36 Injured on Hawaiian Airlines Flight

BoeingG · Mon Dec 19, 2022 6:18 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
kiowa wrote:

36 injured people is IS news.

If any of those 36 were belted, sure. But something tells me they weren’t . . .

So, not news worthy because it was all their fault? Not sure of the point you are making.

So, not news worthy because it was all their fault?

Correct. Idiocy isn't newsworthy.

Cubsrule · Mon Dec 19, 2022 6:29 pm

FlyingSicilian wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

Vexing post, as this is one of the worst turbulence situations in commercial aviation in some time. Given that turbulence of even two or three injuries normally makes the news, I am curious as to why you think injuries to over 10% of the pax of a well known airline, in a "western" country no less, would not or should not make "the news"?

Enlighten us all...

If passengers who were following crewmember instructions were injured, that would be newsworthy and, indeed, a significant safety concern. If crew were injured, same thing.

Passengers injured because they are not following crewmember instructions, which seems to be case here, is an entirely different matter.

IceCream · Mon Dec 19, 2022 6:48 pm

This should make the news, and is a good reminder for anyone who reads about this story to keep their seatbelt fastened when the seatbelt sign is on.

Even if these people should've kept their seatbelts on this isn't an outrageous article, people don't get injured on planes in this numbers every day.

Murdoughnut · Mon Dec 19, 2022 6:59 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

It is news. As commercial pilots, we're responsible for the well-being and safety of our pax, even if we're not liable for what happened. The NTSB is investigating a mass casualty incident. There will be learnings from this. It's important.

sxf24 · Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:00 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
FlyingSicilian wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

Vexing post, as this is one of the worst turbulence situations in commercial aviation in some time. Given that turbulence of even two or three injuries normally makes the news, I am curious as to why you think injuries to over 10% of the pax of a well known airline, in a "western" country no less, would not or should not make "the news"?

Enlighten us all...

If passengers who were following crewmember instructions were injured, that would be newsworthy and, indeed, a significant safety concern. If crew were injured, same thing.

Passengers injured because they are not following crewmember instructions, which seems to be case here, is an entirely different matter.

HNL activated the mass casualty team. That seems to be news.

Cubsrule · Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:22 pm

Murdoughnut wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

It is news. As commercial pilots, we're responsible for the well-being and safety of our pax, even if we're not liable for what happened. The NTSB is investigating a mass casualty incident. There will be learnings from this. It's important.

What learnings? I'm not trying to be daft but this accident seems to have happened in an area with a known turbulence risk and the seat belt sign was illuminated, as it should have been. Other than not beginning or continuing the flight (which for me is a non-starter), it's hard for me to see what the pilots could have done differently. Clear air turbulence isn't always predictable with any precision.

Murdoughnut · Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:32 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
Murdoughnut wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

It is news. As commercial pilots, we're responsible for the well-being and safety of our pax, even if we're not liable for what happened. The NTSB is investigating a mass casualty incident. There will be learnings from this. It's important.

What learnings? I'm not trying to be daft but this accident seems to have happened in an area with a known turbulence risk and the seat belt sign was illuminated, as it should have been. Other than not beginning or continuing the flight (which for me is a non-starter), it's hard for me to see what the pilots could have done differently. Clear air turbulence isn't always predictable with any precision.

Maybe, maybe not. Crews have turbulence probability modeling on their EFBs. NTSB we'll look into what their radar was painting. Might be nothing, but even if it turns out that there was no reasonable data that could forecast this, that's a learning in the sense that it stresses the importance of having cabin crew seated when operating within such areas.

cledaybuck · Mon Dec 19, 2022 8:04 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
FlyingSicilian wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

Vexing post, as this is one of the worst turbulence situations in commercial aviation in some time. Given that turbulence of even two or three injuries normally makes the news, I am curious as to why you think injuries to over 10% of the pax of a well known airline, in a "western" country no less, would not or should not make "the news"?

Enlighten us all...

If passengers who were following crewmember instructions were injured, that would be newsworthy and, indeed, a significant safety concern. If crew were injured, same thing.

Passengers injured because they are not following crewmember instructions, which seems to be case here, is an entirely different matter.

According to the article, three flight attendants were injured. How do you know all the injured passengers were not belted? If a water bottle can crack the panel like that, I'm sure that objects could have injured belted passengers too. Are you going to tell me the 14 month old deserved it too?

