrees at 7 knots, 10 miles visibility, broken clouds at 4,300 feet, temperature 5 degrees Celsius, dewpoint 3 degrees Celsius, and altimeter setting 29.52 in Hg.
I picked up this posting from the NTSB website. I wonder how many millions are spent each year on passenger ignoring the seatbelt sign? Good thing it was just a broken ankle in this example. I read an interesting letter to the editor in an ALPA magazine from a Delta captain. He said when it comes to the seatbelt sign announcements he tells it like it is, regardless of company policy. Instead of saying it is going to get a little bumpy, he tells the passengers we are expecting moderate turbulence. Instead of saying there are a few rain showers in the area, he says there are thunderstorms. The letter he wrote goes on to talk about how he has witnessed passengers over the years ignoring the risks in travelling because they don't realize they are in any potential danger. Furthermore, when told to sit down by the FAs, passengers often become angry these days.
Scheduled 14 CFRPart 129 operation of Foreign BRITISH AIRWAYS
Accident occurred Monday, April 01, 2002 at Atlantic Ocean, AO
Aircraft:Boeing 747-400, registration: G-BNLS
Injuries: 1 Serious, 213 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On April 1, 2002, about 2005 eastern daylight time, a Boeing 747-400, G-BNLS, operated by British Airways as flight 214, was not damaged when it encountered turbulence shortly after takeoff from Boston/General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Boston Massachusetts. The 2 certificated airline transport pilots, 15 flight attendants, and 196 passengers were not injured. One passenger sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the flight destined for London-Heathrow Airport (LHR), London, England. The scheduled international passenger flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 129.
In a written statement, the flight crew reported that 20 minutes after departure they encountered "moderate turbulence" while climbing through Flight Level (FL) 350, to their assigned altitude of FL 370. Several minutes later, they requested a descent from air traffic control to FL 330 to maneuver around the turbulence. During the descent, a flight attendant informed the flight crew that a passenger fell during the turbulence encounter and broke her right ankle. The flight crew then initiated a return to Boston, and landed without further incident. After landing, the passenger was transported to the hospital and the airplane was inspected for damage. When no damage was observed, the flight departed again at 2214, and continued to London uneventfully.
The flight crew reported that windshear advisories had been issued at Boston prior to their departure; however, no turbulence was forecasted for their route of flight. The seat belt sign was illuminated for the entire fight.
According to flight attendant interviews conducted by British Airways, the flight conditions were described as "fairly smooth" and the seat belt sign was illuminated as they prepared for the in-flight service. About 20-30 minutes into the flight, the airplane "shook briefly" and experienced a "sudden jolt." During the encounter, a passenger in seat 17J, was returning to her seat from the lavatory, when she fell and was injured. A flight attendant administered first aid to the passenger, and notified the flight crew of the injury. The flight crew then informed the flight attendants and passengers that the flight would be returning to Boston.
The weather reported at Boston, at 1954, included wind from 270 degrees at 18 knots, gusting to 31 knots, 10 miles visibility, clear skies, temperature 8 degrees Celsius, dewpoint -3 degrees Celsius, and altimeter setting 29.80 in Hg.
The weather reported at Bar Harbor Airport, at 1955, included wind from 230 degrees at 7 knots, 10 miles visibility, broken clouds at 4,300 feet, temperature 5 degrees Celsius, dewpoint 3 degrees Celsius, and altimeter setting 29.52 in Hg.
I picked up this posting from the NTSB website. I wonder how many millions are spent each year on passenger ignoring the seatbelt sign? Good thing it was just a broken ankle in this example. I read an interesting letter to the editor in an ALPA magazine from a Delta captain. He said when it comes to the seatbelt sign announcements he tells it like it is, regardless of company policy. Instead of saying it is going to get a little bumpy, he tells the passengers we are expecting moderate turbulence. Instead of saying there are a few rain showers in the area, he says there are thunderstorms. The letter he wrote goes on to talk about how he has witnessed passengers over the years ignoring the risks in travelling because they don't realize they are in any potential danger. Furthermore, when told to sit down by the FAs, passengers often become angry these days.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That DL skipper is spot on. You can't really blame the passengers. Turbulence-related events might be a leading cause of injury, but they're still relatively rare, and passengers simply are not made aware of the risks.
