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: 2151
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: 788
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: 1666
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: 59
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: 3460
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: 2907
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: 2151
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: 3460
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: 2151
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: 3460
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: 2151
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: 1666
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: 3460
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 -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”