Air Canada Flt#88

[who me ?]

Sounds like twenty injured. Flight diverted to Calgary.

[silent_pete]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/t ... -1.3384986

[PilotDAR]

I wonder about the relationship of those who were unfortunately injured, to the passengers who chose to wear their seatbelts the entire time they were seated. I certainly hope that no one who was belted in suffered injury from being struck by some one who was not, that would just not be fair! I was aboard a flight from Europe last summer during which a couple of unbelted passengers became weightless for a moment, one hitting the ceiling. I heard a whole bunch of frantic latching of belts as soon as they dropped back into their seats! The captain had prewarned of the turbulence, and the seatbelt light have been on for many minutes before we hit.

[oldtimer]

Many years ago I heard of a wooden wing Mooney that came apart in mountain wave turbulence near Pincher Creek and there have been numerous cases of (usually) small(er) airplanes coming apart in a thunderstorm but has anyone ever heard of an airliner being damaged in Clear Air Turbulence. I cannot recall ever reading about it happening.

[fleetcanuck]

I believe a DC-8 came apart near Mt. Fuji in the '60s. It is the only CAT airliner airframe failure I can recall.

[cgzro]

It only takes a very small negative G to lift you into the ceiling hard enough to hurt yourself. -1G would be like falling from a normal ceiling while upside down. Certainly enough to break your neck if you are unlucky and nowhere near enough to break the plane.

[Rookie50]

Hopefully the truth is told, as well.

I am disturbed by the incident 2 years ago (over the North atlantic) where it was shown while negotiating settlements, AC lied to the passenger(s) for over a year, calling it unforeseen turbulence, instead of what it was, a severe pilot induced oscillation. Why?

Same in Halifax -- they called an accident a "hard landing", for liability reasons.

Call it what it is -- publicly. I have little tolerance for anything but the full, complete and total, truth.

Withholding information -- is the same to me as lying. And I teach my child --- the same.

This is considered quaint these days -- as in business and personal dealings, it's what can be concealed and decieved, is all considered fair dealing. Trust -- a quaint concept, regretfully.

Rant over ---

[Siddley Hawker]

I believe a DC-8 came apart near Mt. Fuji in the '60s. It is the only CAT airliner airframe failure I can recall.

Here ya go.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 19660305-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911

[cgzro]

I too find the hiding of what really happened pretty objectionable. In fact its likely a violation of the companies code of ethics. Usually every employee of a large company has to take ethics certifications and sign a statement agreeing to honour or else risk being fired etc. Its sad when the employees all seem to honour their agreements to ethical behaviour but the senior management do not. Saw that a lot at Nortel in the last few years ;(

[Rookie50]

I too find the hiding of what really happened pretty objectionable. In fact its likely a violation of the companies code of ethics. Usually every employee of a large company has to take ethics certifications and sign a statement agreeing to honour or else risk being fired etc. Its sad when the employees all seem to honour their agreements to ethical behaviour but the senior management do not. Saw that a lot at Nortel in the last few years ;(

CGZRO....

Ethics? Honour? Transparency? Code?

These terms are getting rather rare....from my observations.

[altiplano]

I think your insinuations are a bit thin here Rookie.

All evidence so far points to what it was - turbulence.

Passenger Gord Murray said the crew handled it professionally.

"It last maybe half an hour."

"We had certainly been warned to put our seatbelts on numerous times," Dr. Suzanne Caudry told CBC News.

Additionally very different situation from the flight you reference: Namely the flight was double augmented and flying during the crew's circadian wake period.

[cgzro]

I think he (as was I) was referring to a previous event where the turbulence was caused by the co-pilot but then not disclosed which is essentially lying to your customers which is a violation of most companies ethics guidelines.

[linecrew]

I'm curious if airlines will ever make it absolutely mandatory for passengers to wear seatbelts during flight except when going to the lav. With the amount of litigation that surely results from this sort of thing I'm surprised that they haven't already.

[mbav8r]

I'm curious if airlines will ever make it absolutely mandatory for passengers to wear seatbelts during flight except when going to the lav. With the amount of litigation that surely results from this sort of thing I'm surprised that they haven't already.

The problem as I see it, if you have the seatbelt sign on continuously, how would you be able to advise passengers when it is unsafe to use the lav? There are language barriers and passengers who just plain don't hear or listen to announcements, so the current method is to turn the sign on when turbulence is anticipated or occurring. Absent another sign with an internationally recognized symbol for turbulence, how would you suggest they accomplish this?

[fish4life]

If people don't wear seatbelts when the sign is on for shorter periods of time what makes you think leaving the belt sign on all the time would increase this compliance? I think it it was continuously on it would decrease seatbelt usage when people needed to have them on.

[cgzro]

I'd have thought a very brief 0G demonstration would get the point across rather quickly

[Rookie50]

I think your insinuations are a bit thin here Rookie.