Airlines want to convey a reassuring image of smooth flights. Turbulence is unnerving, uncomfortable, sometimes even downright frightening. So it's not talked about -- least of all on the PA announcements.
The result is that passengers are kept unwittingly in the dark about the risk of injury. If they're walking around the aircraft when they ought to be sat down, it's because they're being given the wrong information.
Airlines want to convey a reassuring image of smooth flights. Turbulence is unnerving, uncomfortable, sometimes even downright frightening. So it's not talked about -- least of all on the PA announcements.
The result is that passengers are kept unwittingly in the dark about the risk of injury. If they're walking around the aircraft when they ought to be sat down, it's because they're being given the wrong information.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew on an Amrican carries last year and noticed to my very great surprise that quite a large number of pax started moving around the cabin long before the fasten seat belt had been switched off.
The cabin crew remained strapped into their seats and quite ignored the fact that these people were walking around.
Which struck me as very strange.
Asked the lead FA about this later and she told me it was quite common. "they don't listen anyway, so we don't bother".
Which struck me as even stranger since in our mob, or any other European carrier I've ever flown on, there is just no way pax are allowed to move around before the sign is switched off.
And for the few that do decide to ignore the FSB sign, a few chosen words via the PAS always does the trick.
Question: Is it normal for American carriers to allow pax to ignore the whole thing or was this an exeption?
Something else that I find puzling often............ "Hi flaps, Captain here. We're leaving the pax belted in but you guys can start the service".
So we start, and of course immediately get accosted by someone NEEDING the toilet right now. And asking me why it is safe for me to move around but not for him or her.
Never do know the answer to that one.
So is this leaving the pax belted in but letting us start moving around normal with other carriers as well? And is it a purely legal question; limiting liability and so forth?
The cabin crew remained strapped into their seats and quite ignored the fact that these people were walking around.
Which struck me as very strange.
Asked the lead FA about this later and she told me it was quite common. "they don't listen anyway, so we don't bother".
Which struck me as even stranger since in our mob, or any other European carrier I've ever flown on, there is just no way pax are allowed to move around before the sign is switched off.
And for the few that do decide to ignore the FSB sign, a few chosen words via the PAS always does the trick.
Question: Is it normal for American carriers to allow pax to ignore the whole thing or was this an exeption?
Something else that I find puzling often............ "Hi flaps, Captain here. We're leaving the pax belted in but you guys can start the service".
So we start, and of course immediately get accosted by someone NEEDING the toilet right now. And asking me why it is safe for me to move around but not for him or her.
Never do know the answer to that one.
So is this leaving the pax belted in but letting us start moving around normal with other carriers as well? And is it a purely legal question; limiting liability and so forth?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: somewhere around Spain
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ac will go through it, my neck wont
Whenever I get into a plane, i got the seat belt arround me and if possible, i keep it the whole game (weeeeeell it easy: I always get sleeping before bird ever takes of...) I build those birds, and i know they will get through it, but a broken neck against the bins (and its not so difficult) is possible... my neck is not certified against -1.5 n!!!!
But sometimes crew messages are as mild as sugar... "mild turbulence" when things are jumping all arround is a very light way to see it, even if you see the attendands walking arround like mad.
just a tip: pass will do as they see, if they see attendants going arround just seconds before landing, they will end thinking that it´s no danger at all!!!
Just one more shot: on my last flight to MAD, a pass got a BIG BIG BIG one from the attendans as he got up just after landing... no broken ankles, but i´ve never seen an att shouting so loud!!!
