Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Glad to Be Alive

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Glad to Be Alive

    Turbulence on United Flight Sends at Least 20 to Hospitals

    Posted: 21 Jul 2010 03:39 AM PDT


    20 July 2010; United Airlines 777; flight 967; over Kansas: United Airlines Flight 967, a 777 en route from Washington's Dulles Airport (IAD) to Los Angeles (LAX), diverted to Denver, CO (DIA) after apparently experiencing significant turbulence while flying at 34,000 feet over Kansas. According to United, the aircraft had 255 passengers and 10 crew members. FAA spokesman Ian Gregor in Los
    Question that hangs in my mind. Can you end up hospitalized even when the belt is buckled?

  • #2
    In this case, one person was reported to have her head banged against the cabin wall - I guess this can also happen when the belt is buckled.

    Flying to the ceiling, as was reported for another person, is more impossible when the belt is fastened...

    Comment


    • #3
      If the turbulence is bad enough, the buckle will keep you attached to your seat, but it won't stop the *insert expletive here*-head a few rows in front of you who who hasn't from becoming airborne and injuring you.

      Likewise his overweight carry on baggage that he has down from the overhead locker that becomes a 30kg projectile.

      That said, in all of the really nasty turbulence incidents where many are hospitalised, the vast majority (and the most badly injured) have come from those standing or unbuckled. Usually spinal injuries from head going into the ceiling. But yes, injuries to those belted can happen.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MCM View Post
        If the turbulence is bad enough, the buckle will keep you attached to your seat, but it won't stop the *insert expletive here*-head a few rows in front of you who who hasn't from becoming airborne and injuring you.

        Likewise his overweight carry on baggage that he has down from the overhead locker that becomes a 30kg projectile.

        That said, in all of the really nasty turbulence incidents where many are hospitalised, the vast majority (and the most badly injured) have come from those standing or unbuckled. Usually spinal injuries from head going into the ceiling. But yes, injuries to those belted can happen.

        Truth be told, cars have not used lap belts since the seventies because lap belts are insufficient restraints in car accidents and they travel at an avg speed of 80mph.

        In a serious aircraft incident, a lap belt will fracture your pelvis at best; sever you in half at worst.

        Airlines have argued that the weight gain for three, or more, point belts would cost in fuel and payload but that is just BS. If flight attendants and flight deck crews have five point restraints, passengers should too.

        Comment


        • #5
          Air bags coming to a aircraft near you soon.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T.O.G.A. View Post
            Truth be told, cars have not used lap belts since the seventies because lap belts are insufficient restraints in car accidents and they travel at an avg speed of 80mph.

            In a serious aircraft incident, a lap belt will fracture your pelvis at best; sever you in half at worst.

            Airlines have argued that the weight gain for three, or more, point belts would cost in fuel and payload but that is just BS. If flight attendants and flight deck crews have five point restraints, passengers should too.
            I take your point, but the primary direction for rapid acceleration/deceleration in a car is in the horizontal plane. There is a lot less need (I'm not saying no need) for restraint in a vertical direction.

            On an aircraft however the primary direction, in turbulence at least, is vertically, and that is where the lap restraint comes into its own. For a vertical force to be large enough to sever you the force would need to be large enough to make the whole aircraft accelerate downwards at such a rate to produce that force at the seat belt. As an aircraft has a much greater mass than a person, and force=mass x acceleration, this is extremely unlikely.

            I will accept that if the aircraft hits something on landing and comes to an instant stop, that force could certainly be great enough, but even if your body were completely restrained under those conditions your organs would probably come out through any available opening anyway!
            Yet another AD.com convert!

            Comment


            • #7
              Most injuries are from sudden deceleration but in the air you can pull G's in any direction and you torso becomes a free weight and will sustain injury. One passenger CRACKED the sidewall with her head!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MCM View Post
                Likewise his overweight carry on baggage that he has down from the overhead locker that becomes a 30kg projectile.
                Brought to you by the ever more restrictive checked baggage allowances, which force many (including myself) to transfer those kilos to their carry-on bag — a policy which results in a baggage weight reduction for the airline of exactly 0, causes unnecessary inconvenience for the customer and most importantly, creates a dangerous potential for serious injury during extreme turbulence.

