Seven injured in QF flight mishap

[elbarto]

I see on Sunrise this morning they report that the flight was forced to land at SIN, glossing over the fact that it was scheduled to land there. Love the quality of journalism in this country.


Sent from an Apple iPad wireless device

 

[pauly7]

The crew are getting major thumbs up for their handling of the situation. Good to see some people actually getting to the facts rather than the usual QF bash at first sight.

 

[milehighclub]

Come on. Every passenger who was injured was "returning to their seat". Yeah right. Maybe everyone was behaving perfectly.

7 out of 450 is certainly not an unusual amount to be out of their seat and using the toilets especially towards the end of a long flight not long before breakfast. 1 person returning might have been in a window seat causing 2 others to stand up in the process.

It was obviously bad enough to knock those standing but not enough to cause people to fly out of their seats even if they had it unfastened.

 

[jb747]

Maybe if those signs were used more judicially more people would obey them? ( there one was a boy who cried wolf--------):shock:

Perhaps you might like to expand upon that 'throw away' line.

They are used as little as possible, but they are turned on any time we think they may be needed. There is also a time lag between the time they go on, and the time we expect the cabin to be reasonably secure.

Other aircraft generally do not give warnings of turbulence. What is often discussed, especially by US aircraft, is the ride. Chop is annoying, but not generally dangerous, but it should preclude any cabin service, and will most likely result in the signs being on for quite some time. It is taken as a given that cells will be turbulent..so there is no point in talking about them.

Across the Bay of Bengal, and similar areas, there can be cell systems that extend for hundreds of miles. They are not continuous, and will contain gaps (aka sucker holes) which may well represent the only way through. Transiting one of these areas you will put the signs on, simply because it is quite possible that it won't be a smooth exercise. But, most times we manage to get through with nary a bump... So perhaps that's teaching people that we are too quick to put the signs on, but, as you can't see my radar display, I'd suggest they're making that leap based on zero information.

The radar itself shows MOISTURE. It is assumed that larger amounts of moisture mean stronger cells, and so will be more turbulent. It does not show turbulence, unless it is associated with large amounts of moisture (there has to be something to bounce the radar off). But, sometimes some seeming nasty returns can be transited reasonably smoothly, whilst otherwise innocuous looking clouds contain nasty surprises. And some nasty bumps come with no radar return at all...

As for seat belts...well I think many people are related to Clark Kent. I pax very regularly, and I was surprised when I realised that there is a small percentage of people who simply will not wear the belt at any time. Now, obviously their superhuman abilities will mean that they won't be hurt, but the person they land on might feel otherwise.

When I sit in my work seat I wear a 5 point harness. I wear it all of the time that I'm seated there...but legally that actually isn't required. The point is that even I don't know when things could go bump in the night, so I expect the knowledge of that, aft of my seat, is even more lacking.

 

[harvyk]

Just expanding on what you've said JB, is there any hard and fast rule as to when they are to be on (apart from take-off and landing), or is it down to the pilots own judgement?

As for the throw away line, there has only been two times where I expected the pilot had forgotten to turn the seatbelt sign off, each time was after takeoff, which felt normal, and we seemed to fly without any turbulence and in clear skies, and yet the pilot had left the seatbelt sign on for much longer than normal. Of course I was not privy to their radar \ en-route weather reports. But to a pax I can understand how the "airlines are been cautious" beliefs come about.

Just to balance that, there was one time that I think the pilot turned the seatbelt sign off too early, as it was pretty ordinary weather on take-off and no sooner had he turned the sign off that we hit (from a pax point of view) massive turbulence and the sign came back on instantly. I doubt anyone had a chance to take their seatbelt off as the CSM was only half way through the "you may now get up and move about the cabin" spiel.

 

[jb747]

Just expanding on what you've said JB, is there any hard and fast rule as to when they are to be on (apart from take-off and landing), or is it down to the pilots own judgement?

There are a couple of rules, but basically it's down to judgment. I certainly could not write any rules that would be helpful, and I doubt that anyone could (well, if they did, the signs would be on all of the time).

 

[spudseamus]

Perhaps you might like to expand upon that 'throw away' line.

They are used as little as possible, but they are turned on any time we think they may be needed. There is also a time lag between the time they go on, and the time we expect the cabin to be reasonably secure.

