https://twitter.com/GlobalCalgary/status/682329027403620356

C-FRAM, operating PVG-YYC. If I read other twitter sources correctly, about 2 dozen people hurt. Could more. Could be less.
AC is sending another 777 from YVR to YYC to pick up the slack.

[Edited 2015-12-30 14:56:02]

[Edited 2015-12-30 14:56:59]

Quoting ek241yyz (Thread starter): AC is sending another 777 from YVR to YYC to pick up the slack.

Could be C-FNNQ unless they had another one already on the ground when it landed.

Just saw this on local news here in Toronto. I heard approx two dozen pax injured as well. Keep that seatbelt on folks!

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 1): Could be C-FNNQ unless they had another one already on the ground when it landed.

Indeed is C-FNNQ.

http://imgur.com/OWvfD0c

http://www.flightradar24.com/ACA7076/868a0d1

Edit: Wow it's climbing at over 4000 ft per minute. Things you can do when there are no passengers or cargo on board...

[Edited 2015-12-30 16:41:33]

Must have been pretty bad with this kind of injuries to pax.

I'd be interested to see if someone has youtubed video of the incident.

According to media reports the injured parties are those who ignored the seat belt warning messages.


I always wear my seatbelt, in good and bad conditions as you never know when you might fall asleep and get caught off guard. It's a shame that some people ignore the warnings of professionals who are only trying to protect them. There's a reason aircraft have seatbelts.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ht-turbulence-passengers-1.3385443

Quoting mpsrent (Reply 6): I always wear my seatbelt, in good and bad conditions as you never know when you might fall asleep and get caught off guard.

Indeed, better safe than sorry. Always did so and keep in mind the story of a former Pan Am captain that I read in a magazine about his encounter with violent turbulence out of nowhere while crossing the Atlantic in clear blue sky and no known turbulence.

According to the report in the Aviation Herald "a number of passengers not wearing their seat belts impacted and damaged the cabin ceiling with their heads".

When will people learn?

Wow! 40 minutes of this crap, wow. There must have been no way to fly out of it.

I am sure that some passengers get lulled into a false sense of security when on flights where there is a possibility of turbulence but none ever shows up. Then they start to ignore the Fasten Belts sign and finally comes the day where there really is some heavy turbulence and they weren't ready for it. I've been on flights where the seatbelt sign has been on and there hasn't been any turbulence. But the passengers aren't aware that the sign also means that the possibility of turbulence is very real.

Quoting Rugger (Reply 13): I am sure that some passengers get lulled into a false sense of security when on flights where there is a possibility of turbulence but none ever shows up. Then they start to ignore the Fasten Belts sign and finally comes the day where there really is some heavy turbulence and they weren't ready for it. I've been on flights where the seatbelt sign has been on and there hasn't been any turbulence. But the passengers aren't aware that the sign also means that the possibility of turbulence is very real.

This is very true. Passengers receive mixed messages. I well remember a flight from YYZ to LAX where we were warned from pre takeoff continuing throughout the flight that impending doom turbulence-wise was the order of the day; when in fact the entire flight was so smooth you could have built a house of cards on the tray table. It isn't an exact science, and passengers have become conditioned to believe that in 99.9% of circumstances, fastening the seatbelt doesn't turn out to be actually necessary.

There is also the double standard applied to pax vs. flight crew, as to when they are required to be restrained. This further undermines the credibility of the seat belt sign.

And also, passengers probably in some way believe that the seat belt is really there to protect them in a crash (like in an automobile) and that applying it in turbulence is some sort of sideshow.

But yes, in this particular scenario - if there were pax who didn't have their seatbelts on once moderate-severe turbulence had actually started, that really does defy belief.

Most of the victims were apparently Chinese. After the Asiana 214 accident, in which all of the victims were Chinese not wearing seat belts (on landing!), I remember reading that this is at least partly cultural. Seat belts are seen as kind of a suggestion rather than a rule, and a lot of people just ignore them in general.