All evidence so far points to what it was - turbulence.

Passenger Gord Murray said the crew handled it professionally.

"It last maybe half an hour."

"We had certainly been warned to put our seatbelts on numerous times," Dr. Suzanne Caudry told CBC News.

Additionally very different situation from the flight you reference: Namely the flight was double augmented and flying during the crew's circadian wake period.

A,

It's a generalized comment, and more about the persistant habit airlines choose to employ about being less than truthful with their passengers in many instances where there is a delay or incident.

I'm sure most of us have experienced this. Note the flight on the other board where Pax were held in the AC AT YHM for 8 hours.

Not released until someone called 911. I'm doubtful that airline was honest with their pax. Simply wrong.

FWIW, I'm a pilot with great respect for the professionals, always wear my seatbelt and obey cabin crew, and 99% of my Air Canada experiences have been very positive, so this isn't anything against them.

I personally think, while pax are animals at times I'm sure, airlines could help in this area at times by choosing a straight up, honest approach.

[Antique Pilot]

Here is severe turbulence report involving a TCA Vanguard in 1963.

AP

[altiplano]

It's a generalized comment

Was it?

It seemed pretty direct to me that you are insinuating there is an intent to cover up something when the reported facts seem to show it was turbulence.

The pilot came over the intercom and advised an area of turbulence ahead, the turbulence lasted several minutes, the crew responded professionally... Sure sounds like a turbulence incident.

You are a pilot. You understand that sometimes things like this can happen and there is nothing the pilots or operator could do to predict it. Why reference deceit when the reports here seem pretty clear?

[crazyaviator]

I too find the hiding of what really happened pretty objectionable. In fact its likely a violation of the companies code of ethics. Usually every employee of a large company has to take ethics certifications and sign a statement agreeing to honour or else risk being fired etc. Its sad when the employees all seem to honour their agreements to ethical behaviour but the senior management do not. Saw that a lot at Nortel in the last few years

Because of withholding this information when the injured pregnant woman settled, A/C should be held responsible for her REGARDLESS of whether she was or wasnt wearing a seatbelt.
Its like a driving infraction, IF the ticket shows errors, then the whole validity of the infraction is at stake!!

[Canoehead]

Apples and oranges. The Atlantic incident has ZERO to so with what happened yesterday except they both involve seat belts (which should be worn at ALL times). I have zero sympathy for anyone injured who ignores a seatbelt sign, especially one turned on with an accompanying announcement (usually a COM requirement if moderate or greater is expected).

[Rookie50]

Apples and oranges. The Atlantic incident has ZERO to so with what happened yesterday except they both involve seat belts (which should be worn at ALL times). I have zero sympathy for anyone injured who ignores a seatbelt sign, especially one turned on with an accompanying announcement (usually a COM requirement it moderate or greater is expected).

Canoe, no one is disputing the wisdom of wearing belts continuously. Dumb, not to, and if you don't, during a turbulence warning, take responsibilty. I'm as far from a nanny state advocate, as you will see. And, I've been caught by sharp jolts out of no where, and I know the big iron pilots are too, occasionally. I'm always impressed when flying North of the GTA, all the calls to ATC, "how's the ride at 230" ect. Obviously, most want to give a good ride, and share info.

However ---

I'm interested, re the Atlantic incident, what the views are re AC's decison to be less than forthcoming on the cause.

Is this defensible, and if so, why? Should airlines be held to account, for ever deceiving passengers, whether regarding an incident, or to get around paying compensation for a delay, or about the length / reason of delay? (Like the YHM recent incident).

What are, from the pros here, a reasonable set of expectations for pax rights?

Just curious ---

[crazyaviator]

I have zero sympathy for anyone injured who ignores a seatbelt sign, especially one turned on with an accompanying announcement (usually a COM requirement if moderate or greater is expected).

I agree !
Except when there is a true need for a washroom visit and there is no turbulence present ( shouldnt they have seat belts in washrooms ? )

Sit, buckle and shit lol

[Gannet167]

Maybe anticipating clear air turbulence, the crew should do a momentary 0 g bunt. It wouldn't hurt anyone, just cause a few screams, wake everyone up and get the buckles fastening up quick. No language barriers in that. No anti-authority passengers who feel the need to take off their belt just because they feel entitled to would argue.

[Meatservo]

What they SHOULD do is chloroform everybody and tie them into racks stacked like cordwood. Actually if that was an option I would request it. It would eliminate the crippling discomfort of having to sit in the seats and you wouldn't have to talk to anyone, stand on the pissy floor of the lav, or spend eight hours trying not to freak out at the guy in front of you when he reclines his seat into your lap.

No more seat belts- instead a herc strap around your torso and ankles and an IV drip. And a catheter I suppose. It all sounds way more comfortable and dignified than the current state of airborne mass transit.