Other aircraft generally do not give warnings of turbulence. What is often discussed, especially by US aircraft, is the ride. Chop is annoying, but not generally dangerous, but it should preclude any cabin service, and will most likely result in the signs being on for quite some time. It is taken as a given that cells will be turbulent..so there is no point in talking about them.

Across the Bay of Bengal, and similar areas, there can be cell systems that extend for hundreds of miles. They are not continuous, and will contain gaps (aka sucker holes) which may well represent the only way through. Transiting one of these areas you will put the signs on, simply because it is quite possible that it won't be a smooth exercise. But, most times we manage to get through with nary a bump... So perhaps that's teaching people that we are too quick to put the signs on, but, as you can't see my radar display, I'd suggest they're making that leap based on zero information.

The radar itself shows MOISTURE. It is assumed that larger amounts of moisture mean stronger cells, and so will be more turbulent. It does not show turbulence, unless it is associated with large amounts of moisture (there has to be something to bounce the radar off). But, sometimes some seeming nasty returns can be transited reasonably smoothly, whilst otherwise innocuous looking clouds contain nasty surprises. And some nasty bumps come with no radar return at all...

As for seat belts...well I think many people are related to Clark Kent. I pax very regularly, and I was surprised when I realised that there is a small percentage of people who simply will not wear the belt at any time. Now, obviously their superhuman abilities will mean that they won't be hurt, but the person they land on might feel otherwise.

When I sit in my work seat I wear a 5 point harness. I wear it all of the time that I'm seated there...but legally that actually isn't required. The point is that even I don't know when things could go bump in the night, so I expect the knowledge of that, aft of my seat, is even more lacking.

Again jb747 a great explanation and I stand corrected and offer a full apology to all who sit up at the very front of the plane as you say it was a throw away line and im embarrassed about putting it in print (must put brain in gear before typing)

 

[anat0l]

Another one for jb747 related to this incident. Not sure if it should stick here or in the "Ask the Pilot" thread. (I'm sure the Mods will know the best action).

There's an article from the ABC which, funny enough, doesn't actually forebode a whipping of the Qantas operation within:

Crew praised after Qantas turbulence scare - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

A short quote from the article:

"The captain came out, went through the cabin, saw the kids, told them what happened and why it happened," said another [passenger].

"Everyone went round calming everyone afterwards. The captain came around to us all individually. Couldn't have done a better job I don't think," said another [passenger].

Seeing as the aircraft had just passed what would be (at least in the eyes of the passengers, a rather temultuous moment, albeit we all know "turbulence is 'normal'") and in any case the flight deck would be busy at all times anyway, I thought that the passenger's recount, albeit lauding deserved praise on the said captain if so be it, would be unrealistic.

Apart from going to use the bathroom or changing chairs with another flight deck member, how realistic would it be for a captain (or any flight deck) to avail themselves to do something like this, viz. talk to the passengers, given that you're almost always busy in the sky?

 

[Berlin]

Huh? Pilots don't just switch them on to exercise control over pax for no reasons - Except in certain situations

Have you ever flown AA? This statement might be true for Qantas but certainly not for many carriers overseas. I'd say out of my ten domestic flights on American Airlines over the last year, at least on 3 or 4 the seatbelt sign was accidentally left on during the entire flight while there were perfectly fine flying conditions outside. No one can be surprised if passengers then get used to simply ignoring those signs if they can't hold the toilet visit any longer after 2, 3 hours into the flight... This doesn't excuse the idiots who simply never put on their seatbelts, of course, but it really is setting a bad example.

I also find it quite funny how different airlines handle the seat belts on take off and landing: Again, Qantas always seems quite reasonable with that and switch off the lights while the plane is still climbing if the conditions allow for it. Some airlines, however generally wait until cruising altitude is reached (again, very common in the US) and then others again hardly have the seat belt sign on at all (on a recent Air Pacific flight, they switched the sign on during landing about a minute before we touched the runway! ).

 

[jb747]

Seeing as the aircraft had just passed what would be (at least in the eyes of the passengers, a rather temultuous moment, albeit we all know "turbulence is 'normal'") and in any case the flight deck would be busy at all times anyway, I thought that the passenger's recount, albeit lauding deserved praise on the said captain if so be it, would be unrealistic.

Apart from going to use the bathroom or changing chairs with another flight deck member, how realistic would it be for a captain (or any flight deck) to avail themselves to do something like this, viz. talk to the passengers, given that you're almost always busy in the sky?

I often have chat to the passengers. On these flights we carry extra crew, so depending upon the time of day, there's often time for a chat.

