35 people injured on AC flight.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

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

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by altiplano »

PSA warning:

One thing I notice most guys don't check, and we all should, is that the reel catches and locks your shoulder straps if you give it a quick tug.

A landing incident will see your face into the dash if it malfunctions and doesn't lock. I've seen them U/S a couple times on planes I was to fly and it's a no go snag.
---------- ADS -----------
 
PostmasterGeneral
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by PostmasterGeneral »

Wasn’t there a crash where the FO’s shoulder harness wouldn’t latch and he ended up severely injured with his face into the glare shield? Was that the AC Halifax one?
---------- ADS -----------
 
mixturerich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by mixturerich »

Why are we talking about the pilots? Everyone unlatches their shoulder belts above 10k unless it’s definitely going to be gnarly. It’s just way more comfortable. That being said, when riding as a passenger I always have my lap belt secured because why not? Who knows what kind of dummy is flying. Might as well, plus it’s hardly even noticeable if you keep it slightly loose.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by mixturerich on Fri Aug 02, 2019 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2978
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by digits_ »

mixturerich wrote: Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:54 pm Why are we talking about the pilots? Everyone unlatched their shoulder belts above 10k unless it’s definitely going to be gnarly.
Aha, thank you! I'm assuming that the other posters would do the same.

Pilots don't wear their shoulder harness unless it is definitely going to be gnarly.

Pax don't wear their seatbelts unless it is gnarly.

So the pilots that don't wear their shoulder harness all the time, complain that the pax don't wear their seatbelt all the time.

People are people. Whether you are sitting in the front or the back, the attitudes are often the same. If you are wondering why the pax aren't wearing their seatbelts at a non-mandatory time, think about why you are not wearing you shoulder harness at a non-mandatory time: for comfort and because you don't deem it important or necessary at that time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by fish4life »

Except there is nothing uncomfortable about a lap belt in the back...
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2978
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by digits_ »

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 -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by Eric Janson »

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: 1809
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by fish4life »

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: 91
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:21 am
Location: Canada...sometimes

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by 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 :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3259
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2978
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by digits_ »

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 -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2978
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by digits_ »

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 -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by altiplano »

Did the pilots get hurt while wearing their seatbelts here?
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2978
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by fish4life »

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: 4150
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by altiplano »

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: 4804
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by pelmet »

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: 1227
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:51 am

Re: 35 people injured on AC flight.

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”