(She got up to put OFF her mobile: she left it on during all flight and gotta SMS as she landed...) those crazy pax....
But sometimes crew messages are as mild as sugar... "mild turbulence" when things are jumping all arround is a very light way to see it, even if you see the attendands walking arround like mad.
just a tip: pass will do as they see, if they see attendants going arround just seconds before landing, they will end thinking that it´s no danger at all!!!
Just one more shot: on my last flight to MAD, a pass got a BIG BIG BIG one from the attendans as he got up just after landing... no broken ankles, but i´ve never seen an att shouting so loud!!!
(She got up to put OFF her mobile: she left it on during all flight and gotta SMS as she landed...) those crazy pax....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last year I flew London Jersey and flew through minor turbulence, If that was minor I NEVER want to know what moderate or serve feel like!!
On a similar note, I take the train each day into central London and the amount of people that crowd round the doors before the train stops moving....
Sometimes it is quite funny to watch a 'domino effect' on them when the train suddenly accelerates when they are not holding on to anything, So far no serious injuries but it's only a mter of time....
--
Gary Williams
On a similar note, I take the train each day into central London and the amount of people that crowd round the doors before the train stops moving....
Sometimes it is quite funny to watch a 'domino effect' on them when the train suddenly accelerates when they are not holding on to anything, So far no serious injuries but it's only a mter of time....
--
Gary Williams
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA database over the past few days has these cases logged:
Continental 767 encountered CAT while en route, two FAs seriously injured, one passenger minor injuries, landed Newark.
Northwest Airlines A319 declared medical emergency after FA sustained serious injury (broken collar-bone) during possible turbulence encounter.
American Trans Air 757 encountered severe turbulence in vicinity of Springfield at FL370, at least 10 passengers reportedly injured, four of them seriously.
Quite extraordinary.
[It also mentions a couple of FAs getting injured while opening wine bottles and getting attacked by a coffee pot, not your lot I presume Flaps?
]
Continental 767 encountered CAT while en route, two FAs seriously injured, one passenger minor injuries, landed Newark.
Northwest Airlines A319 declared medical emergency after FA sustained serious injury (broken collar-bone) during possible turbulence encounter.
American Trans Air 757 encountered severe turbulence in vicinity of Springfield at FL370, at least 10 passengers reportedly injured, four of them seriously.
Quite extraordinary.
[It also mentions a couple of FAs getting injured while opening wine bottles and getting attacked by a coffee pot, not your lot I presume Flaps?
]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Also for the record of any passengers, just because the've spent the last hour and a half in the terminal at the bar and then don't have time to use the loo before boarding doesn't mean that they can ignore the seatbelt sign and go immediately after take off. They may be dying for the loo but they'll be dying of something else if the aircraft hits turbulence during the climb.
This kind of situation happens all the time: crew where in the galley after take off and a/c still had seatbelt sign on. Pax appears in galley wanting to use the toilet. Crew spend nearly as much time arguing with them about it and trying to get them back in their seats as let them use the toilet.
... and another thing why do pax always "simply have to go now" about 2 seconds after the seatbelt signs are put on for landing 4 hour flight and they all need to go in the last ten minutes...
Tirade over.
This kind of situation happens all the time: crew where in the galley after take off and a/c still had seatbelt sign on. Pax appears in galley wanting to use the toilet. Crew spend nearly as much time arguing with them about it and trying to get them back in their seats as let them use the toilet.
... and another thing why do pax always "simply have to go now" about 2 seconds after the seatbelt signs are put on for landing 4 hour flight and they all need to go in the last ten minutes...
Tirade over.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought as mere SLF on airlines, and I've got my tin hat ready in case it's not an acceptable thought, but could it be that the important instructions have become devalued in the seemingly endless list of do's and don'ts, and even warnings of prosecution, with which we now seem to be bombarded by some airlines on every flight?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Falps - I think it is a case of containment. The captain assumes you know when you can and can't work and will sit down accordingly, pax, as you have seen, don't know. Additionally, letting 400 pax wander around the cabin during any turbulence exposes the company/their insurers to a massive liability whereas a number of F/As who know what they are doing is seen as an acceptable risk.
