35 people injured on AC flight.

[digits_]

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?

[Eric Janson]

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

Either outflow from the cell or catching the top.

[fish4life]

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.

[Kaykay]

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

[altiplano]

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.

[PilotDAR]

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.

[digits_]

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.

[altiplano]

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.

[digits_]

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?

[altiplano]

Did the pilots get hurt while wearing their seatbelts here?

[digits_]

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.

[fish4life]

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?

[altiplano]

that is hard to compare

So why are you? Because they are incomparable. You are inferring a likeness where it doesn't exist.

[pelmet]

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."

[dashx]

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.