Westjet flight's sharp drop injures 9

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:11 pm

Moderate turbulence chucking passengers into the ceiling?

If that was the case, there would be stories like this everyday

Siddley Hawker · Post by **Siddley Hawker** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:35 pm

Lucky the airplane never plunged. Would have been a whole lot more people hurt if the airplane hadda plunged.

BigB · Post by **BigB** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:39 pm

Well, I read somewhere that the aircraft went "straight down". Is that the same as "plunged"?

Reporters.....oh-boy

BugSmasher · Post by **BugSmasher** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:55 pm

This is so wrong. Word from the "inside" is that some of the passengers, upon arriving in YHZ were taken from the plane on stretchers, via the catering truck lift. Add that to the fact that you just hit severe turbulence at cruising altitude/speed and could have very well overstressed the airframe.

These pilots made a terrible mistake in judgment when they decided to continue for 2 more hours to YHZ. They should be suspended, pending an investigation into their actions, and accept the consequences that are handed down to them.

I think this goes back to WJ having too many "kids" in the cockpit. You are not mature enough to make life-and-death decisions, for 120 people, at 23 years old. These guys are young, cocky, and too concerned with on-time-performance.

This is about safety, people. Get your heads on straight!

The plane should have made an emergency landing in YSB, or YYB, or YYZ, or YOW, or where ever, but the decision to continue to destination is just wrong. It was wrong, it was stupid, and it was dangerous. If they keep making bad decisions like this, and like LAX, one day it's going to backfire on them.

"Darn near killed 100 people today, but our on-time-performance rocks"

My 2 cents.
BS

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:03 pm

I'd like to comment on that last post by BugSmasher.

On the token that there may be a 23 year old in the cockpit, I would bet a lot of money the guy in the left seat has a few more years, and more importantly, a few more hours experience behind the stick.

The problem with airlines these days is that there is a ton of informaiton to be processed by the flight crew.

1.) Information from the back end of the condition of the pax

2.)Information from MedLink and their suggestions

3.) Suggestions from Operations on how to proceed....

4.) ATC instructions, requests and the like

and so on...

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:05 pm

BugSmasher

Cool Rythms! · Post by **Cool Rythms!** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:19 pm

I too, hope those who were injured will recover quickly. It is unfortunate, but as some of you said, this may be a little bit of a wake up call to some passengers regarding the use of seat belts.

I've been on flights as well, where the seat belt sign has been turned on, and all of a sudden, Jack has to get something out of his carry on bag in the overhead compartment, or Jane suddenly has to go real bad, or Peter has to get up and go get his kid running down the isle.

We don't have control over our passengers, we can only do our job and hope that people actually listen to the safety briefings given by the F/A's, or the announcements made by the pilots.

I am curious as to what the flight conditions were at the time of this incident.

zzjayca · Post by **zzjayca** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:19 pm

AIM Met 3.7
Turbulence Reporting Criteria Table
INTENSITY AIRCRAFT REACTION REACTION INSIDE AIRCRAFT

LIGHT
Turbulence that momentarily causes slight, erratic changes in
altitude and/or attitude (pitch, roll, yaw).
Report as “Light Turbulence”.
OR
Turbulence that causes slight, rapid and somewhat rhythmic
bumpiness without appreciable changes in altitude or attitude.
Report as “Light Chop”.
Occupants may feel a slight strain
against seat belts or shoulder straps.
Unsecured objects may be displaced
slightly. Food service may be
conducted and little or no difficulty is
encountered in walking.

MODERATE
Turbulence that is similar to Light Turbulence but of greater
intensity. Changes in altitude and/or attitude occur but the aircraft
remains in positive control at all times. It usually causes variations
in indicated airspeed. Report as “Moderate Turbulence”.
OR
Turbulence that is similar to Light Chop but of greater intensity. It
causes rapid bumps or jolts without appreciable changes in aircraft
altitude or attitude. Report as “Moderate Chop”.
Occupants feel definite strains
against seat belts or shoulder straps.
Unsecured objects are dislodged.
Food service and walking are difficult.

SEVERE
Turbulence that causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or
attitude. It usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed.
Aircraft may be momentarily out of control.
Report as “Severe Turbulence”.
Occupants are forced violently
against seat belts or shoulder straps.
Unsecured objects are tossed about.
Food service and walking impossible.

If as the media reported, the aircraft dropped several hundred meters, then what was encountered was by definition severe turbulence.

If it was severe turbulence, ATC must be notified since we may have to suspend RVSM and increase vertical separation to 2000ft.

It sounds like another case of the media overstating and embellishing the facts to make the story more compelling.

Dick · Post by **Dick** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:50 pm

BugSmasher wrote:This is so wrong. Word from the "inside" is that some of the passengers, upon arriving in YHZ were taken from the plane on stretchers, via the catering truck lift. Add that to the fact that you just hit severe turbulence at cruising altitude/speed and could have very well overstressed the airframe.

These pilots made a terrible mistake in judgment when they decided to continue for 2 more hours to YHZ. They should be suspended, pending an investigation into their actions, and accept the consequences that are handed down to them.

I think this goes back to WJ having too many "kids" in the cockpit. You are not mature enough to make life-and-death decisions, for 120 people, at 23 years old. These guys are young, cocky, and too concerned with on-time-performance.

This is about safety, people. Get your heads on straight!