My policy was: general uncomfortableness but nothing violent then OK to work at your discretion, anyting beyond mild discomfort then everyone sit down until it gets acceptable again but always at your discretion. FWIW.
My policy was: general uncomfortableness but nothing violent then OK to work at your discretion, anyting beyond mild discomfort then everyone sit down until it gets acceptable again but always at your discretion. FWIW.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a frequent PAX - 1 of the problems is that the slightest rattle is often reported by the Captain as turbulence. From previous experience in Prop & Turpoprop equipment - it is very much a case of crying wolf too early (because of liability I assume, but perhaps in the hope of wishing that the pax consider them a 'careful & careing airline').
Previous comments about the US pax are worrying - because of the crew attitude. What really gets me is the middle-east flights where everybody gets up when the plane is still taxiing at relatively high speeds - I mean we all know that a 30-50Kph impact in a car - even belted in - causes GBH - so how come they don't realise.
What about a clear warning by the crew in all languages needed along the lines of.
'Dear passengers, we are paid and trained to work in flight conditions and, in many cases can recognise turbulence and estimate the dangers - you are not and that is why you WILL obey the seat belts sign & warnings.'
Also perhaps on finals adding - 'Anybody who gets up before the seat belt sign is switched off, does so at his own risk and will be reported to the black list of 'potentially dangerous passengers' who the airlines may refuse to carry in future.'
Just possible ideas - comments ?
Previous comments about the US pax are worrying - because of the crew attitude. What really gets me is the middle-east flights where everybody gets up when the plane is still taxiing at relatively high speeds - I mean we all know that a 30-50Kph impact in a car - even belted in - causes GBH - so how come they don't realise.
What about a clear warning by the crew in all languages needed along the lines of.
'Dear passengers, we are paid and trained to work in flight conditions and, in many cases can recognise turbulence and estimate the dangers - you are not and that is why you WILL obey the seat belts sign & warnings.'
Also perhaps on finals adding - 'Anybody who gets up before the seat belt sign is switched off, does so at his own risk and will be reported to the black list of 'potentially dangerous passengers' who the airlines may refuse to carry in future.'
Just possible ideas - comments ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last year I was flying back from Mahon to Newcastle on Airtours as a passenger, we hit what I thought was very heavy turbulence(it forced the overhead TVs to come down ). The captain said it was caused by clear-air turbulence or something. Forgive my stupidness but whats clear-air turbulence?
). The captain said it was caused by clear-air turbulence or something. Forgive my stupidness but whats clear-air turbulence?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Crews don't intentionally cry wolf about turbulence, sometimes they will get a warning of turbulence and sometimes not. Be aware that air is a natural environment which is constantly changing and so sometimes is more or less severe than originally thought, so the seatbelt signs will go on for turbulence which doesn't always amount to much.
I watched an interesting program the other night on natural effects on aircraft and it likened air to water. Air of different density flows around the earth like a river flows. Imagine aircraft are like boats floating on a 'river' of dense air when you go through turbulence this river of air is disturbed you just can't see the river.
I watched an interesting program the other night on natural effects on aircraft and it likened air to water. Air of different density flows around the earth like a river flows. Imagine aircraft are like boats floating on a 'river' of dense air when you go through turbulence this river of air is disturbed you just can't see the river.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GrahamK,
Clear-air turbulence (CAT) is a particularly nasty type of air disturbance usually caused when two layers of air are moving against each other at different speeds -- the boundary between them gets churned up, and anything flying through it gets bounced about.
While "regular" turbulence is normally associated with heavy weather (which shows up on radar and therefore can be generally avoided), clear-air turbulence is nastier because:
* It doesn't necessarily lurk around stormy areas, hence the name "clear-air" turbulence. CAT can develop as a result of air patterns over mountains, for example. It's practically invisible and cannot be detected by the usual techniques.