                A policy which should be outlawed. Tomorrow.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  A policy which should be outlawed. Tomorrow.
                  Why? The airline companies are making billions with these extra fees

                  I'm with you on that front - I'm one of those silly persons who pay the 25 - 50 bucks extra if necessary... or fly SouthWest.


                  We have heard a lot about people get injured after severe turbulence, but almost all of them fully recovered, however, I remember a case when a metal briefcase fell out of the overhead compartment... the poor guy below is now quadriplegic.
                  So, to answer the top-level question of this thread, yes you can.

                  Cheers
                  Tom

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    One day we will tell stories of how we use to travel on those old jets that had hard plastic interiors and overheads without padding and simple, manual restraints, and how people used to get injured from turbulence. Kind of like the way we talk about the cars of the pre-Nader era.

                    Ralph, where'd you go...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The restrictions are not on people checking in luggage at all. They just make you pay for it. By doing so, they are able to offer you a far lower basic fare.

                      Personally, I too don't like it, and I'd rather everyone paid a higher fare that included the amount required to carry their luggage, but by the huge rise in popularity of the low fare airlines, I think its safe to say we're in the minority. The airline is not stopping you from checking in bags, it is just saying that you can pay less if you don't.

                      The way to manage it isn't necessarily to make the airlines include it - its to actually weigh people's carry on before they board the aircraft. We weigh checked baggage to ensure it isn't over safe handling weights... why not do the same for carry on.

                      TOGA, I'd love to see 5 point harnesses in aircraft. How many people do you think would actually use them though? Even the pilots don't wear it during cruise, opting just for a lapbelt. The proximity of the sidewall to the passenger means that even a harness may not stop them hitting their head. The majority of force in inflight turbulence that causes the damage is, as mawheatley has pointed out, vertical. We have to be practical here. How about fitting a car-like seatbelt? Maybe that would help. Problem is - will it actually discourage people from wearing it in cruise? At least the lapbelt is unobstructive.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm okay with paying for checked bags. Why would I want to subsidize the cost of high maintenance women who take three huge suitcases for a weekend trip? One doesn't need their whole shoe tree.

                        We should all learn to travel lighter and charging for bags encourages it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Wow, this is a volatile issue. And I've read that since the charges were started for checked bags, people are pushing the envelope on carryons. I think carryons should be only soft sided. I mean, with severe turbulence, how can anyone assure people that those overhead bins will stay shut? The latch looks very flimsy to me. Airborne projectiles are a constant hazard. And now that I'm thinking, I'd maybe like a chest or shoulder belt. However, there's never going to be a solution to the head flopping around. So cervical injuries seem just inevitable to me. Not everyone can choose to travel on a day when weather on the route is calm.

                          Still even the injured have to be happy that they're healing from an injury than cremated in some disastrous crash.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The crew "immediately diverted the aircraft to Denver to get medical attention as quickly as possible for those who are injured," United spokeswoman Jean Medina said.
                            Thats pretty hilarious given this track:



                            ..and the fact that KDEN is a major UA hub. hahah There were a lot of closer places to land.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MCM View Post
                              The restrictions are not on people checking in luggage at all. They just make you pay for it. By doing so, they are able to offer you a far lower basic fare.
                              C'mon MCM, you don't think this is a restriction? Delta charges $150 dollars for bags over 50lbs. I recently tried to check a bag weighing 57lbs (due to having only one bag allowance on international flights) and they refused it without the fee. So I had to transfer that weight to my carry-on. Now, this is a major carrier we are talking about, not a low-cost airline.

                              By the way, this has very little to do with weight itself, because I easily weigh 10-20lbs less than the average American. It has to do with the hidden fee-based economy that has taken hold since the decline of general business decency over the past two decades.

                              I absolutely agree with you that there should be a weight restriction for carry-on (why isn't there one?), and I'm sure they will go to this next, but I advocate a 'passenger's bill of rights' that sets a minimum baggage/weight allowance of two checked bags weighing a maximum of 50lbs each. This would help ensure that baggage is safely stowed where it is designed to be stowed by the manufacturer, would reduce carry-on weight, and would reduce baggage handling accidents due to single, overweight bags.

                              Unfortunately, if left unregulated, the industry will continue the trend by further restricting both checked and carry-on bags, relying on the hidden-fee economy of the current age.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X