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?
35 people injured on AC flight.
Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
Wouldn't you agree both arguments sound a bit ... similar?
|
-
Eric Janson
- Rank 8
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
This sounds more like an encounter with a CB than a Cat event.
Either outflow from the cell or catching the top.
Either outflow from the cell or catching the top.
|
|
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
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.
|
|
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
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 
|
|
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
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.
Whiners? Give me a break... Guys can wear their harness however they like in accordance with SOP/regulation and their judgement/prerogatives.
|
|
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
'Cause there are no overhead bins in the cockpit to hit with your head!Guys can wear their harness however they like in accordance with SOP/regulation and their judgement/prerogatives.
I can't imagine not wanting to be strapped into the plane, unless there were a need to be out of my seat.
|
|
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
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.PilotDAR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:37 pm'Cause there are no overhead bins in the cockpit to hit with your head!Guys can wear their harness however they like in accordance with SOP/regulation and their judgement/prerogatives.
I can't imagine not wanting to be strapped into the plane, unless there were a need to be out of my seat.
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.
|
|
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
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.
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.
|
|
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
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?
|
|
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
Did the pilots get hurt while wearing their seatbelts here?
|
|
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
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.
|
|
Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.
Do you use max power / thrust take offs every time? You know you wouldn’t to use a derate which is the min required.digits_ wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:12 amNo 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 fly with full fuel or carry something closer to the minimum required?
|
|
