Rough WJ Flight Today

[Azure]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[newgirl]

Doesn't flight 80 operate from Calgary to Halifax?

If the turbulence was over Sudbury why would they keep flying to Halifax with possibly wounded passengers? Why not make an emergency landing in Toronto?

This report doesn't make sense.

[CanadaEH]

Sounds like a LAS flight to YVR years ago when a few FA's had to be taken off on stretchers...

[Lakelad]

“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.”

Globe & Mail Report

[CanadaEH]

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.

That should help clear up the confusion newgirl.

[John S.]

That should help clear up the confusion newgirl.

Actually it doesn't.

Any time you have passengers going to a hospital, even as a precautionary measure, it ought to be considered an emergency. Not to pre-judge the crew's action but consider this:

A diversion to YYZ to deplane a few of the injured might cost a couple of hours.

An undiagnosed neck injury could cost a lot more.

[Flapsforty]

Medlink. And you weren't there. Do you also belive the aircraft dropped 1000 feet? Do you really think that if pax were 'hurled about the cabin like rag dolls' the flight wouldn't have needed to be diverted? Thank God our down to earth Canadian media doesn't exagerate stories.

Cheers

[Vsplat]

Hard to put ourselves in the crew's position.

I wasn't out last night, but I would consider that, if the aircraft hit severe turbulence due to weather in the area, it's possible that a southern diversion would have put them into continued or worse conditions.

A tough day for the passengers AND crew.

Vs

[Guest ACSideStick]

I am amazed at the number of people who still scoff at the "seatbelts while seated" RULE.

I don't know if WestJet's policy is different, but Air Canada passengers (guests) are told in the Safety demo that seatbelts are to be worn anytime you are seated.

It isn't a suggestion. Unless all those injured were standing in line for the lav, they have no one to blame but themselves, as much as they will try to make it WJ fault.

FlapsForty, bring it down a notch. Everybody (most anyway) on this forum understands the nature of turbulence events. Your "you weren't there" statement suggests either you were there or you don't know anymore than anybody else.

The media isn't exaggerating anything.

The Globe article has one witness saying "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."

That is from someone who was there. Why be so defensive. These things happen and it seldom is the Crew's fault (unless they flew into a thunderstorm).

The fact that 11 were injured and 3 taken off by stretcher would suggest that many more were probably bumped around as well, but not hurt.

[Flapsforty]

AC Sidestick,

Sorry for sounding so defensive. Yes, WS has the same rules as other airlines and do advise pax to wear their seatbelts while seated.

I'm a little weary of the media these days as I have been laid up with a back problem for the last 8 months or so. Long story short, my days have been spent lying on the floor watching TV all day because I couldn't get actually sit or stand for more than 5 mins. at a time. My tirade was not so much to defend the flight crew as to lambaste the media. I'm not usually much of a TV watcher so this has been an eyeopener. The media latches on to anything sensational and I would be willing to bet that several people were interviewed fror that story and only the most sensational was published giving people the impression there was "terror in the skies'.

It's much like global warming. Every storm, every death, every crop failure, is attributed to global warming. Did you know that COLD kills an average of 200,000 people per year on this planet? What does the media do.. they focus on the few thousand that were killed in Europe this summer from... you guessed it GLOBAL WARMING.

The runway incursion at LAX where a WS flight was holding short of the runway but over the hold line was in no particular danger, the NW flight didn't even consider it an event, was made to sound like some close to disaster experience.

And you're right, I wasn't there, but as pilots or flight crew, haven't we all 'been there'?

Cheers

P.S. Apologies to John S. if you were offended, wasn't my intenet.

[AIP]

The runway incursion at LAX where a WS flight was holding short of the runway but over the hold line was in no particular danger, the NW flight didn't even consider it an event, was made to sound like some close to disaster experience.

I am getting the impression from far more official sources than you that this wasn't just about having a toenail over the line.

I guess we will have to wait for the official report. In the meantime, instead of poo pooing all the info just because your beloved WJ is involved, perhaps full disclosure is the proper course of action so that we can all learn something here, so that it doesn't happen again.

[Guest rattler]

Latest: Note statement by Transport Canada re the investigation. I suspect it will reveal that all proper procedures were indeed followed.

Transport Canada, TSB reviewing WestJet flight

Updated Fri. Sep. 7 2007 12:07 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) are reviewing what happened on a turbulent WestJet flight that sent passengers to hospital Thursday night.

Three people remain in hospital Friday following the Calgary-to-Halifax flight.

The captain of Flight 80 told passengers to buckle their seatbelts just before the plane hit turbulence about 330 kilometres north of Sudbury, Ont. on Thursday night.

However, passengers on the flight claim the plane dropped about 300 metres within seconds -- preventing some from getting their seatbelts on in time.

Two nurses on board Flight 80 managed to treat the injured passengers during the flight. They said one man sustained bad cuts to his head and leg. The man's wife was also hurt when he landed on her.