* Patches of CAT can develop and dissipate very rapidly, so there's usually no way for controllers or pilots to warn other pilots ahead of an encounter.
* In the worst cases CAT can exert forces strong enough to cause structural damage to aircraft. Sorry for that bit of bad news, but there's a couple of famous cases proving it.
Clear-air turbulence (CAT) is a particularly nasty type of air disturbance usually caused when two layers of air are moving against each other at different speeds -- the boundary between them gets churned up, and anything flying through it gets bounced about.
While "regular" turbulence is normally associated with heavy weather (which shows up on radar and therefore can be generally avoided), clear-air turbulence is nastier because:
* It doesn't necessarily lurk around stormy areas, hence the name "clear-air" turbulence. CAT can develop as a result of air patterns over mountains, for example. It's practically invisible and cannot be detected by the usual techniques.
* Patches of CAT can develop and dissipate very rapidly, so there's usually no way for controllers or pilots to warn other pilots ahead of an encounter.
* In the worst cases CAT can exert forces strong enough to cause structural damage to aircraft. Sorry for that bit of bad news, but there's a couple of famous cases proving it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainfrog 2
You will undoubtably be referring to the 'Turbulence Switch' on the overhead panel? AKA the seatbelt signs!
Sod's law dictates that when you encounter a few bumps, unless they are pretty big straight off you will use your experience, skill and judgement to refrain for a few seconds before forcing everyone to sit down and belt up. Then the bumps get a bit heavier and you've been in it for approaching a minute and you decide "we'll have to strap 'em in". The PNF's hand reaches up to the seat belt sign switch and exactly at the same time as hearing the familiar 'ding'.......................... the turbulence disappears.
PP
You will undoubtably be referring to the 'Turbulence Switch' on the overhead panel? AKA the seatbelt signs!
Sod's law dictates that when you encounter a few bumps, unless they are pretty big straight off you will use your experience, skill and judgement to refrain for a few seconds before forcing everyone to sit down and belt up. Then the bumps get a bit heavier and you've been in it for approaching a minute and you decide "we'll have to strap 'em in". The PNF's hand reaches up to the seat belt sign switch and exactly at the same time as hearing the familiar 'ding'.......................... the turbulence disappears.
PP
Turbulance always plots against you. I always make sure I am not in need prior to boarding the plane and well before we are due to land. I was on a flight to JFK from LHR once and after a couple of hours and a couple of lagers it was time to visit the toilets. Just as I was about to stand up on went the fasten setbelts. After about 45 minutes of very minor vibrations I was getting desparate. With only one suit with me (very short notice of the trip) what should I do ? In the end I asked the stewardess if she knew how much longer it would last. She (not suprisingly) did not know but as I was only 2 rows from the toilet said I could at my own risk go. Do you guys think I acted wrongly in going ? I can see that this is not an easy problem to solve, having seen much worse turbulance I can see how easy it would be for a pax to injure themselves or others and most pax do not fly often enough to know to be careful but when you need to go you need to go.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that in my couple of hundred flights on CX in the last few years they have seemed to get it right pretty well all the time. And they do seem to manage to avoid the turbulence better than some, as far as I can judge from the frequency that some people here indicate. (And no go arounds, aborted takeoffs or anything else untoward.)
This tends to mean that when - with the seatbelt sign already on - the captain comes on the PA and says "cabin crew take your seats NOW!" it has a suitably immediate impact. (And it was indeed a bit bumpy for a while
.) A few pax looked a bit scared though - I've only ever heard that once.
This tends to mean that when - with the seatbelt sign already on - the captain comes on the PA and says "cabin crew take your seats NOW!" it has a suitably immediate impact. (And it was indeed a bit bumpy for a while
.) A few pax looked a bit scared though - I've only ever heard that once.
