Not wearing seat-belt in-flight

[trippin_the_rift]

Many of 21 injured on turbulent Air Canada flight ignored seatbelt warnings, TSB finds - Calgary - CBC News

Every so often we read about these types of incidents. If you're badly injured from turbulence and didn't have a belt on, would the airline bear any responsibility? How about your travel insurance?

Discuss!

 

[NZflygirl]

Airline - no. Travel insurance I guess the medical should kick in despite the passengers being idiots for not putting seat belts on. Probably at least a good 50% of flights where the seat belt sign goes on I see someone get up to go to the loo. I think they also think it's ok when pax see crew still walking around.

I can imagine sometimes something silly happens when you're away and you have to see a dr for an injury so I'd just put this into that category. The airline can't control the weather. I guess if the cabin crew can do a quick walk around as they do sometimes that's useful but certainly sometimes there's turbulence and everyone including crew are told to be seated immediately.

Unfortunately some passengers will learn the hard way.

 

[dajop]

PVG-YYZ. It doesn't surprise me that 21 pax were without seat belts on. It doesn't mean they were up walking around - it could just mean they didn't buckle up at all - or unbuckled as soon as staff stopped their inspections.

 

[Jay Cee]

<snip>

<snip>

Unfortunately some passengers will learn the hard way.

Unfortunate but ever soooooo true.

 

[Blackswan]

Not saying AC is guilty of this, but US based carriers could better use the seat belt sign. From my experience, they keep it on far too long after take off, and before landing. Also, they often leave it on for long periods of time with no further explanation.

It's like the boy who cried wolf. If airlines the world over properly used the seat belt signs, then perhaps more people would buckle up in situations like this, regardless of carrier?

 

[OzEire]

It's like the boy who cried wolf. If airlines the world over properly used the seat belt signs, then perhaps more people would buckle up in situations like this, regardless of carrier?

This is a really good point - I was about to write something similar but thanks to Blackswan, saved me the trouble.

It irks me that everyone (often including FAs) obey the sign for a while but only until it is inconvenient then it becomes a free for all.

I get that pilots dont have a crystal ball, but with the benefit of forecasts, a weather radar and PIREPS, etc. the *company* should empower crew to risk manage a few bumps. This would mean taking a few " spilled coffee in the lap" lawsuits on the chin for the sake of avoiding preventable major injuries if pax gave a rarer seatbelt sign the caution and respect it ought to command.

 

[jb747]

I get that pilots dont have a crystal ball, but with the benefit of forecasts, a weather radar and PIREPS, etc. the *company* should empower crew to risk manage a few bumps. This would mean taking a few " spilled coffee in the lap" lawsuits on the chin for the sake of avoiding preventable major injuries if pax gave a rarer seatbelt sign the caution and respect it ought to command.

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

 

[Conrad_S]

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

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If you're badly injured from turbulence and didn't have a belt on, would the airline bear any responsibility? How about your travel insurance?

Montreal Convention = airline liable. Article 20 however provides 'thecarrier shall be wholly or partly exonerated from its liability tothe claimant to the extent that such negligence or wrongfulact or omission caused or contributed to the damage.'

Whether the airline could show cause for a total reduction in damages would be up to a court to decide. The full report seems to suggest there may have been factors AC could have handled better, including the perceived risk to passengers of the impending severity of the turbulence (a 'request' to fasten seat belts rather than a 'directive'), or even the route taken (see 2.2.1 of the report). Two pax claim they were sleeping and didn't ear the seat belt announcement. While the crew did a visual check for seat belts, it is possible given the low light cabin conditions they may have missed pax not secured.

Full report: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2015/A15F0165/A15F0165.pdf

 

[dajop]

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

jb, I've never had a QF experience, ever, where the seatbelt sign remains on for an hour or 2 - without even a hint of turbulence, but I have in the US. It would seem that QF get it right most of the time, but in the US they seem a lot more conservative and leave seat belt signs on a lot longer (more managing law suit risk rather than injury risk?). However when QF has signs on by and large people obey - when carriers have seat belts on for an hour without turbulence - people ignore them - boy who cried wolf.