CHSNYC · Mon Dec 19, 2022 8:30 pm

How many of us have been on flights in the US when the seatbelt sign was illuminated for the entire flight with nary a bump the whole time? I’ve lost count. So people get up to use the lav, and often flight attendants let it happen. I mean, passengers see flight attendants walking up and down and serving drinks when the seatbelt sign is on and wonder why it’s unsafe to use the lavatory.

So it’s absurd and callous to suggest people injured this way have it coming. I think most airlines do a good job of informing passengers of the risk of turbulence and what might happen if they’re not belted. But improvements could be made, and maybe an investigation of this incident might help to improve how seatbelt signs are enforced on board, and how the airline communicates the risk passengers face.

And of course this is news. The more passengers read about turbulence-related injuries, maybe they’ll be more apt to heed the seatbelt sign.

deebee278 · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:09 pm

sonnyr23 wrote:
Looks like a few folks here who said this isn't news worthy may have tapped into The Egg Nog a little bit early. Of course it's serious.

I'm thinking that the point of that reply was that if everyone had their seat belt buckled, 36 pax wouldn't have been injured and hence, no story to tell.

FlyingSicilian · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:17 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
Murdoughnut wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

It is news. As commercial pilots, we're responsible for the well-being and safety of our pax, even if we're not liable for what happened. The NTSB is investigating a mass casualty incident. There will be learnings from this. It's important.

What learnings? I'm not trying to be daft but this accident seems to have happened in an area with a known turbulence risk and the seat belt sign was illuminated, as it should have been. Other than not beginning or continuing the flight (which for me is a non-starter), it's hard for me to see what the pilots could have done differently. Clear air turbulence isn't always predictable with any precision.

I don't disagree that pax should wear their seatbelt, for example, but I take issue with this event not being news worthy. When a form of public transport has an incident that causes mass injuries it normally makes the news, whether it be a train, van, bus, or plane. I do appreciate your response, and will just note I personally disagree on the newsworthy aspect of it.

Again, regarding wearing a seatbelt, I agree 200% when seated it should always be on sign or not.

aden23 · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:28 pm

IFlyVeryLittle wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

36 people injured on an airline flight isn't news? Wow.

This is what's called a "Why is this news?" troll.

One of the most ancient types of internet troll: https://mashable.com/article/types-of-online-trolls

vatveng · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:31 pm

A lot of you are making a lot of assumptions about seat belt use. How do you know all of the injuries were the result of unbelted passengers hitting the PSU? With turbulence this bad, it's likely some books, laptops, tablets, phones, bags, and other objects went flying and hit some passengers with considerable force. And there were three flight attendants injured, are you blaming them for moving around the cabin doing their jobs during otherwise clear air?

Gangurru · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:32 pm

CHSNYC wrote:
How many of us have been on flights in the US when the seatbelt sign was illuminated for the entire flight with nary a bump the whole time? I’ve lost count.

...... But improvements could be made, and maybe an investigation of this incident might help to improve how seatbelt signs are enforced on board, and how the airline communicates the risk passengers face.

I'm Australian. We're obviously a simple bunch Down Under as we have simple seat belt rules.

Seat belt sign on and everyone, including crew, sits down and buckles up.

Laulau · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:33 pm

WN732 wrote:
N393HA was the aircraft, isn't that the bird with the uncommanded pitch issue?

Where is your info that N393HA had an uncommannd pitch issue???

IFlyVeryLittle · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:34 pm

Imagine how much worse it would be if it wasn't news, or ever was news, and no one ever knew what could happen in the middle of calm and smooth flight. I dare say 80% of the people who stay buckled do so because they've seen coverage of something exactly like this. Does it deserve TERROR IN OUR SKIES!!! headlines? No. But a who, when, where, why style story is exactly how people learn.

beachroad · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:35 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
FlyingSicilian wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

Vexing post, as this is one of the worst turbulence situations in commercial aviation in some time. Given that turbulence of even two or three injuries normally makes the news, I am curious as to why you think injuries to over 10% of the pax of a well known airline, in a "western" country no less, would not or should not make "the news"?

Enlighten us all...

If passengers who were following crewmember instructions were injured, that would be newsworthy and, indeed, a significant safety concern. If crew were injured, same thing.

Passengers injured because they are not following crewmember instructions, which seems to be case here, is an entirely different matter.

