Sudden drop jolts WestJet passengers

[gulfan]

Up to 10 injured on Calgary-Halifax flight after plane hits turbulence and sustains 'one huge loss of altitude'
GEOFF NIXON AND OLIVER MOORE

Globe and Mail Update

September 7, 2007 at 12:26 AM EDT

TORONTO AND HALIFAX — One hundred seventeen passengers on a WestJet flight from Calgary to Halifax had a major scare Thursday when their flight plunged in the air nearly 11/2 hours from their destination.

Flight 80 was approximately 180 nautical miles northwest of Sudbury, and cruising at 39,000 feet above the ground around 5 p.m., when it hit a patch of turbulence.

The pilots told the people on board to put on their seatbelts, and then there was a sudden drop.

“It was just one huge loss of altitude,” said Nancy Powers, a Victoria nurse who was flying east to visit family in Lunenberg, N.S. “Just one big drop,” she said.

Drinks spilled all over the cabin and magazines flew from their holders as the plane quickly lost altitude, Ms. Powers said.

Ms. Powers and her friend, Kathi Nelson, who is a fellow nurse, attended to those on board for the next 11/2 hours.

WestJet staff consulted the two nurses for their professional opinions on the conditions of the injured passengers. When it was decided they could fly to their destination, the pilots stayed in the air until they reached Nova Scotia.

Ms. Powers estimated that up to 10 people were injured in the incident.

“I would say maybe a total of 10 people had different types of aches and pains just from the jolt,” she said. “Some people were asleep and were just jolted awake by this turbulence, and there were three people who really needed to see a paramedic.”

WestJet spokesman Richard Bartrem confirmed that three people were taken to Dartmouth Hospital as a precautionary measure.

He said the plane did not land earlier than expected because the incident was “not deemed a medical emergency.”

“There was nobody in any impending danger,” Mr. Bartrem said. “They were able to continue on safely to Halifax.”

The most seriously injured passengers were taken off the plane by paramedics using the lift on a food-service truck, said spokesman Peter Spurway, spokesman for Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport.

Mr. Spurway said the airport was notified about the turbulence about 40 minutes before the plane was due to land. The injuries sounded severe enough that the paramedics took the unusual step of approaching the “airside” of the plane.

The meant that the ambulances were in place on the opposite of the jetway and waiting for the plane when it came to a stop. The paramedics entered the jet using a truck that normally loads food and removed three passengers.

“That way they can get a stretcher onto the plane and you don't have to take the patient through the airport,” Mr. Spurway said in an interview late last night.

Passengers told the Halifax Chronicle-Herald that the turbulence was well beyond what they considered normal.

Many passengers didn't have enough time to put on their seatbelts and “all of the people rose up in their seats to where they had just been and hit their heads on the roof,” said passenger Scott Lacroix, 30.

People in the aisle or waiting by the bathroom were thrown to the floor and around the plane.

The incident will not have to be reported to the Transportation Safety Board because the pilot did not declare a medical emergency, Mr. Bartrem said.

Thundershowers may have caused the turbulence, said Andy Firth, a meteorologist with Environment Canada.

Mary Ellen Chesnutt told the Halifax Chronicle-Herald the “1,000-foot drop” threw the WestJet passengers around the fuselage like rag dolls.

“It was the worst flight ever,” Ms. Chesnutt, 24, said. “Everyone was really scared.” With a report from Canadian Press

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home

[Four1oh]

I hope everyone's alright. Good lesson, when seated in an airplane travelling almost 1000 km/h, wear your bloody seatbelt!!!

[Kosiw]

Uh...isn't the Cpt, and flight crew ultimately responsible for passenger safety .....Oh that's right, it's the passengers fault for encountering turbulence forgot that one

[CanadaEH]

Blame the crew, blame the crew!

[YYCcrew]

You sure can tell that the media once again is really on our side... When you read reports from a few different sources the details do not match up??? I sure hope that everyone including the crew are ok.

[Four1oh]

Uh...isn't the Cpt, and flight crew ultimately responsible for passenger safety .....Oh that's right, it's the passengers fault for encountering turbulence forgot that one

I can't figure out which Salt grad is which in the picture...

[Jeremy Kent]

I want to know where they're getting this 1,000 ft drop from. Hyper-sensitive inner ear? Pocket altimeter? The Force??

At least they talked to a semi-reputable source in the form of that meteorologist... I guess no near-by farmers were available, as they typically seem to make the best expert quotes.

[CCnCoke]

"..the unusual step of approaching the “airside” of the plane..."

Hmmmm... I guess only one side actually gets in the air... Must be one helluva an optical illusion I've been seeing all these years..

