Not wearing seat-belt in-flight

[MEL_Traveller]

even when done up as tight as possible I can still pull the infant out. Remember they go around the body and not over the lap like adult belts.
Laying the infant on their back and on your knees, I can see this being effective, or reclining the seat slightly so the upright angle of the infant is not 90-degrees; but the standard upright position seems all for show imo. I've done more than 30 flights over the past 12 months with an infant on a variety of airlines and cabins.

I guess what I was meaning was that infant seat belts are likely to assist with the prevention of injury, but not necessarily offer total protection. Turbulence yes, but a full crash? That probably has limitations.

But parents can take an appropriate fitted capsule on board.

 

[OzEire]

Russian roulette with the weather! I'd rather not.

Russian roulette was not quite what I meant by saying "taking a risk based approach".

As others have said, (thanks dajop), airlines (rarely QF) leaving the seatbelt sign on for long periods (like the entire Pacific) isn't managing the risk it is simply covering any potential liability - injury still occurs when pax ignore the sign after long periods (hours) with no turbulence.

To genuinely prevent injury requires something else, like a policy of strictly enforced SB sign when dangerous weather is likely, rather than possible. But clearly pilots should not punished by airlines, regulators or insurers for doing so, hence the need for good policies that protect this approach.

Pilots have the best knowledge and information to decide when it is safe to move about the cabin. Leaving the SB sign on for most of a long haul flight shifts this to pax guesswork, now that really is russian roulette.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Russian roulette was not quite what I meant by saying "taking a risk based approach".

As others have said, (thanks dajop), airlines (rarely QF) leaving the seatbelt sign on for long periods (like the entire Pacific) isn't managing the risk it is simply covering any potential liability - injury still occurs when pax ignore the sign after long periods (hours) with no turbulence.

To genuinely prevent injury requires something else, like a policy of strictly enforced SB sign when dangerous weather is likely, rather than possible. But clearly pilots should not punished by airlines, regulators or insurers for doing so, hence the need for good policies that protect this approach.

Pilots have the best knowledge and information to decide when it is safe to move about the cabin. Leaving the SB sign on for most of a long haul flight shifts this to pax guesswork, now that really is russian roulette.

This is pretty much what the incident report suggests. Pax need to be made aware of the potential severity of a situation and therefore able to act appropriately.

Big difference between a seat belt sign on because there's light turbulence and some pax may be unsteady on their feet vs something more severe where the cabin needs to be secured and everyone seated including crew.

 

[jb747]

The problem is that about 99.9% of passengers, and even a large percentage of the crew, have never seen severe turbulence. So, the upshot is that the level that is about mild is assigned as severe in most peoples' minds. And whilst that might make it difficult to walk, it really isn't a patch on the effect of the real stuff. But, as people think they have a handle on what it will look/feel like, they decide that seat belts are optional.

A flick to the roof at between -.5 and -1 g would be bad enough, but then you come back down at 2 to 3 g. And you won't land in your seat, but on someone else near you. Or the armrest. Or something else inconvenient.

 

[moa999]

And noting that most rollercoasters are 3-4G though some now reach the 5G mark.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The problem is that about 99.9% of passengers, and even a large percentage of the crew, have never seen severe turbulence. So, the upshot is that the level that is about mild is assigned as severe in most peoples' minds. And whilst that might make it difficult to walk, it really isn't a patch on the effect of the real stuff. But, as people think they have a handle on what it will look/feel like, they decide that seat belts are optional.

A flick to the roof at between -.5 and -1 g would be bad enough, but then you come back down at 2 to 3 g. And you won't land in your seat, but on someone else near you. Or the armrest. Or something else inconvenient.

Agree. But this is where airlines need to educate passengers.

Qantas excepted, the majority (all?) airlines will use the seat belt even for the slightest jolts. The passenger has no way of knowing the pilots' intentions (no distinction between mild or severe unless crew are directed to take their seats).

On Qantas the seat belt sign is used differently. We accept that. But that's not normal practice for other airlines.

If, in the case of the Air Canada incident, the pilots suspected the turbulence was going to be severe they should have instructed the crew accordingly, who would have made passengers aware. This may have mean turning on the cabin lights (etc) to raise the level of severity from a pax perspective.

For airlines other than Qantas you can't really blame passengers. It's an airline issue.

 

[serfty]

...
For airlines other than Qantas you can't really blame passengers. It's an airline issue.

FWIW, AirNZ have a similar philosophy to Qantas.

Having flown as a passenger in ~250 domestic USA flights it became apparent early on that the seat belt signs were generally on more than they were off and between the ascent 10,000' chime and descent were more of a suggestion than a rule. IF the pilot anticipated severe turbulence, they would re-enforce with an announcement and FA's would be told to be seated. i.e. Seat-belt mode 1 - suggestion, mode 2 - Really mean it.

It is quite difficult for someone weaned with Australia and regional seat belt philosophy to understand how different it is in the USA.

 

[dajop]

Qantas excepted, the majority (all?) airlines will use the seat belt even for the slightest jolts. The passenger has no way of knowing the pilots' intentions (no distinction between mild or severe unless crew are directed to take their seats).