In this particular instance, going back and seeing the passengers would be high on the list of things you need to do.

And, whilst the aircraft was delayed to allow inspection in Singapore, there would be no expectation on the part of the crew that it would have suffered any damage whatsoever. They are extremely tough....

 

[jb747]

I also find it quite funny how different airlines handle the seat belts on take off and landing: Again, Qantas always seems quite reasonable with that and switch off the lights while the plane is still climbing if the conditions allow for it. Some airlines, however generally wait until cruising altitude is reached (again, very common in the US) and then others again hardly have the seat belt sign on at all (on a recent Air Pacific flight, they switched the sign on during landing about a minute before we touched the runway! ).

Seat belt signs are normally a three position switch. OFF/AUTO/ON.

It is selected to OFF during the preflight, when refuelling is a happening. As soon as that is finished it's selected to ON.

After take off if the conditions allow, and you don't expect any more low level altitude restrictions, then it will be selected to AUTO. As long as the flaps are up, this will turn the signs off. If left in auto the signs come back on when the first flap selection is made...normally about 14-15 miles to run. Selection from AUTO to ON will happen at 2500 feet, but as the signs will already be on, this only has the effect of making it chime (and tells the cabin crew to sit down now).

 

[Berlin]

Seat belt signs are normally a three position switch. OFF/AUTO/ON.

Thanks a lot for that explanation- very interesting!

So does this mean that if you encounter a flight like my many AA flights that has the sign on during the entire flight, that the pilot has forgotten to hit AUTO? And on a flight like my Air Pacific flight a few weeks back when the sign was illuminated far too late during the landing, that they had likewise forgotten to change it onto ON? Never has happened on QF as far as I can remember so maybe it really gets forgotten on some airlines?

 

[jb747]

So does this mean that if you encounter a flight like my many AA flights that has the sign on during the entire flight, that the pilot has forgotten to hit AUTO? And on a flight like my Air Pacific flight a few weeks back when the sign was illuminated far too late during the landing, that they had likewise forgotten to change it onto ON? Never has happened on QF as far as I can remember so maybe it really gets forgotten on some airlines?

I've been on some US flights and seen the same behaviour that you mention. I expect it's anything but accidental...perhaps a result of their lawyers. If you stand up with the sign on, perhaps you'll be the one sued. Dunno, but the whole concept is stupid as far as I'm concerned.

At the other end, Air Pacific...I wonder if your perception of very late simply fits in with it coming on at around 14 miles. That's only a bit over 3 minutes to run. They may also have cycled it later in the approach..we do in the 380, just to make sure the cabin crew realise how close you are to landing.

And I guess some airlines just don't use AUTO.

 

[Ansett]

JB

Thank you for some excellent posts and great insight as to the workings of the seat belt system. I see you mentioned the A380. What a great aircraft have just completed my 30th Flight on NYE from London and wish I could fly it more

My experience has been along the lines of your comments about 3 minutes before landing always hear the chimes so now I know how it is generated and how long till touch down. Thank you

 

[dk4]

I agree with others’ posts that different airlines do use the seat belt sign differently (particularly during ascent/descent).

It is quite noticeable that onboard Virgin and Tiger they do it the standard US way, as opposed the Qantas/Jetstar way. (As other have already outlined - e.g. on Virgin the seat belt sign will ping off during ascent, and then turn back on right away. At this point electronics can be used and cabin crew will start service preparations. It is usually quite a few minutes after this, that the pilot will actually turn the sign off.)

During descent on Qantas/Jetstar, the sign comes on at the point where ALL crew & customers must be seated for landing, on most other airlines the pilot will turn it on while the cabin crew are still up and about, & preparing the cabin for landing. (With a separate flight deck PA specifically for crew to be seated for landing, long after the seat belt sign has been illuminated.)

Personally, I would argue that the Qantas/Jetstar sign illumination procedure is less likely to breed contempt for sign usage. (Except in conditions where foreign governments mandate they use the sign for crowd control purposes.)

 

[Mal]

Have you ever flown AA? This statement might be true for Qantas but certainly not for many carriers overseas.

I haven't flown AA *this month*. But yes have flown them significantly. This thread was primarily about Qantas and that was the spirit of my post. In hindsight I should have specified qf, but didn't.

 

[dfcatch]

I've been on an AA flight where, IMO at the time, the pilot forgot to turn the sign off.... It was on the entire flight.