There was a time when this was the case in America as well; when even seat belt use in cars was very low. Nowadays there are still plenty of people who will ignore the sign in airplanes to use the bathroom or whatever (and I've probably even done it when it seems like the captain just forgot to turn the sign off), but this way of just kind of ignoring seat belts even when there's a clear reason to use them seems like something that might require some further education in that part of the world.

I mean, 20 injuries to unbelted passengers when clear announcements have been made about turbulence seems very high. Sometimes you hear about turbulence-related injuries on domestic US or Canadian flights, but rarely after a warning like this. It's almost always surprise CAT that catches people standing around the bathrooms or flight attendants doing a service.

Quoting Beatyair (Reply 12): Wow! 40 minutes of this crap, wow. There must have been no way to fly out of it.

I've been on longer heavy turbulence flights (meaning flight attendants buckled in for the duration) coming across the prairies through a series of thunderstroms from YYZ to YVR with people freaking-out and crying but it increased progressively and EVERYONE stayed strapped-in. I doubt anyone could stay standing if they attempted it. My guess is it was seat belt sign-on from about Winnipeg to Calgary. Probably not as severe in the extremes as this case but just heavy continuously for an extensive period.

I'll bet there are more than just a few flight crew folks on here who could just scream about the seat belt issue like this and others. Me, not now or ever a flight crew person, but if you"ve flown even a couple of times, you know, like, where are people's minds, or maybe we should all take a science test about why we need to wear these darn things, all the time, as that is possible, of course.

I've flown hundreds and hundreds of times from DC to the West Coast. It hardly matters that the trip from Dulles up to Denver may be perfectly smooth, but when you hit the Front Range of the Rockies, things will likely change, dramatically. Maybe they ought to stop the movie and show a video to get people to pay attention. It was nice when UA used let you listen to Channel 9 and you could listen in on the ATC-pilot talk and hear what was coming up. But, no more Channel 9, I guess.

Of course, there are many times I've flown transcon or transantic and the seat belt sign was on the whole trip, deservedly so, but you do have to take care of certain bodily functions and what can you do?

And then there are the kids, what can you do, other than to ban them from flying at all. (Not entirely against that, but really? And, then us oldies, who just can't hold it like we used to! Maybe that "barf bag" should be designated as: "...and for you seniors, this bag is multi-purpose!")

And then there's the clear air turbulence, most of us have experienced. Or, the occasions when the pilot unknowingly, mostly unavoidably runs through a slipstream, which can be just awful, and we just unbuckled for a second to pick up up something from the floor. Ouch, and worse!

I know how it seems Americans (me) just think the Constitution gives us the right to not have to obey any commond of a flight crew member. Idiots, morons, we are, sadly!

My guess as the situations like the Air Canada one go on far more often than is reported. Maybe the airlines ought to put some guidelines in a seat pocket pamphlet to get us to think about what may or might happen. (I know, I'll bet we all have an uncle or brother who doesn't wear his auto seat belt, either. "What, somebody's going to tell me how to run my life? And, then, Here lies ..., who, but for a seat belt would still be with us, grumpy, of course!"

Happy New Year, anyway.

[Edited 2015-12-31 13:03:09]

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 17): Most of the victims were apparently Chinese.

Not a surprise. The majority of passengers on flights to/from China are usually Chinese.

Only 3 passengers remain in hospital as of this recent report.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...spital-after-turbulent-flight.html

I know we are talking AC, but I have to say that EY is one airline that totally enforces the "Fasten Seat belt" policy. The moment the "ding" goes on and an announcement is made from the flight deck that the aircraft is going through a period of turbulence, the FAs are up and down the aisle checking for seat belts fastened, before fastening themselves in. And yes ensuring that passengers do not leave their seats even for toilet breaks.

Makes me wonder if the Seat belt sign was on, there was knowledge of the turbulence ahead, did not the FAs ensure all passengers were belted in? .

Quoting flightsimboy (Reply 25): I know we are talking AC, but I have to say that EY is one airline that totally enforces the "Fasten Seat belt" policy.

