Severe turbulance puts PAX in hospital - again

[munitalP]

Whats going on with the weather radar?

Friday 24th

An Air Canada Boeing 777-200, registration C-FIUJ performing flight AC-34 from Sydney,NS (Australia) to Vancouver,BC (Canada) with 256 passengers and 17 crew, was enroute at FL370 about one hour past Hawaii, when the airplane encountered severe turbulence in an area of thunderstorms sending the airplane into a sudden descent injuring 3 flight attendants and 19 passengers. The flight crew decided to turn around for an emergency landing at Honolulu Airport,HI. The airplane landed safely about one hour later. 2 flight attendants and 2 passengers were hospitalized, the other injured were treated at the airport and continued the journey.

The airplane was examined by engineers, no damages were detected, so that the airplane was returned to service and could carry the remaining passengers and crew to Vancouver, where the airplane arrived with a delay of 4 hours.

Air Canada reported, that 11 passengers and 4 crew received injuries, while the FAA as well as Transport Canada (Canada's Transportation Ministry) reported 19 passengers and 3 crew being injured. The fasten seat belt signs were turned on at the time of the accident, however a number of passengers were not strapped in and were affected most in the turbulence.

 

[NM]

The fasten seat belt signs were turned on at the time of the accident, however a number of passengers were not strapped in and were affected most in the turbulence.

Lesson one ....

 

[simongr]

Maybe we need a few more of these incidents - that way teh message might get out to a few of those that think themselves above the rules. I personally dont want some daft tosser falling on top of me because they dont want to follow the rules...

 

[Dave Noble]

Maybe we need a few more of these incidents - that way teh message might get out to a few of those that think themselves above the rules. I personally dont want some daft tosser falling on top of me because they dont want to follow the rules...

for this to work North American carriers need to get into the idea of only having seatbelt sign on when there genuinely turbulence. As it stands currently, it is quite normal to be on too much and gets ignored

Dave

 

[harvyk]

What, you mean despite what NoNews ltd tells me, Qantas isn't the only airline in the world to experience bad turbulance?

Also simongr, you can say that again. I've lost count of how many times I've watch PAX take their seat belt off the second the sign turns off.

 

[NM]

for this to work North American carriers need to get into the idea of only having seatbelt sign on when there genuinely turbulence. As it stands currently, it is quite normal to be on too much and gets ignored.

The problem is that changing the status quo is unlikely to happen in the USA. Look at tipping, airline upgrades etc. Thee are situations that started out with valid justifications and progressed to the point where changing to "our way" is just not going to happen.

 

[SnowYeti]

for this to work North American carriers need to get into the idea of only having seatbelt sign on when there genuinely turbulence. As it stands currently, it is quite normal to be on too much and gets ignored

Dave

Agree with Dave on this one! Air Canada always has their light on!

 

[trooper]

....as to the weather radar question...

IIRC that will only detect conditions involving moisture... so clear air turbulence is "invisible" to it..

Why do you think the advice is to keep the belt on at all times?

With 19 pax injured one suspects quite a few of them were seated.. without belts...

...and in "an area of thunderstorms?".. Is it any surprise the seatbelt sign was on?

Seems from some comments here that the aircrew are expected to know exactly where "real" turbulence is... Neat trick that'd be!

 

[stryker]

Maybe we need a few more of these incidents...

Good to see you're the nice, caring type.

How many people would you like to see killed before you're happy?

 

[simongr]

Good to see you're the nice, caring type.

How many people would you like to see killed before you're happy?

73.

If you're going to ask ridiculous questions then expect ridiculous answers.

For clarity (given you have skipped to the attack before the discussion):

- I did not express any joy at the reported event
- I did not comment on the death of any pax
- I was commenting that this is a real issue and people need to be made more aware of the risks that they face. In the same way that many people in rural areas are now becoming more conscious of the risk of bush fires as a result of the Black Saturday events in VIC if people hear more about the risks then they may take more precautions.
- I expressed a personal concern about someone landing on me because they thought that they were above the rules

So next time perhps you shouldnt comment on my personality (given you have no solid information on which to base that opinion) and take a breath before your next pithy comment.

 

[NYCguy]

Perhaps if there were a few more well-publicized episodes of "it will never happen to me" idiots having their necks broken when their trip to the toilet against the advice of the pilot results in them being slammed against the ceiling of the aircraft with an almighty thud, then fewer incidents would occur. It's all too easy to get blasé about turbulence, but any regular passenger on long-haul trans-pacs knows that it's pretty much inevitable on those sectors, and the advice of the crew should be taken seriously.

If some arrogant moron is out of their seat when the seatbelt lights are on, and their stupidity ends up causing injury to me, I'll sue their dumb cough into the poorhouse.

How's that for caring and sharing?