I had the misfortune of being onboard a different flight for a severe turbulence incident. It's not just a case of being unbuckled.

On my flight we were thrown up before going down. The up part is what injured me, because I had whiplash after my head ended up going down, the way I can describe it is to say imagine somebody jumping on your head and forcing your neck and skull down. My lower back also hurt quite badly with the upwards g-force. I can't quite describe how violent for forces are, it's not like normal turbulence which could be sharp, severe turbulence is violent. That's the difference I describe when people ask me, bad turbulence is very unpleasant, severe turbulence is a really violent thing.

By comparison, I was a passenger in a small car that was hit side on by a truck doing more than 60mph, the truck driver was drunk and ran a red. That sent the car spinning and we did one and a half circles, but thankfully the car didn't flip. The forces in that crash were not as bad as the severe turbulence.

In other words, the forces I experienced in the severe turbulence were worse than being slammed in the side by a speeding truck. I was belted in both, but you can't expect to just walk away fine with no injuries from either situation.

bhill · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:41 pm

kiowa wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

36 injured people is IS news.

What is newsworthy is 36 people STILL don't believe the Captain that air can get bumpy and to wear your seatbelt...ESPECIALLY when the seatbelt sign is illuminated.

bhill · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:44 pm

vatveng wrote:
A lot of you are making a lot of assumptions about seat belt use. How do you know all of the injuries were the result of unbelted passengers hitting the PSU? With turbulence this bad, it's likely some books, laptops, tablets, phones, bags, and other objects went flying and hit some passengers with considerable force. And there were three flight attendants injured, are you blaming them for moving around the cabin doing their jobs during otherwise clear air?

Because the other 200 souls were uninjured....pretty sure the human body will not just levitate out of one's seat and strike a surface with enough force to do damage if restrained.

WN732 · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:44 pm

Laulau wrote:
WN732 wrote:
N393HA was the aircraft, isn't that the bird with the uncommanded pitch issue?

Where is your info that N393HA had an uncommannd pitch issue???

https://avherald.com/h?article=4ff51efc

bhill · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:46 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
FlyingSicilian wrote:

Vexing post, as this is one of the worst turbulence situations in commercial aviation in some time. Given that turbulence of even two or three injuries normally makes the news, I am curious as to why you think injuries to over 10% of the pax of a well known airline, in a "western" country no less, would not or should not make "the news"?

Enlighten us all...

If passengers who were following crewmember instructions were injured, that would be newsworthy and, indeed, a significant safety concern. If crew were injured, same thing.

Passengers injured because they are not following crewmember instructions, which seems to be case here, is an entirely different matter.

According to the article, three flight attendants were injured. How do you know all the injured passengers were not belted? If a water bottle can crack the panel like that, I'm sure that objects could have injured belted passengers too. Are you going to tell me the 14 month old deserved it too?

We are not saying anyone DESERVED it, but when the sign is lighted, it makes common sense to secure yourself and your child.

bhill · Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:48 pm

CHSNYC wrote:
How many of us have been on flights in the US when the seatbelt sign was illuminated for the entire flight with nary a bump the whole time? I’ve lost count. So people get up to use the lav, and often flight attendants let it happen. I mean, passengers see flight attendants walking up and down and serving drinks when the seatbelt sign is on and wonder why it’s unsafe to use the lavatory.

So it’s absurd and callous to suggest people injured this way have it coming. I think most airlines do a good job of informing passengers of the risk of turbulence and what might happen if they’re not belted. But improvements could be made, and maybe an investigation of this incident might help to improve how seatbelt signs are enforced on board, and how the airline communicates the risk passengers face.

And of course this is news. The more passengers read about turbulence-related injuries, maybe they’ll be more apt to heed the seatbelt sign.

Don't bet on it. These seems to happen way more than they should.

johns624 · Mon Dec 19, 2022 10:11 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
FlyingSicilian wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

Vexing post, as this is one of the worst turbulence situations in commercial aviation in some time. Given that turbulence of even two or three injuries normally makes the news, I am curious as to why you think injuries to over 10% of the pax of a well known airline, in a "western" country no less, would not or should not make "the news"?

Enlighten us all...

If passengers who were following crewmember instructions were injured, that would be newsworthy and, indeed, a significant safety concern. If crew were injured, same thing.

Passengers injured because they are not following crewmember instructions, which seems to be case here, is an entirely different matter.