So it would seem you already manage the "boy who cried wolf" factor very well without playing russian roulette with the weather!

 

[Dr Ralph]

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

That's not a fair comment. I've been on an AA flight from LAX to SYD where they kept the seat belt light on for 90% of the flight. Flight attendants sat in their seats for that period. They shouted at you when you got up to go to the bathroom.

Reality was there was no need to have it on for that long. It was just overly protective and I think part of AA's ethos of making things as easy for themselves as possible.

Clearly no one could stay in their seat for 90% of 14 hours.

 

[get me outta here]

I read recently that if you need to go to the bathroom, the USA FA's can point out that the seat belt sign is on, but that you don't actually need to stay in your seat. They do it to cover their liability. It would be interesting to know if this is correct.

That's not a fair comment. I've been on an AA flight from LAX to SYD where they kept the seat belt light on for 90% of the flight. Flight attendants sat in their seats for that period. They shouted at you when you got up to go to the bathroom.

Reality was there was no need to have it on for that long. It was just overly protective and I think part of AA's ethos of making things as easy for themselves as possible.

Clearly no one could stay in their seat for 90% of 14 hours.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

When You Can Use the Lavatory Even When a Flight Attendant Says No (and How That Could Keep You Out of Jail) - View from the Wing

To a 98% approximation, flight attendants don’t actually care if you use the lavatory while the seat belt sign is on. They have to tell you that the seat belt sign is on. They cannot tell you it is ok for you to use the lavatory.

I watch passengers, over and over, asking permission. The flight attendant cannot give you permission. Because what if something bad happened? That’s on them and the airline. But if they advise you that the seat belt sign is on and you go anyway it’s pretty much on you.

Now, of course, you must follow flight attendant instructions. So if they actually do tell you to sit down, you’d best do it. But most of the time passengers think a flight attendant is telling them to sit down when they’re just saying the seat belt sign is on. Occasionally I see flight attendants saying ‘the seat belt sign is on’ while making faces and motioning passengers into the lav.

 

[JohnK]

On a recent flight I'd realised when we landed that I wasn't buckled up. Wife surprised. How did the FA miss it?

 

[OZDUCK]

In my one flight on AC, last year, - Halifax/Toronto - the Seat Belt sign was on for a fair proportion of the 2 1/2 hour flight and most pax seemed to ignore it. I never saw or heard an FA make any comment - then again the FA's did disappear pretty quickly from Y after they gave you your one free drink.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

On a recent flight I'd realised when we landed that I wasn't buckled up. Wife surprised. How did the FA miss it?

How do you feel about infant seatbelts? Personally I feel they offer zero protection.

I read recently that if you need to go to the bathroom, the USA FA's can point out that the seat belt sign is on, but that you don't actually need to stay in your seat. They do it to cover their liability. It would be interesting to know if this is correct.

I always make a point to tell FAs I accept full liability and it is urgent that I use the bathroom. I've been in bathroom for landing and during severe turbulence. It's an experience!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

How do you feel about infant seatbelts? Personally I feel they offer zero protection.

They would keep the infant restrained during turbulence.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

They would keep the infant restrained during turbulence.

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.

 

[Jet L]

Simple... Whilst you are seated keep your seat belt fastened, personally I loosen it a bit once the sign goes off but then again I probably have it way too tight for take off and landing

 

[Reggie]

I personally believe the USA airlines use the seatbelt sign as a crowd control device. When sitting in F I've seen the seatbelt sign come on, everyone sits down, then one flight crew comes out uses toilet talks to cabin crew and gets a drink, swaps with other flight crew. When second flight has returned to coughpit seatbelt sign turned off.

Also seen it turned on for long periods where cabin crew say nothing to those pax getting up to use toilets and retrieve items from overhead lockers, than in actual turbulence situations the pax would be yelled at.