[dangerous]

I'm surprised the media didn't describe it as one of those dreaded "air-pockets!"

[yycflyguy]

Guess what Westjet. You are about to be sued from 10 different passengers (probably more will come out of the woodwork after they see $$$ in their eyes) for their "injuries". Don't fool yourselves that just because the seat belt sign was on that there wont be 20 ambulance chasing lawyers to milk you of your record profits/loads. Sorry it happend but you will be hearing about this one for years.

[Flightlevels]

that's good stuff yc, if litigation was pursued insurances have a place. By having the belt sign on removes you of that litigation. After an assement is done by medilink (who also carries insurance) on any passengers that are hurt, medilink decides to continue or divert for medical reasons. They have obviously told the crew to continue therefore taking the responsibility with them. They are never concerned of dollars and cents, just the facts and well being of individuals. Think of how that would play out in court. I mean can you see the turb. coming? maybe there were no other reports/sigmets. how do you prove this? I have been caught off guard by bumps more than I can remember. You can't force anyone to wear a seatbelt. We are informers not enforcers. We even say to the guests "we strongly encourage you to keep your belts fastened in the event of unexpected turbulence". What does that statement say in your mind. Here we go with the armchair qb's. Don't worry you won't hear about this for more than a few days and nor will I for that matter. Just glad nobody was seriously hurt.

[invertedattitude]

The "facts" as I heard from the Media:

- turbulence warning issued to pax, moments before turbulence was encountered. That would imply the crew had some form of warning, either from ATC, or a cloud they were about to fly into.

- Turbulence encountered over Ontario CYYC-CYHZ

- Several ambulences met the aircraft

Now, I must ask these questions considering that these facts to be assumed true, please disregard this post if they are at all incorrect.


1.)Why wasn't the flight diverted, if ambulences were required, then obviously landing ASApracticable should be the rule, no medical emergency?

2.)Who warned the crew of turbulence, ATC? And if so when? Or was it impending cloud cover, or another factor?



I'm also one who always has their seatbelt on if I'm in the seat.

[Flightlevels]

medilink made assesments on the guests by a live handheld sat phone done through medical personnelle that were on the flight. Deemed it wasn't necessary to divert but to continue. Turbulence reports are sometimes old or variable based on different altitudes. One never really knows unless you have an aircraft right in front of you at the same altitude. I find the most accurate reports of turb. country wide are the high volume routes. ie the climbs or decents out/into YVR or YYZ. YYC to YHZ is a route very few a/c fly. just some thoughts off the top of my head.
Background on Medilink: subscribed service that wj uses, 24/7 coverage/direct link to a doctor specifically trained in aviation medicine/high altitude scenarios, a/c capabilities and alternate knowledge/liable/they arrange emergency vehicles/fire or ambulance or police/ set up a direct conference call with our specific flt dispatcher so he or she is in the loop and knows exactly what is transpiring if they have to scramble fuelers or CSA's for a station that has an unknown flight coming in...cool stuff and a great tool.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home

[invertedattitude]

Medlink is IMO not always the best option when it comes to decision making capabilites.

I've seen airliners with self-described "Serious medical condition, we need to divert immediately" And fly 350 miles to a "preferred airport" (In the opposite direction to their path of flight mind you), when an airport with medical services as or more adequate was 100 miles away.

While medlink is often the only method of medical assesment to flight crews, prudence should be kept keeping in mind that assesing a medical condition over a voice line is not going to offer all the information a doctor first-hand can offer.


While I'm sure the crew acted in accordance with company procedure and information offered by medlink, if this event took place over ontario, it was another 1.5 hours to meet "Several ambulences".

Is erring on the side of caution not a good idea in such a circumstance?

All of this to me anyway is still heresay based on passenger accounts, which are quite often wildly exaggerated.

With regards to the legal action, I highly doubt you will see much of it, we're in Canada, not the US.

[Troubleshot]

The passengers that were hurt in my opinion will only get what precedent law has awarded in the past (if any) . Otherwise they have to prove WJ was negligent, and if they do prove it they will not be awarded the full amount as they have contributed to their own injurys (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence )

[Huge Hammer]

Medlink is IMO not always the best option when it comes to decision making capabilites.

I've seen airliners with self-described "Serious medical condition, we need to divert immediately" And fly 350 miles to a "preferred airport" (In the opposite direction to their path of flight mind you), when an airport with medical services as or more adequate was 100 miles away.

While medlink is often the only method of medical assesment to flight crews, prudence should be kept keeping in mind that assesing a medical condition over a voice line is not going to offer all the information a doctor first-hand can offer.

I am not sure what your point is here IA. Nobody is saying Medilink is the be all and end all, it is/was a resource used by the pilots along with the 2 medical professionals that were on board.

