35 people injured on AC flight.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by digits_ » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:27 pm

fish4life wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:08 pm
Except there is nothing uncomfortable about a lap belt in the back...
Right. Yet the shoulder harnesses in the flight deck apparently are and even give you bad posture?

Wouldn't you agree both arguments sound a bit ... similar?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Eric Janson
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by Eric Janson » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:46 pm

This sounds more like an encounter with a CB than a Cat event.

Either outflow from the cell or catching the top.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1692
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by fish4life » Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:38 am

digits_ wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:27 pm
fish4life wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:08 pm
Except there is nothing uncomfortable about a lap belt in the back...
Right. Yet the shoulder harnesses in the flight deck apparently are and even give you bad posture?

Wouldn't you agree both arguments sound a bit ... similar?
How tall are you? It may have something to do with it, I think it may be worse for taller pilots because the shoulder straps don’t just go straight over the shoulders they have to go up then back down.

Also yes, shoulder straps up front are uncomfortable and I’m always aware they are on, my lap belt I hardly notice whether I’m up front or as a pax in the back.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Kaykay
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:21 am
Location: Canada...sometimes

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by Kaykay » Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:32 am

Never take my shoulder harness off during flight, unless I’m getting out of the seat for something. Don’t really even notice it’s there, it’s not uncomfortable for me. Whiners gonna whine I guess :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by altiplano » Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:06 pm

You probably wear long sleeves too.

Whiners? Give me a break... Guys can wear their harness however they like in accordance with SOP/regulation and their judgement/prerogatives.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by PilotDAR » Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:37 pm

Guys can wear their harness however they like in accordance with SOP/regulation and their judgement/prerogatives.
'Cause there are no overhead bins in the cockpit to hit with your head!

I can't imagine not wanting to be strapped into the plane, unless there were a need to be out of my seat.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by digits_ » Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:45 pm

PilotDAR wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:37 pm
Guys can wear their harness however they like in accordance with SOP/regulation and their judgement/prerogatives.
'Cause there are no overhead bins in the cockpit to hit with your head!

I can't imagine not wanting to be strapped into the plane, unless there were a need to be out of my seat.
Hmmm but you do have the curved ceiling, and possibly lots of switches you could hit. I'd estimate the head clearance is about the same for pilots as for pax.

From the published info, it looks like the pax that did get hurt, were following instructions properly. Seatbelt was not mandatory at that point, just like it wasn't mandator for pilots to wear the shoulder harness.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by altiplano » Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:48 pm

Faulty parallelism fallacy.

Your equate:

no seatbelt at all = no shoulder harness.

You have no argument. The law is clear, and pilots use there judgment. I guarantee that the pilots on that flight didn't have their shoulder harness on and weren't injured.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by digits_ » Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:12 am

altiplano wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:48 pm
Faulty parallelism fallacy.

Your equate:

no seatbelt at all = no shoulder harness.

You have no argument. The law is clear, and pilots use there judgment. I guarantee that the pilots on that flight didn't have their shoulder harness on and weren't injured.
No I am claiming that both pax and pilots did the legal minimum (seatbelt wise) because of comfort, while there was a better option available for both.

Both would have worn the extra protection if there was moderate/severe turbulence yet both didn't bother to wear the protection since the turbulence was encountered unexpectedly.

It's about an attitude: do I use everything available or just what is the minimum required?
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by altiplano » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:37 am

Did the pilots get hurt while wearing their seatbelts here?
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by digits_ » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:59 am

No, but that is hard to compare. Only 2 pilots vs a bunch of pax. Even if they were wearing no seatbelts, chances are they wouldn't have been hurt.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1692
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by fish4life » Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:28 am

digits_ wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:12 am
altiplano wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:48 pm
Faulty parallelism fallacy.

Your equate:

no seatbelt at all = no shoulder harness.

You have no argument. The law is clear, and pilots use there judgment. I guarantee that the pilots on that flight didn't have their shoulder harness on and weren't injured.
No I am claiming that both pax and pilots did the legal minimum (seatbelt wise) because of comfort, while there was a better option available for both.

Both would have worn the extra protection if there was moderate/severe turbulence yet both didn't bother to wear the protection since the turbulence was encountered unexpectedly.

It's about an attitude: do I use everything available or just what is the minimum required?
Do you use max power / thrust take offs every time? You know you wouldn’t to use a derate which is the min required.

Do you fly with full fuel or carry something closer to the minimum required?
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by altiplano » Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:40 am

digits_ wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:59 am
that is hard to compare
So why are you? Because they are incomparable. You are inferring a likeness where it doesn't exist.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by pelmet » Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:25 pm

Eric Janson wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:46 pm
This sounds more like an encounter with a CB than a Cat event.

Either outflow from the cell or catching the top.
TSB statement 2.5 months later.
Class 5 incident so no further report.
Yes, it would be nice to know if they went through a CB as Jetstream turbulence seems less likely down that way, especially in the summer. I suppose a real keener could look up the historic SigWx charts for that day.

"C-FNNH, an Air Canada Boeing 777-233LR was operating as flight ACA033 from Vancouver
(CYVR), BC to Sydney (YSSY), Australia with 15 crew members and 269 passengers on board.
Approximately 7 hours into the flight (ADOWA waypoint; 640 nm sw of Honolulu, Hawaii) the
aircraft encountered severe turbulence at FL340 for 10 to 15 seconds. During the encounter
several passengers and some cabin crew were thrown in to the ceiling of the cabin. In total, 37
people (31 passengers and 6 cabin crew) identified that they had sustained sprains, strains, cuts
and bruises. The flight crew decided to divert to Honolulu (PHNL), Hawaii which was approximately
2 hours away. While en route to PHNL, first aid was given by the cabin crew and voluntary medical
professionals that were passengers on ACA033. In preparation for landing, fuel was dumped and
EMS was positioned to meet the aircraft.
Maintenance conducted a severe turbulence inspection and no faults were found. There was
damage to interior components and cabin furnishings where passengers and cabin crew had come
into contact with those items."
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
dashx
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:51 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by dashx » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:19 am

As a passenger I always fasten my seat belt (when seated in my seat) but here are times on a long flight when I have a need to get out of my seat. Usually it is to use the washroom. I try to use the washroom when there is no line up. If I sit too long I have a need to stretch my legs and get my circulation moving (so to speak). I pay attention to announcements (if there are any) from the flight deck. Most pilots will warn the FA's/passengers of any unusual activity (CAT will get ya..). And I think that most passengers have been trained to know better when it comes to wearing seat belts.

But some (if not most) can be lulled into a sense of false security. And on a flight with almost 300 passengers and crew there will be movement in the cabin for many reasons. Some legitimate some not.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”