TSB's Mike Cunningham said the independent body would be seeking more information from WestJet about what exactly happened to assess whether an investigation is needed.

However, Cunningham said such turbulence is not uncommon.

"We would only investigate if we thought that there was a good potential to advance aviation safety,'' Cunningham told The Canadian Press.

"So if it turns out to be just an unfortunate encounter that was handled in the proper fashion by the crew, there's no need for us to investigate further than that.''

Transport Canada spokeswoman Lucy Vignola said the federal agency would review the incident to determine if the proper procedures were followed.

Injuries

Peter Spurway, a spokesman for the Robert L. Stanfield International Airport Authority in Halifax, said six people were treated and released at the airport after the plane landed.

A hospital spokesperson at the QEII Health Sciences Centre in Halifax would not disclose how the three patients brought in for treatment were doing.

WestJet spokesman Richard Bartrem said there had been no advanced warning about the turbulence from other pilots in the area.

"It's what we would call moderate turbulence... the plane's going to get bounced around a little bit," Bartrem told CP.

But the passengers on board said the turbulence was a single drop -- not what would be considered normal.

The plane was flying at an altitude of about 39,000 feet when the incident occurred.

With files from The Canadian Press

[Guest rattler]

Flapsfourty, regarding the incursion at LAX, perhaps NW did not think it was a big deal but others including the NTSB did.

NTSB Advisory

National Transportation Safety Board

Washington, DC 20594

August 22, 2007

NTSB INVESTIGATING RUNWAY INCURSION IN LOS ANGELES

According to the FAA, the two aircraft missed colliding by 37 feet (wingtip of A320 to the nose of the B737) as NWA180 departed runway 24L.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...821X01217&key=1

[Thebean]

Latest: Note statement by Transport Canada re the investigation. I suspect it will reveal that all proper procedures were indeed followed.

Definition of turbulence.

http://pavo.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResource..._793688055_7523

One must remember, in the media, if it bleeds, it leads.

[Canus Chinookus]

sooo, still no mention if it was CAT or they flew into a cell...

[Thebean]

sooo, still no mention if it was CAT or they flew into a cell...

I don't know of many sane people who willingly fly commercial airliners into cells....

[Canus Chinookus]

unless by accident.

[ModerateChop]

I don't know of many sane people who willingly fly commercial airliners into cells....

There was an area of OCNL EMBD CB's forecast on the SIGWX charts in that general area and time frame. It would be interesting to know if this was an example of CAT or turbulence associated with convective activity ? How close to the nearest cells where they, if any ? What was the observed wind ? Was there any current SIGMENTS issued for turbulence ? Was the weather radar working properly ? As any airline pilot knows mosts forecasts of high altitude CAT on SIGWX charts are not very accurate. Any information that can be used to improve the forecast models should be studied.

MC

[AIP]

From the Globe and Mail Website . . . . . .

The plane was flying at an altitude of about 39,000 feet about 330 kilometres north of Sudbury when it hit turbulence, WestJet spokesman Richard Bartrem said. There had been no warnings about turbulence from other pilots in other planes.

“It's what we would call moderate turbulence,” Mr. Bartrem said.

“It's just that it's a little bumpier,” he said. In moderate turbulence, “the plane's going to get bounced around a little bit.”

While turbulence is common, it's “quite rare” for it to cause injuries, he said.

That is a pretty technical analysis don't ya think ?? Better get this guy a decent script next time me thinks.

[Thebean]

From the Globe and Mail Website . . . . . .

The plane was flying at an altitude of about 39,000 feet about 330 kilometres north of Sudbury when it hit turbulence, WestJet spokesman Richard Bartrem said. There had been no warnings about turbulence from other pilots in other planes.

“It's what we would call moderate turbulence,” Mr. Bartrem said.

“It's just that it's a little bumpier,” he said. In moderate turbulence, “the plane's going to get bounced around a little bit.”

While turbulence is common, it's “quite rare” for it to cause injuries, he said.

That is a pretty technical analysis don't ya think ??  Better get this guy a decent script next time me thinks.

http://pavo.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResource..._793688055_7523

One of the first things any novice C172 pilot learns is not to fool around with TCU.

Secondly, the media definition of severe turbulence and the true definition are two very different things.

Very few airliners ever experience anything beyond moderate turbulence. If an aircraft has been thru extreme turbulence, you'll know right away because there will likely be pieces of the airplane that are bent / broken and a river of puke streaming out the doors when they are opened on arrival at the gate.

Not to make light of the situation, but there is a very good reason why flight crew leave their seat belts on at all times.

[Spinnaker]

WestJet pays big bucks for Medlink and SAT phone. The procedure, is to start a Medlink assessment form and page for medical assistance. Medlink then detirmines the crediibility of the Medical Person (IE, not a Vet, Optometrist or Chiropractor). Medlink will then liase with Dispatch on a call patch in if a diversion becomes neccessary and accept full liability when they also advise the Captain to continue.

You can override this call, but I don't know many who will. I've had numerous medilnk calls and they are a fantastic outfit and a relief as they've always been right on there decisions.