Even QF do turn on seatbelt sign for slightest jolts - or even no jolts if - I assume - the pilot is reasonably expecting imminent turbulence. The difference is that QF tends to turn the sign off after maybe 20-60 mins, rare (in my experience never) that they leave it on for 2-3hrs with no turbulence at all ... unlike some other carriers.

 

[oz_mark]

practice for other airlines.

If, in the case of the Air Canada incident, the pilots suspected the turbulence was going to be severe they should have instructed the crew accordingly, who would have made passengers aware. This may have mean turning on the cabin lights (etc) to raise the level of severity from a pax perspective.

For airlines other than Qantas you can't really blame passengers. It's an airline issue.

Reading the report, it sounds like a passenger issue:

....the first officer ordered that in-flight service be stopped and the cabin secured.


Seatbelt signs were turned on and announcements were made in English, French and Mandarin that warned the aircraft was entering a turbulent area and passengers should buckle up. But the TSB investigation found many passengers did not fasten their seatbelts.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Reading the report, it sounds like a passenger issue:

Those were the facts... but the analysis paints a slightly grey situation. The pilot announcement was some 30 minutes before the turbulence, the cabin lights were dimmed, FAs may have missed seat belts not fastened, and the messages perhaps phrased in less than direct language ('please' rather than 'must'). From a passenger's perspective, the upcoming intensity may not have been clear.

In any event, going back to the OP's question, would the airline be liable for injury? I'd say yes. Can they discharge part of that because of pax negligence? Maybe, but I'm not sure if they could do so wholly.

 

[dajop]

Reading the report, it sounds like a passenger issue:

Given the origin of the flight, PVG, you are probably correct. Anyone who has flown regularly in China (or for that matter many parts of Asia) will know how many passengers ignore seatbelt signs unless harrassed by crew - and even then I've seen people unbuckle seat belts as soon as crew walk away.

 

[Maca44]

It really is just common sense. You are sitting in a seat for an extended period so why not simply have the seat belt fastened, even if you loosen it slightly after take off it is not uncomfortable. Even those in beds/angled seats in J and F fasten the seat belt over the blanket before going to sleep... just common sense. I don't think those that do not have the seat belt fastened should have a claim for damages. However, I have noticed a lot of airlines leave the sign on for long periods which would be fine so long as they turn it on for say 20mins every couple of hours to allow pax to use the washrooms without other pax glaring at them. I suspect some pax have medical problems which necessitate them using the wash room more regularly than others so would the airline be happy with a wet seat (or worse)..

 

[cove]

Most passengers who don't wear seat belts must presume that they will land back in their seats and are quite surprised by the injuries.

 

[dajop]

It really is just common sense.

There is a saying that goes something like "there's nothing that is as uncommon as common sense".

 

[OzEire]

Genuine question. I am a side sleeper and try to get a lay-flat J seat as often as I can for long haul.

In turbulent conditions I feel compelled to sit more upright to avoid injury if severe turbulence does occur.

Question: would a seatbelt fastened over a flat side-sleeper be (a) effective and (b) cause injury if head/legs lift up at a significant negative G ?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Genuine question. I am a side sleeper and try to get a lay-flat J seat as often as I can for long haul.

In turbulent conditions I feel compelled to sit more upright to avoid injury if severe turbulence does occur.

Question: would a seatbelt fastened over a flat side-sleeper be (a) effective and (b) cause injury if head/legs lift up at a significant negative G ?

My initial thoughts are that the seat belt is to stop you leaving the seat and hitting the ceiling (or otherwise getting thrown around the cabin). Being restrained even mid-point on your body would achieve this. I'm assuming seat belt use for flat seats have been approved by the relevant authorities.

 

[serfty]

I too sleep in the fetal position and do so with my seat belt moderately loosely buckled, keeping it in the middle of the torso.

 

[suze2000]

For me, I have ignored a seat belt warning if I have waited (forever in Y) to use the toilet and found myself in it, or about to be in it when the warning comes on. I'm well aware that if my estimation of the risk is wrong, I'll be injured - possibly badly. But because of the lack of toilets in Y, the choice is severe pain...or worse... or... the unknown risk of severe pain. This is why I've ignored the seat belt signs. (and yes, this was on my last two trips to - you guessed it - North America)

The only time I've actually experienced what I'd consider severe turbulence only resulted in someone spilling his tea all over himself though. And that was in a BAe a long time ago.

 

[mushez]

If you are silly enough to ignore the seatbelt light you might also be thinking that travel insurance isn't needed either. Stupid is...

Ever flown in China? Flown a Chinese airline? Seatbelt signs are switched on gate to gate on them, did SIN-PVG a few days ago with China Eastern, 5.5 hours of solid seat belt sign illuminated.

I got up three times - so I'm stupid?

The issue here is flight from China, so has many Chinese people on - and Chinese simply refuse to wear seat belts.

People who frequent china often will know it well, Chinese in a generic sense will not wear seat belts - and when stood over to put them on in a micro managed way by flight attendants - will take them off as soon as they walk away.

The issue is cultural than common sense.

 

[NZflygirl]

The issue is cultural than common sense.

How on earth would an airline or anyone else go about fixing that?