Can you give one example of Medilink NOT being used correctly or just your half assed anecdote about diverting 350 miles?

[invertedattitude]

I hope your not asking me to divulge specific flight information, but to answer your question yes.

I'm not here for a pissing match HH, drop the sheilds.

I'll have a conversation with you about it, but if you wan't to argue, find another venue.

[Flightlevels]

Inverted, diversions are picked with a number of things in mind. I can think of a few that would alter my decisions. What looks good to you doesn't look good to me being the PIC of the day. We have a/c for example don't have airstairs, some do, and most pork and bean fields don't have them either. Is Jet A with the proper cnx available to refuel us? runway length and suitability? is there a groundservice that can accept a jet with ac ground power, do we have the approach plates for those smaller airports and a data base to support it? not to mention the wx at the time.....medilink along with our dispatch has those answers. armchairing the decision of where a captain decided to go is fruitless unless you were there in the flightdeck.

[Go Guns]

You're headed home to Halifax when your suddenly injured @ 41,000'. If you weren't seriously injured, would you prefer to see the doctor in Sudbury, be released from hospital the next morning, then get back in airplane to get to Halifax, or just go see the doctor in Halifax?

[invertedattitude]

You're headed home to Halifax when your suddenly injured @ 41,000'. If you weren't seriously injured, would you prefer to see the doctor in Sudbury, be released from hospital the next morning, then get back in airplane to get to Halifax, or just go see the doctor in Halifax?

I totally agree with you, the artcile I read in the paper said there was a man with "Fairly severe lacerations"

Of course, that's the media.

[invertedattitude]

"There was one gentleman who had a really bad laceration to his head and his leg,"Nelson said.

He fell on top of his wife and hurt her as well, she added.



When the flight landed in Halifax, it was greeted by seven ambulances on the tarmac. Those inside the airport could see a passenger being taken out of the plane on a stretcher from the large windows in the lobby.

The media makes it seem a helluva lot worse than is being reported here that's for sure.

This article seems to contradict some of the others... likely over-done by a zelous media hunting for ratings.

However you might understand my questions better now.

[. .]

[quote="Flightlevels"Turbulence reports are sometimes old or variable based on different altitudes. One never really knows unless you have an aircraft right in front of you at the same altitude. I find the most accurate reports of turb. country wide are the high volume routes. ie the climbs or decents out/into YVR or YYZ. YYC to YHZ is a route very few a/c fly. just some thoughts off the top of my head.
[/quote]

Just to further this for the few that aren't on the same page. Turbulence reports even for the well flown routes like YYZ are all over the place. I've flown into YYZ along the same route as a heavy ahead which reported moderate turbulence. I expected heavy turbulence and felt absolute nothing what so ever with less than 4 minutes separation between. So just because something is forecast or reported doesn't mean it's going to exist, and obviously just because something isn't forecast doesn't mean it's not going to be there. It really bugs me when people jump on these AC or WJ incidents and try and arm chair the crap out of them. Surely everyone here has been in situations which even with the best planning they wouldn't have been able to foresee.

[Rotten Apple #1]

This is a court record of one case from Canadian courts. Perhaps it will add some factual information regarding lawsuits, injury aboard aircraft, and airline liability. It's not a perfect match to the incident at hand. Jonny.


On October 9, 2000, the plaintiff McDonald flew from Toronto to Hong Kong aboard a Korean jet liner.

[2] His flight took him via Anchorage, Alaska and Seoul, Korea to Hong Kong, a trip of some twenty hours. On his arrival, the plaintiff complained of a pain in his leg, which was subsequently diagnosed as deep vein thrombosis (DVT), for which the plaintiff was hospitalized in Hong Kong for eleven days.

[3] Mr. McDonald sues the defendants for damages, for pain, anguish and loss of enjoyment of life, out of pockets, loss of income and loss of competitive advantage, alleging the defendants failed to warn him of the risk of DVT on long flights, and failed to take measures to reduce the risk.

[4] It is common ground between the parties that liability of an international air carrier is governed by the Warsaw Convention, which has been incorporated into the Carriage by Air Act RSC c.C-26.

[5] Article 17 of chapter III, Liability of the Carrier reads:

The carrier is liable for damages sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

[6] I find that this Article is exclusive and exhaustive and determines the liability of an international air carrier.

[7] The defendant Korean Air argues in this motion that the plaintiff’s Statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and should be struck pursuant to Rule 21.01(1)(b). The plaintiff replies that DVT acquired on board an aircraft is an accident within the meaning of Article 17, and Korean Air is liable for same.