 

[munitalP]

Perhaps if there were a few more well-publicized episodes of "it will never happen to me" idiots having their necks broken when their trip to the toilet against the advice of the pilot results in them being slammed against the ceiling of the aircraft with an almighty thud, then fewer incidents would occur. It's all too easy to get blasé about turbulence, but any regular passenger on long-haul trans-pacs knows that it's pretty much inevitable on those sectors, and the advice of the crew should be taken seriously.

If some arrogant moron is out of their seat when the seatbelt lights are on, and their stupidity ends up causing injury to me, I'll sue their dumb cough into the poorhouse.

How's that for caring and sharing?

I hope I'm not sitting next to you when that happens - there may be blood shed fighting for the door to make it out to our respective lawyers...

Agree with you (and Simongr) 100% here...

Mr!

 

[milehighclub]

One of the things I have always been grateful for at Qantas, is that not only does the seatbelt sign mean the passengers are to remain seated, but we, the crew also have to sit down - period - no exceptions. Sometimes we get the heads up to prepare, sometimes not, but it makes it so much easier to get passengers to stay seated when they see the crew buckled up.

I'll never understand how other airlines still allow their crew to work

 

[simongr]

One of the things I have always been grateful for at Qantas, is that not only does the seatbelt sign mean the passengers are to remain seated, but we, the crew also have to sit down - period - no exceptions.

I'll never understood how other airlines still allow their crew to work

One of teh most amazing pieces of service I have seen was the caviar service on CX in F when they were still making quinnells of sour cream whilst I was actually holding onto the trolley to stop it lifting off...

 

[Lucky_man]

for this to work North American carriers need to get into the idea of only having seatbelt sign on when there genuinely turbulence. As it stands currently, it is quite normal to be on too much and gets ignored

Dave

Too true. I have this problem in China - the local carriers will leave the Seatbelt sign on the whole trip while they are serving drinks and food and people are getting up to the toilet etc.

Then they seem to have like a pinball machine tilt switch that activates a recording "Ladies and Gentlemen we are experiencing some tuirbulance .." whenever the plane shakes.

 

[NYCguy]

One of the things I have always been grateful for at Qantas, is that not only does the seatbelt sign mean the passengers are to remain seated, but we, the crew also have to sit down - period - no exceptions. Sometimes we get the heads up to prepare, sometimes not, but it makes it so much easier to get passengers to stay seated when they see the crew buckled up.

I'll never understand how other airlines still allow their crew to work

This differs between airlines, as has been previously stated. I have found that UA pilots ask the cabin crew to strap-in for turbulence that NH cabin crews wouldn't dream of sitting down for. I guess that it's at the discretion of the pilot-in-command, based on the direction given to them by their employer.

 

[codash1099]

Perhaps the problem people seem to have understanding the meaning of the seat bel sign (keep the seat belt on even when the light isn't on seems to be counter-intuitive) could be overcome by replacing the now reduntant "No Smoking" sign with a new sign.

We could then have "Fasten Seat Belt" left on all the time and "We really mean it" in case of turbulence :mrgreen:

 

[mysavings789]

not fastening your seatbelt...I hope this will serve a lesson for nth time.

 

[anat0l]

How many people would you like to see killed before you're happy?

You mean on a Qantas aircraft? Only one will do.

After that, it'll be the death of the airline and all of the competitors will jump for joy. "Safest airline? Yeah right!" they'll say.

In any case, I have to agree slightly with simongr here, but I don't care so much as long as the ambulance chasers aren't getting involved.

for this to work North American carriers need to get into the idea of only having seatbelt sign on when there genuinely turbulence. As it stands currently, it is quite normal to be on too much and gets ignored

And like the bl***y weather outside actually cares!


I guess to be fair, I wonder how much "warning" there was between the worst of the turbulence occurring and when it was announced. Sometimes these things happen "suddenly" and there is too little time to switch on the seat belt sign, thus indicating to non-strapped-in pax to rush back and do so.


Perhaps American carriers are "overusing" the fasten seat belt sign as a "legal coverall", i.e. if you get hurt whilst the seat belt sign is on, you know what you should have been doing.....

 

[aybee]

Agree with Dave on this one! Air Canada always has their light on!

Absolute bollocks. I've flown that AC34 regularly since it became a nonstop run as I'm a Star flyer (I know - horror to many in this forum! ) and I prefer to enter the U.S. if going there instead of Canada at YVR/YYZ than at LAX or SFO. A far easier and way more pleasant experience with the DHS people.
The light comes on usually only when it needs to and maybe is left on a little longer than it could have been from my experiences. Having said that, leaving the light on when over the Pacific isn't a bad idea - there are dozens of anecdotal stories about flights past that hit CAT from out of nowhere across those waters.
The annoying double announcements (English/French) when it does come on sometimes makes me wish they would leave it on though!