I can't believe all the grief you're taking because people can't understand what you meant by your original post. I thought it was very clear, obviously not to some.

exFWAOONW · Mon Dec 19, 2022 10:18 pm

Again why are so many ASSuming all the injured were unbelted?
Lots of items are loose in the cabin and as beachroad experienced, you CAN be injured with your belt on.

As for myself, in the 70s I was on a UA 747 HNL-LAX and was slammed into the sidewall (in a window seat, of course) with my seatbelt on. I was young and strong, so I suffered very little. One or more of the FAs were bounced off the ceiling along with the foodcarts.

jbs2886 · Mon Dec 19, 2022 10:35 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
FlyingSicilian wrote:

Vexing post, as this is one of the worst turbulence situations in commercial aviation in some time. Given that turbulence of even two or three injuries normally makes the news, I am curious as to why you think injuries to over 10% of the pax of a well known airline, in a "western" country no less, would not or should not make "the news"?

Enlighten us all...

If passengers who were following crewmember instructions were injured, that would be newsworthy and, indeed, a significant safety concern. If crew were injured, same thing.

Passengers injured because they are not following crewmember instructions, which seems to be case here, is an entirely different matter.

According to the article, three flight attendants were injured. How do you know all the injured passengers were not belted? If a water bottle can crack the panel like that, I'm sure that objects could have injured belted passengers too. Are you going to tell me the 14 month old deserved it too?

Exactly, all these posts are just classic victim blaming without knowing the facts. It presupposes that everyone somehow deserved to be injured. We don't know the facts so stop. If it is true that people weren't buckled up, yea, they certainly should have been, but we also don't know HOW the injuries were sustained (as someone aptly pointed out above).

vatveng · Mon Dec 19, 2022 11:23 pm

bhill wrote:
vatveng wrote:
A lot of you are making a lot of assumptions about seat belt use. How do you know all of the injuries were the result of unbelted passengers hitting the PSU? With turbulence this bad, it's likely some books, laptops, tablets, phones, bags, and other objects went flying and hit some passengers with considerable force. And there were three flight attendants injured, are you blaming them for moving around the cabin doing their jobs during otherwise clear air?

Because the other 200 souls were uninjured....pretty sure the human body will not just levitate out of one's seat and strike a surface with enough force to do damage if restrained.

Again, you're ignoring all the loose objects flying around. Passengers do get injured by loose objects during violent turbulence. And a belted window-seat passenger could very well have been slammed against the wall. But everyone's just focused on blaming the victims. I just don't get it.

SBAer · Mon Dec 19, 2022 11:37 pm

Some first hand account pictures here: https://www.reddit.com/r/travel/comment ... xhnl_this/

cdin844 · Mon Dec 19, 2022 11:53 pm

One of the injuries I saw was a face laceration from a loose object flying in their face. The passenger was sitting in her seat belted. The lack of sympathy in this thread is disappointing.

jrfspa320 · Mon Dec 19, 2022 11:54 pm

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-20/ ... /101791210

Sounds like people were up and walking about with the seat belts sign on

kngkyle · Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:14 am

jrfspa320 wrote:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-20/hawaiian-airlines-flight-to-be-investigated-by-safety-board/101791210

Sounds like people were up and walking about with the seat belts sign on

Which is entirely normal when the seat belt sign is left on for the entire flight. If that is what happened on this flight then that should be one of the lessons learned....

StuckInCA · Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:17 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Goodbye wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
If any of those 36 were belted, sure. But something tells me they weren’t . . .

You do know that people are free to move about the cabin, right? If the seatbelt sign is off, they do not have to be in their seat. How do you know the circumstances of the people who were injured? Maybe they were feeding their baby, or getting something out of the overhead locker, or stretching their legs, or going to the bathrooms...

Hawaii News Now:

The seatbelt sign was on at the time the flight encountered the turbulence.

I was on a HA flight 1w prior to this on an A330 (OGG-SEA). The seatbelt sign was illuminated the ENTIRE flight despite smooth skies. My question isn't whether or not the sign was on at this time but if it had ever been off. If there is a culture of leaving it on then it loses meaning. I had major irritation with DL doing this ~10 years ago but they seem to have stopped. I haven't flown HA much in the past 10y but leaving it on for the entire OGG-SEA flight was pretty surprising and annoying. I had to tell my kids to ignore it.

jrfspa320 · Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:24 am

kngkyle wrote:
jrfspa320 wrote:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-20/hawaiian-airlines-flight-to-be-investigated-by-safety-board/101791210

Sounds like people were up and walking about with the seat belts sign on

Which is entirely normal when the seat belt sign is left on for the entire flight. If that is what happened on this flight then that should be one of the lessons learned....