[8] I read Article 17 to mean that the plaintiff must prima facie establish that an accident on board the aircraft caused the damage sustained by the plaintiff (the DVT). As Justice O’Connor wrote in the case of Air France v. Saks[1] a decision of the United States Supreme Court:

Article 17 refers to an accident which caused the passenger’s injury, and not an accident which is the passenger’s injury.

[9] There are no allegations in the Statement of Claim that the plaintiff had other than a normal flight - no turbulence, no evasive aircraft operations which might otherwise negatively effect passengers.

[10] I am satisfied that the definition or meaning of accident in aviation law is clearly set out in Air France v. Saks. Therein, Justice O’Connor held that any liability under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger. She further states:

... When the injury results from the passenger’s own internal reactions to the usual normal expected operation of the aircraft, it has not been caused by an accident. ... The passenger must be able to prove that some link in the chain was an unusual or unexpected event external to the passengers.

[11] The plaintiff argues that the failure of the defendant to warn and educate passengers on lengthy flights that they may be exposed to DVT represents an unusual and unexpected operation of the aircraft. The plaintiff further argues that the failure constitutes a marked departure from the duty of care of air carriers to their passengers, and the breach of this duty is an accident within the meaning of Article 17.

[12] Justice Sutherland reviewed Air France v. Saks in Quinn v. Canadian Air Lines International[2] with approval, holding that:

Thereafter the plaintiff had to show more than injury during a flight to make out a prima facie case. He had the burden of showing that his injury was the result of an accident as defined in Saks.

[13] I find that the plaintiff faces this burden in the case at bar. Unless he can point to an accident on board which caused his injury, he must fail.

[14] Shawcross and Beaumont’s 4th edition of the text, Air Law,[3] reviews an airline liability in passenger cases and at page vii (514) states:

Where the flight, which has no unusual features, aggravates an existing condition, such as thromboflebitis, there will be no accident.

[15] This text further states at viii (515):

DVT or economy Class Syndrome

Much attention has been paid to the cases of deep vein thrombosis in aircraft passengers, supposedly especially those travelling in the more confined conditions of economy or tourist class. Although one view is that the frequency of this problem among airline passengers is exaggerated, there is a growing body of literature, most of which concludes that there is no liability on the part of the carrier, as this cannot be an unexpected happening.

[16] The applicant cites Sherer v. Pan American,[4] a decision of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division which involved the plaintiff suffering thromboflebitis by sitting aboard Pan Am and Trans World flights from Tokyo to California and New York. The case holds that the plaintiff must show that an accident took place aboard that resulted in bodily injury. The court further held there was no “accident” as a matter of law within the plain meaning of that word. This case is not a precedent, but it is persuasive.

[17] I find that in not advising passengers of the risk they assume, an airline may be negligent, but this negligence is not in itself an accident within the meaning of Article 17 in the sense that the DVT sustained by the plaintiff is not linked to an unusual and unexpected event external to him as a passenger.

[18] I find that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case of accident causing him bodily harm, and therefore I hold that Mr. McDonald cannot rely upon Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention.

[19] Accordingly, Ken McDonald’s claims are not sustainable in law and the Statement of Claim is struck as it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

[20] I may be spoken to with respect to costs of this motion.



___________________________

HERMISTON, J.


Released: September 18, 2002

[invertedattitude]

Doesnt WJA cover their A$$ by the phrase during the pre-flight brief:

"Due to the chance of turbulence in flight, westjet recommends you fasten your seatbelt at all times while occupying your seat, even if the seatbelt sign is off"

Or something along those lines.

[Ryan Coke2]

As for being able to predict turbulence--I do everything I can, using visual cues, forecasts, and pireps, but in the end it is wherever you find it. I have spent most of a pairing having the belts on, having the FA's stay seated and having them secure early, only to have nothing more than light. Then, with reports of a smooth ride and no turb forecast, I have been hammered--and without it starting with little bumps gradually getting worse. It is where it is, and you may be the only one of a line to find it. It just highlights the importance of keeping your belt on when you are seated.

As for Medlink and the decision making. IA, I understand what you are saying, but that really is the purpose of Medlink--to collect all available facts, do an expert medical assessment, and determine the most appropriate course of action. Along with that, they take a legal responsibility of that decision.

It is easy to say always do the most conservative thing, but then we would be diverting a LOT for headaches, hangovers, and indigestion. You would probably be surprised how often we deal with this kind of thing.

I don't ever want to put anyones health at risk, but we also have to be congnizant of the other 130 people that are trying to get somewhere, and not continually diverting for someone with little more than a stomach ache.

While the crew makes the final decision, obviously putting great weight on a trained medical professionals opinion is a prudent part of that.