So, I don't think the decision to continue was made without a lot of considerations from various sources.

[John S.]

P.S.  Apologies to John S. if you were offended, wasn't my intenet.

No offense taken. But you did not really address my point.

To put it another way, we all have different life experiences. We use those life experiences as a basis for our actions. I'm now saying that with my life's experiences I might have made a different decision.

If I were told that a couple of nurses are attending to some passengers that got banged around in some moderate or severe turb then I'd be pretty concerned about neck vertebrate and nerve damage. I'd be asking if these nurses think that there is any possibility of any neck injury. If they said there was then I'd be diverting to YYZ. (Even though we all agree that an extra landing at YYZ is less than thrilling.)

The fact that some of your passengers went to a hospital indicates that they may have been injured. If they are still there a few days later than it was serious, and perhaps it would have been prudent to take a two hour delay for an unscheduled YYZ stop.

[Spinnaker]

Good points John S but as I tried to point out in my post, the decision to divert is made by a consensus in three different departments, all trained in this exact scenario. No one is heartless to not give someone immediate attention if they need it and they had two RN's on board at the time to assist Medlink in the decision. I'd think the Ambulance would be there regardless, even for assessing shock.

I'd like to see who would really divert when its recommended that they don't, as in this case. You're going against a full team made decision.

[Guest ACSideStick]

Bean,

If people hit thier head on the ceiling, that is at least severe turbulance. With all due respect to you, and the WJ Mina Bird Richard Bartram, moderate turbulance doesn't require hospitals and ambulances.

There is an area around Sudbury which I had severe CAT. Not a ripple all the way from YEG and then Wham - about 5-8 seconds so rough, the AP kicked off and wings drop about 45 degrees both ways, and we dropped aobut 150 feet. Just getting my hand on the controlstick took both hands because I used one to push my wrist down against the armrest so that my hand could be relatively steady. After the 8 seconds it went glassy smooth for the rest of the trip.

[Thebean]

Bean,

If people hit thier head on the ceiling, that is at least severe turbulance. With all due respect to you, and the WJ Mina Bird Richard Bartram, moderate turbulance doesn't require hospitals and ambulances.

There is an area around Sudbury which I had severe CAT. Not a ripple all the way from YEG and then Wham - about 5-8 seconds so rough, the AP kicked off and wings drop about 45 degrees both ways, and we dropped aobut 150 feet. Just getting my hand on the controlstick took both hands because I used one to push my wrist down against the armrest so that my hand could be relatively steady. After the 8 seconds it went glassy smooth for the rest of the trip.

As reported in the Toronto G & M. The thousand foot drop was about 65 feet. Nothing to sneeze about, but if I've told you once, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

Full probe into WestJet turbulence unlikely

Passengers praise airline's handling of incident

JAMES KELLER

Canadian Press

September 8, 2007

HALIFAX -- Two federal agencies are making routine inquiries about a Halifax-bound WestJet flight that hit turbulence, injuring several passengers with three being sent to hospital, but a full investigation into what one woman described as the scariest experience of her life appears unlikely.

Flight 80 out of Calgary was north of Sudbury on Thursday night when passengers say the plane

felt as though it dropped several hundred metres

.

There was little warning, and many passengers, including some lined up for the washroom, had no time to put on seatbelts.

Witnesses have said passengers standing up were tossed around the plane, in some cases falling on top of each other, and others hit their heads on compartments above them. Nine people were hurt. Passengers have praised WestJet's handling of the incident.

After examining data from the aircraft, WestJet officials say the actual altitude change was 19.5 metres.

"That's certainly not to diminish the sensation those guests went through," spokesman Richard Bartrem said. "That's equivalent to a six storey fall, so it was certainly an unsettling experience for them."

Mr Bartrem said that three passengers were taken to hospital, treated and released Thursday night.

Mike Cunningham of the Transportation Safety Board said the independent body would be seeking more information from WestJet about what happened and then assess whether a full investigation is needed.

But if the board determines the airline and flight crew followed proper procedure and there aren't any major safety issues, one would be unlikely.

"We would only investigate if we thought that there was a good potential to advance aviation safety," Mr. Cunningham said yesterday.

Transport Canada spokeswoman Lucie Vignola said the department would review the incident to determine whether proper procedures were followed.

"We do a follow-up with the company, just to make sure that they were complying with the regulations that we have, and then if there are any deficiencies, then we address it immediately," she said.

WestJet categorized the turbulence as moderate and said there had been no warnings about turbulence in the area.

Mary Ellen Chesnutt, 24, who was travelling to Nova Scotia from Victoria to visit her family, said there had been light turbulence several times during the flight.

"It was probably the scariest experience I've ever had," Ms. Chesnutt said yesterday.

"I don't like to fly that much in the first place, and I was just thinking, please let me land, please let me land. I was praying a lot."

She said the flight crew was amazing, and she praised them for staying focused and keeping the passengers calm.