Indeed, I have to say that US airlines tend to be far more conservative with the seat belt sign compared to other airlines. Waiting until cruising altitude before turning off and long periods of very minor turbulence.

iamlucky13 · Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:52 am

slvrblt wrote:
Okay, can't help myself... this is my "Get Off My Lawn" moment...

We have dedicated signage, auditory noise/announcements, flight attendants to "remind" folks to keep their seatbelts fastened regardless of flight conditions. I'm gonna guess the common thread here is lack of seatbelt usage.

The only thing I would change is calling seatbelts "Darwin Devices" as your choice to not take advantage of the simple safety devices designed to prevent you from becoming a projectile is considered to be too restrictive. Let evolution take its course.

Too many folks are insulated from the consequences of their poor decision-making. Maybe we stop the insanity by letting them suffer the consequences?

Absolutely. People make poor choices, and don't like being told what to do. Fine. Enjoy the consequences. People, you're in a metal tube going several hundred miles an hour. A sudden unexpected change in direction will make an unrestrained human body fly around violently. That's why cars have seatbelts, but again, people don't want to feel ''confined'' and won't use them. Well then, you must expect an event with serious injury or worse. Had a couple fatal vehicle accidents in my area recently - in one, a pickup went off the road into a ditch, driver not wearing his belt was ejected and killed. Belted passenger just got a couple of scratches.

I'm pretty sure most people are clueless that turbulence severe enough that objects are thrown against the ceiling with as much force as if the plane had suddenly flipped upside down actually happens. Certainly the overwhelming majority of them have never experienced anything close to it.

So they become complacent and assume the signage is an unnecessary abundance of caution.

Which is EXACTLY why, despite the protests of some posters in this thread, this kind of incident SHOULD be reported on the news. The more passengers who are aware this kind of thing actually happens, the more likely they are to follow the instructions.

garpd · Tue Dec 20, 2022 1:32 am

BeachBoy wrote:
The problem w/ HA is that the captains tend to keep the seatbelt signs on for the majority of the flight so in my experience it's become the "boy that cries wolf."
I recently flew HA, NH, and DL to/from Tokyo and it was noticable that HA captains turn the seatbelt sign on after a little bump and keep it on for at least 30 min afterwards w/ no turbulence vs. DL and NH who were more judicious w/ turning it on.

At some point people need to get up and use the restroom or just stretch and if the seatbelt signs are on the majority of the time w/ no turbulence it's intended effect has been rendered useless.

The rules are quite simple. When the seatbelt sign is on, you sit and put the belt on. Regardless how long it is on for. If you need the WC, you press the call button and wait for a flight attendant to come speak to you and tell you it's safe to go. (Normally they will check with the flight deck).
If you get up and walk about the cabin despite the seatbelt sign being on, you are in breach of your conditions of carriage. This might invalidate any legal claim to compensation if you are injured in any sort of upset.

StuckInCA · Tue Dec 20, 2022 2:25 am

garpd wrote:
BeachBoy wrote:
The problem w/ HA is that the captains tend to keep the seatbelt signs on for the majority of the flight so in my experience it's become the "boy that cries wolf."
I recently flew HA, NH, and DL to/from Tokyo and it was noticable that HA captains turn the seatbelt sign on after a little bump and keep it on for at least 30 min afterwards w/ no turbulence vs. DL and NH who were more judicious w/ turning it on.

At some point people need to get up and use the restroom or just stretch and if the seatbelt signs are on the majority of the time w/ no turbulence it's intended effect has been rendered useless.

The rules are quite simple. When the seatbelt sign is on, you sit and put the belt on. Regardless how long it is on for. If you need the WC, you press the call button and wait for a flight attendant to come speak to you and tell you it's safe to go. (Normally they will check with the flight deck).
If you get up and walk about the cabin despite the seatbelt sign being on, you are in breach of your conditions of carriage. This might invalidate any legal claim to compensation if you are injured in any sort of upset.