It's a regulatory requirement for airlines based in Switzerland and I believe Germany. On LX the announcement is always that you MUST keep your seatbelt fastened when seated even when the seatbelt sign is off.

On most airlines it's only a recommendation.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26): the announcement is always that you MUST keep your seatbelt fastened when seated even when the seatbelt sign is off.

Well most airlines, EY included recommend you keep your seat belt fastened at all times. However I was pointing out it being strongly enforced when an announcement has been made from the flight deck, followed up FAs checking if you are actually strapped in.

My experience on Air France, their safety announcement included the reminder to always keep one's seatbelt fastened loosely in the event of 'unexpected' turbulence. Should there be a necessity to put the seatbelt on during the flight, the crew will not need to wake you if you are sleeping.

Sadly, the issue of people not wearing seatbelts during the flight is not an issue of people learning or not. They never, ever will. Heck- there are still a lot of people who prefer not to wear a seatbelt when in a car. So why would anyone reasonably think wearing a seatbelt would be better adopted mid-flight?

Flying today is a very mundane, regular occurrence. People are told it is more dangerous driving to the airport than it is to fly to some distant destination. So there is no understanding that the floor can drop out from underneath you with the ceiling chasing after the floor. It is a completely foreign concept. It's like trying to explain to a dog the hazards of eating chocolate despite its yummy taste and the fact someone may be giving it to them (in ignorance, I'll add, so as not to imply malice).

Let's be honest, if there were a plain listing of all the perils (and scientific/ engineering details behind each) of sitting in:

• * A relatively flimsy pressurized tube;
  
• * Which is essentially a paperweight weighing as much as a million pounds;
  
• * Suspended by laminar air flow no thicker than a few inches;
  
• * Travelling through an invisible 'sea' capable of being as violent and unpredictable as the oceans;
  
• * Precariously balanced like a see-saw some seven miles above the planet;
  
• * Hurtling through the atmosphere at 85% the speed of sound;
  
• * Experiencing winds of over 500mph;
  
• * With oxygen levels are so low, hypoxia will set in in a handful of seconds;
  
• * In extreme temperatures more than half-way to -100 degrees;
  
• * Where highly flammable fuel is literally inches below your feet;
  
• * That has been taken completely apart and reassembled just to inspect it;
  
• * Flown by a couple of individuals who may be under-slept because of jet-lag;
  
• * That may have 'known issues' which are being 'monitored'...
  
  ...I would suggest there would be a few more takers who would prefer a train and an ocean liner.

Quoting flightsimboy (Reply 25): EY is one airline that totally enforces the "Fasten Seat belt" policy

SQ and CX actually do it as well.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 28): Let's be honest, if there were a plain listing of all the perils (and scientific/ engineering details behind each) of sitting in: *... ...I would suggest there would be a few more takers who would prefer a train and an ocean liner.

Only because they don't understand the actual engineering details with risk factors, which is much more than simply a list of risks but risks with assessed probabilities, outcomes, and mitigations. That analysis would show that in order of least to highest risk:
by distance travelled: air, rail, water (air is an order of magnitude less risky than rail by this measure).
by number of journeys: rail, water, air (air is 5x more risky than rail by this measure).
by hours of travel: rail, air, water (all are within the same order of risk by this measure).

So if you travel long distances infrequently use air.
If you travel a lot of short journey use rail or water.
If you travel many hours a year choose whichever one is most time efficient overall for you.

Of course, the actual practical usage of each based upon real-world factors reflects what are essentially comparable risks.

Quoting flightsimboy (Reply 27): Well most airlines, EY included recommend you keep your seat belt fastened at all times.

Quoting jacobchoi (Reply 29): SQ and CX actually do it as well.

As does AC.

In fact, starting from the early 1990s the word "require" became included in the announcements and video safety demos. "The Captain has switched off the seat belt sign, however, you are required to keep your seat belt fastened any time when seated".