The plane should have made an emergency landing in YSB, or YYB, or YYZ, or YOW, or where ever, but the decision to continue to destination is just wrong. It was wrong, it was stupid, and it was dangerous. If they keep making bad decisions like this, and like LAX, one day it's going to backfire on them.

"Darn near killed 100 people today, but our on-time-performance rocks"

My 2 cents.
BS

Your quote and comment only displays your ignorance.

BugSmasher · Post by **BugSmasher** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:52 pm

Ok, maybe the "23 year old" comment wasn't warranted, BUT.... you have 9 injured passengers, some of them seriously. People bleeding in your plane. What if one of them goes into shock or cardiac arrest? What if one of them is HIV positive? What if one of them is a "bleeder"? There's a number of bad scenarios that could have developed out of this.

All I'm saying is, if for no other reason, this plane should have been diverted to a closer airport, for medical reasons, and not continue for 2 hours to YHZ. IF one of the passengers had died from their injuries 90 minutes after the incident, and 30 minute before arriving in YHZ, you would all be agreeing with me.

Safety, safety, safety.
Nothing else matters.

BS

Empress Chief · Post by **Empress Chief** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:10 pm

Comments removed due to association with "troll".

You're on your own buddy.

Dick · Post by **Dick** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:16 pm

If either of you were there or have inside information, please let us know. Otherwise, as a pilot, I will assume that as professionals, the pilots of the flight in question made the right decision with the information they were given

BugSmasher · Post by **BugSmasher** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:26 pm

Well I get "a little wound up" when people are hurt. I can't believe out of 31 posts, only 2 of us are concerned about the injured passengers. If 3 of them were bad enough to be taken to hospital, them maybe they should have been in a hospital a little sooner.

I guess I was wrong thinking that safety is the first priority in aviation. Sorry if I offended anybody.

BS

Dick · Post by **Dick** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:39 pm

Definately not offended, just wanted to make sure everyone was sure of the facts, not just speculation and stories. Remember, believe half of what you read, and even less of what you hear. Unless you see it with your own eyes, it didn't really happen, and if you did, it's only a possibility.

Airbrake · Post by **Airbrake** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:49 pm

Bug Smasher.

You must understand the support system that WJ uses before you criticize decisions made.
WJ uses the most knowledgeable medical professionals for all medical situations. It is called MedLink. Medlink is based in Pheonix and consists of professional Aviation doctors. These doctors take all responsibility from WJ in making decisions. ie. If a doctor on board decides that a medical condition does not warrant a diversion and then MedLink decides it is in the best interest for all involved, it is done no questions asked.

So I am going to guess that the decision was not based on OTP at all. In fact, I have never heard of a medical decision being made with OTP even being considered.

So do not jump to any conclusions until all the facts have been brought out into the public. The media will not get 100% of the info so therefore they try to did up some good juice from people who must take assumptions. And we all know that to assume only makes an Ass out of U and Me.

Brakesout

Dick · Post by **Dick** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:56 pm

Exactly, thanks.

BugSmasher · Post by **BugSmasher** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:03 pm

Ok,fine. I'm all calmed down now. I understand that there are "systems" in place with all the airlines, for situations like this. I also realize that the crews are trained to handles these situations. Thank you for responding with sensibility and intelligence. It was so much better than being called "ignorant" for speaking up about safety.

My concern was with the fact that if something (anything) had gone wrong as an after-effect of this incident, the results could have been catastrophic.

I'll just go away now. Time to refill my blood-pressure medication anyway.

BS

Azure · Post by **Azure** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:05 pm

BugSmasher

Your quite new to this forum? Avcanada is great reading, but seriously! Sarcasm is quite accepted here, almost expected. Preferred really.

For a little less

and

when you try to have a dialogue, try PPrune, Airline Employee Forum maybe even Airlines dot net. BUT remember! You cannot argue using newspaper articles in any of these forums. I am not even a pilot, yet I gag at some of the stories that are printed! I guess I know too much.

I can assure you that WJ doesn't have a bunch of 23 year old's burning up the skies.....17,000 hours and ready to retire is my guy.

Tell you the truth? WJ guys probably have less hair than most AC guys. Or is it the cap that hides the effects? Hummm...

Ryan Coke2 · Post by **Ryan Coke2** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:22 pm

"James Redeker
Chief Flight Dispatcher
Canadian North Inc."

I respect your decision to publish your name and position on an internet forum .

I am amazed that you choose to do it while armchair quarterbacking an event at another airline, and giving credibility to a ridiculous post by a troll. I would question your judgment.

Based on a level of turbulence neither of you know about, injuries you are speculating on, and procedures you are ignoring, you feel it appropriate to express judgement on an event you know nothing about.

And then use your name and title to try to give it legitimacy?

I'll be honest---from what I know, I would likely have done the exact same thing this crew did.

All that said, one thing I do agree with--I certainly am glad that all involved appear to be fine. Also I would like to express appreciation to the 2 nurses for their assistance.

TripleBFlyboy · Post by **TripleBFlyboy** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:31 pm

Why even remove your belt?.... most people don't even leave thier seats the whole flight.... it isn't that uncomfortable..... in fact it's less intrusive than a car's....

It's almost as bad as when the flight attendant is going through the px brief and people have thier heads down in a magazine, or ears full listening to thier iPod. It only takes 2 minutes to listen. I'd rather listen than be the person holding everyone up in an actual emergency because I didn't pay attention.