I've flown a lot. I don't recall ever seeing someone press the call button to ask if they could use the restroom. Not one time that I can remember. Trust me - I'm a seatbelt wearer but we need to know more about whether or not the sign was ever off and/or what messages were delivered to passengers. This black and white notion that the seatbelt sign is a cut and dry compact is silly. It can't be applied that way if flight crews ignore it (leaving it on) or use it to tame the masses by forcing them to sit. I understand it currently is forceful in terms of contract of carriage but in practical application it's just NOT that well applied (and can't be unless catheters become a part of passenger flights). Nobody can expect a widebody full of families to stay seated OGG-SEA as in my example. On that perfectly smooth flight you'd have had seats full of urine.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:23 am

raylee67 wrote:
Put on your seat belt all the time, unless you are leaving your seats to go to the lavatory, etc. The seat belt is not restrictive and not something uncomfortable. If people can wear the seat belts in their cars without problems, why they need to unbuckle right after that seat belt light turns off? I even keep my seat belt fastened when I sleep in lie-flat business class seats.

Small problem with that. Far too many people don't wear their seatbelts in cars. The US has quite the market for devices that only exist to silence the alarm in the car from an unbuckled driver's belt.

The other main reason for always wearing your belt is that you don't injure others. Some of these injured are likely people who abided by the belt light and were belted up. Only to be hit by someone flying through the cabin.

Yes, it's always a good idea to leave the belt on, even if a smidge loose. If only to protect others. But don't pretend that only idiots have been hurt. There are perfectly valid reasons to not be belted in, the flight attendants will still have duties to attend to unless the pilot in command has made it clear that everyone sits.

Short of requiring everyone to wear nappies and be locked into restraints, you'll always have someone flying through the cabin in these incidents. Until we have a magic wand we instead keep up the communication to people on why they want to stay belted up, expose them to these incidents to get the emotional message across, and improve our sensors and predicitve models to avoid turbulance this nasty.

Not the answers we want in the heat of the moment to punish those who were being stupid. Just directions on how to mitigate the harm of idiots and the simply unlucky.

N626AA · Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:26 am

Lots of commentary on if the injured pax are to be blamed for their injuries or not.

I'd personally rather be strapped in to my seat and take my chances with loose objects flying around me than up there circulating the cabin with them, hitting every other object in my path, and finally slamming back down somewhere when it's all over.

raylee67 · Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:56 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
Put on your seat belt all the time, unless you are leaving your seats to go to the lavatory, etc. The seat belt is not restrictive and not something uncomfortable. If people can wear the seat belts in their cars without problems, why they need to unbuckle right after that seat belt light turns off? I even keep my seat belt fastened when I sleep in lie-flat business class seats.

Small problem with that. Far too many people don't wear their seatbelts in cars. The US has quite the market for devices that only exist to silence the alarm in the car from an unbuckled driver's belt.

The other main reason for always wearing your belt is that you don't injure others. Some of these injured are likely people who abided by the belt light and were belted up. Only to be hit by someone flying through the cabin.

Yes, it's always a good idea to leave the belt on, even if a smidge loose. If only to protect others. But don't pretend that only idiots have been hurt. There are perfectly valid reasons to not be belted in, the flight attendants will still have duties to attend to unless the pilot in command has made it clear that everyone sits.

Short of requiring everyone to wear nappies and be locked into restraints, you'll always have someone flying through the cabin in these incidents. Until we have a magic wand we instead keep up the communication to people on why they want to stay belted up, expose them to these incidents to get the emotional message across, and improve our sensors and predicitve models to avoid turbulance this nasty.

Not the answers we want in the heat of the moment to punish those who were being stupid. Just directions on how to mitigate the harm of idiots and the simply unlucky.

Agree that seat belts are there to minimize risks, not eliminate it. Risks can never be fully eliminated.

AirKevin · Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:12 am

bhill wrote:
kiowa wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, news. The tropics can have nasty, unexpected turbulence. Wear your seatbelt. Not hard.

36 injured people is IS news.
What is newsworthy is 36 people STILL don't believe the Captain that air can get bumpy and to wear your seatbelt...ESPECIALLY when the seatbelt sign is illuminated.

I guess the 14-month old wouldn't believe the Captain because the 14-month old likely wouldn't understand the Captain in the first place.

Laulau · Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:18 am

WN732 wrote:
Laulau wrote:
WN732 wrote:
N393HA was the aircraft, isn't that the bird with the uncommanded pitch issue?

Where is your info that N393HA had an uncommannd pitch issue???

https://avherald.com/h?article=4ff51efc

Just a coincedence that the aircraft involved in this incident was N393HA. The series of fronts that were in the forecast that day had generated the severe turbulance this aircraft encountered.

chracatoa · Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:39 am

I was once in a flight that for 5 hours (out of 9 hours) the seatbelt light was on. At some point I said f-it and went to the restroom.

Incidentally, an United 767 flying from Rio to Houston encountered turbulence last night and 5 people were hospitalized (three flight attendants). They were flying near Cancun when that happened. I'm surprised they went all the way to Houston to land. https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/five-hospitalized-by-turbulence-on-united-airlines-flight-to-houston/ar-AA15sy8S

Silver1SWA · Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:59 am

This thread was a frustrating read…

36 people injured, 16 were apparently minor, 20 were taken to the hospital and 11 of those were seriously hurt. Let’s assume the 3 crew members were part of the 11 most serious since it would be understandable for them to be up at the time. So out of 278 passengers on board, if ~8 of the most seriously injured represented passengers not wearing seatbelts, using a lav, packing their belongings in the overhead bin, etc. the rest could easily be injured by flying objects, whiplash etc. Were first class passengers still utilizing the lie flat function of their seat? Buckled or not that position could hurt.

My point is, 36 injured does not mean 36 people weren’t buckled in.

joeycapps · Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:07 am

I can see the point of this SHOULDN'T be news - insofar as, in a perfect world, everyone wears their seatbelt... But in that perfect world, unfortunately, turbulence and loose items in the cabin shouldn't exist either. But all of those factors exist.

I cannot find specific details, with respect to what caused specific injuries, other than of the 20 in hospital, 17 were pax and 3 were crew. (Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hawaiian-a ... -injuries/)

That being said: I agree with the poster who stated that seatbelts are there to diminish risk, not eliminate it. Be it as it may, seatbelt sign on or not, all passengers are briefed on the importance of wearing a seatbelt when seated. There is no SOP for a hydra flask hitting the PSU and ricocheting off of someone's head. That's the inherent risk of travel; not all is black or white. In this case, I am very curious - and if someone can point me in the right direction I'd be thankful - as to whether or not there is a breakdown of injuries sustained. I don't believe that all of these injuries are from simply not wearing a seatbelt... Given that three crewmembers were sent to the hospital, I would imagine that a good majority of them (during that stage of flight) were not seated. Per the press release, the seatbelt sign WAS on - but that the aircraft hit a "sudden air pocket" that was "not detectable". Is anyone familiar with HA policy able to chime in about what threshold is deemed worthy of suspending service? I've flown on HA many times, and I've noticed no correlation between crewmembers sitting and the seatbelt sign. My last flight, LAX-HNL, the seatbelt sign was on for what I can remember totalling to about the first two hours of flight. Is that normal for HA?

ASFlyer · Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:27 am

I feel bad for the folks injured in this incident and wouldn't speculate whether they were wearing their seatbelts or not. There's a lot of people trying to reason why it's okay to walk around with the seat belt sign on. I get that it's ridiculous to just leave it on throughout much of a flight when conditions aren't necessary for that. As a Flight Attendant, I can't tell you the number of times I've seen people walking themselves, sometimes even walking their toddler aged children, to the bathroom in really unsafe turbulence. Or even coming back to ask for a drink while the crews are all belted in because it's not safe to be up. People sit around ALL THE TIME with no seat belt on - seat belt sign on or off. Infants should always be required to be in a paid seat in an child seat. Anything less than that is unsafe. People wouldn't let their kids crawl around in their car. Many people don't use good common sense once they pass the entry door of an airplane.

sonnyr23 · Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:52 am

So far it has been speculation of what happened. Not sure of the time frame but The FAA & NTSB should shed some light on this.

tonystan · Tue Dec 20, 2022 1:54 pm

What’s Hawaiians arrivals procedures onboard? Do they make an announcements 30mins out that seatbelt signs will be switched on by 20mins to landing or anything like that?

AAPilot48Heavy · Tue Dec 20, 2022 2:13 pm

garpd wrote:
BeachBoy wrote:
The problem w/ HA is that the captains tend to keep the seatbelt signs on for the majority of the flight so in my experience it's become the "boy that cries wolf."
I recently flew HA, NH, and DL to/from Tokyo and it was noticable that HA captains turn the seatbelt sign on after a little bump and keep it on for at least 30 min afterwards w/ no turbulence vs. DL and NH who were more judicious w/ turning it on.

At some point people need to get up and use the restroom or just stretch and if the seatbelt signs are on the majority of the time w/ no turbulence it's intended effect has been rendered useless.

The rules are quite simple. When the seatbelt sign is on, you sit and put the belt on. Regardless how long it is on for. If you need the WC, you press the call button and wait for a flight attendant to come speak to you and tell you it's safe to go. (Normally they will check with the flight deck).
If you get up and walk about the cabin despite the seatbelt sign being on, you are in breach of your conditions of carriage. This might invalidate any legal claim to compensation if you are injured in any sort of upset.

Complete nonsense. When you got to pee, you've got to pee. You can only wait so long. I'm not ringing the stewardess button to ask if I can go potty.

Heinkel · Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:47 pm

SBAer wrote:
Some first hand account pictures here: https://www.reddit.com/r/travel/comment ... xhnl_this/

Quote from the link above:

My fiancé and I were on flight HA35 PHX-HNL. This is the aftermath of the turbulence - people literally flew out of their seats and hit the ceiling.

Endquote.

People flying out of their seats to the ceiling = not belted.

FiscAutTecGarte · Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:31 pm

I remain seated on planes. I wear my seatbelt the entire time I am in my seat, light or not. I get up only out of necessity. That said:

I am a 50+ year old man with a very enlarged prostrate, propbably precancerous, such is life. I cut liquids before boarding, however, on a flight that is greater than 3 hours, I'm going to have to use the bathroom once.

I have been on flights in excess of 4 hours where the fasten seatbelt light remained on the ENITRE flight. I can squirm and squeeze for about 2 hours, but at some point I'm ringing the flight attendent to use the bathroom, provided there is no turbulance. I choose the moment wisely and 90% of time the flight attendents tell me to go quickly. I've had a few that have told me, with a straight face, as the SeatBelt Sign has been illuminated during the ENTIRE flight despite absolutely no recent turbulance that I am in violation of federal law by disobeying the captain's fasten seatbelt sign, but that they won't stop me from using the bathroom. LIkewise, if the flight attendent doesn't get around to seeing me for 15 minutes, and there is no turbulance, then I'm getting up without permission to use the bathroom. I'm not suffering the indignity of wetting myself. Gave that up around 2 years of age. Again, I use judgement and am not going to getup during turbulent conditions. But, I'm not sitting there hours and hours in discomfort while flight attendents attend to business or chat or look at social media with the fasten seatbelt sign dubiously illuminated preventing me from attending to absolutely necessary business.

I suppose the purist amongst you will say I'm unfit for flight if I cannot remain absolutely obedient to the fasten seatbelt light for endless hours on end. So be it. Fine, you get to be cruel authoritarian bastards today... Meanwhile, some of us choose to stop pretending that the fasten seat belt sign is always on because we are in imminent danger; and that we have a right to accord ourselves the dignity of properly relieving ourselves.

So enough with the self righteousness. 20 people were injured seriously enough to require hospitalization. Again, you don't even know how many that were injured suffered injuries while they wore the belt.

Sorry for taking this further off topic. Condolences to those injured.

BoeingG · Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:51 pm

StuckInCA wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Goodbye wrote:

You do know that people are free to move about the cabin, right? If the seatbelt sign is off, they do not have to be in their seat. How do you know the circumstances of the people who were injured? Maybe they were feeding their baby, or getting something out of the overhead locker, or stretching their legs, or going to the bathrooms...

Hawaii News Now:

The seatbelt sign was on at the time the flight encountered the turbulence.

I was on a HA flight 1w prior to this on an A330 (OGG-SEA). The seatbelt sign was illuminated the ENTIRE flight despite smooth skies. My question isn't whether or not the sign was on at this time but if it had ever been off. If there is a culture of leaving it on then it loses meaning. I had major irritation with DL doing this ~10 years ago but they seem to have stopped. I haven't flown HA much in the past 10y but leaving it on for the entire OGG-SEA flight was pretty surprising and annoying. I had to tell my kids to ignore it.

If there is a culture of leaving it on then it loses meaning.

The sign loses meaning insofar as people may disobey it to use the restroom or access an overhead bin if it's left on for an extended period.

However, when people are seated they should be buckled regardless of the sign. I've heard this announcement on virtually every flight I've been on.

It's a simple concept.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net