The seatbelt light is there for a reason!

[nlagalle]

Ok, I don't rant often but here it is..

Just got home from BNE-MEL on QF639. sitting in 6C

Plane land and before the pilots have even had a chance to idle the engines after applying the reverse thrust, people are already turning their phones on... Seriously people, do you really think turning your phone on so soon will make people ring sooner? are you that important????

Then..

We taxiing back to the gate, and the plane turns in and is moving s-l-o-w-l-y anyway Mr Clown in 5D decides it's ok to get up and start unloading his bag from the overhead bin. Then Ms Clown in 5C does the same thing. This is while the plane is still moving.

I was in one of those moods tonight and I piped up, "Are you right people? The seatbelt sign is still on"

Mr. Clown looks over to me and says, "it's ok" and laughs. I was just about to say something to him when the FA got on the PA and said "The seatbelt light is still illuminated, please sit down!" The look on his face was priceless! I just shook my head at him.

Why do some people think the rules don't apply to them? It really gets up my goat!

So Mr. Clown in 5D, i hope if one day you read this, you aren't above the rules!

ok end rant..

 

[under the radar]

Ok, I don't rant often but here it is..

Just got home from BNE-MEL on QF639. sitting in 6C

Plane land and before the pilots have even had a chance to idle the engines after applying the reverse thrust, people are already turning their phones on... Seriously people, do you really think turning your phone on so soon will make people ring sooner? are you that important????

Then..

We taxiing back to the gate, and the plane turns in and is moving s-l-o-w-l-y anyway Mr Clown in 5D decides it's ok to get up and start unloading his bag from the overhead bin. Then Ms Clown in 5C does the same thing. This is while the plane is still moving.

I was in one of those moods tonight and I piped up, "Are you right people? The seatbelt sign is still on"

Mr. Clown looks over to me and says, "it's ok" and laughs. I was just about to say something to him when the FA got on the PA and said "The seatbelt light is still illuminated, please sit down!" The look on his face was priceless! I just shook my head at him.

Why do some people think the rules don't apply to them? It really gets up my goat!

So Mr. Clown in 5D, i hope if one day you read this, you aren't above the rules!

ok end rant..

its not a rant....some pax simply think they are above and beyond the rest... (but mostly they are stupid idiots!!!!.. sorry.. had to be said!!! do they honestly think that they will get off the aircraft any sooner?????

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Ok, I don't rant often but here it is..



ok end rant..

Have you flown to or from India ? If not, I suggest you don't. You will be ranting like crazy!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Plane land and before the pilots have even had a chance to idle the engines after applying the reverse thrust, people are already turning their phones on... Seriously people, do you really think turning your phone on so soon will make people ring sooner? are you that important????

Those extra couple of minutes are what is needed to make a call to my ride to come pick me up from the airport. We live about 22 mins away and calling immediately on landing makes the difference.

Nothing about being 'important' - it has to do with not having my lift circle around waiting for me - or, v.v., me not having to wait around in the cold (and or rain) for my ride to pick me up.

 

[Grooba]

The switching of the phone on is of no issue to me. The plane has landed and is on the taxi way to the terminal, no big deal to switch phones on. The FA's are not consistant in announcing when it is ok to switch them back on anyway.

The seatbelt sign however is also one of my pet hates (along with people squashing obviously oversized baggage into the overhead lockers), I've also told some pax who stand up prior to the seatbelt sign being switched off to sit back down, coincidentally seconds prior to the FA making the same announcement.

Morons.

 

[drron]

Though sometimes the reason is not absolutely essential such as on our flight last night.On approach into PVG and a fellow from Row 1 decides now is the time to go and speak to the crew as they are trying to clean up from the meal service,collect headsets etc.Could see they were not amused but Mr. Row 1 doesn't take a hint.CSM goes up front and the seat belt light comes on.Takes Mr row 1 about 3-4 minutes until he returns to his seat.Then the light goes off before coming on for final approach 10 minutes later.
I did think well done though.

 

[Brisbane Flyer]

Have you flown to or from India ? If not, I suggest you don't. You will be ranting like crazy!

India, any queue or potential queue is too funny. What I like to see is the guy in row 15 or so, getting up as soon as the seatbelt light changes, thinking its a drag race and the green has just been lit, running down the aisle to get closer to the door. I'm sitting on the aisle in front, slowly get out of my seat, but in the nick of time so my big frame makes it impossible for him to move forward, then turn around and just kind of look at him, and let everyone deplane in front of me, as they should do. Priceless to see the frustration, I dont get it, he is just running to an immigration queue in Mumbai that is never fast...

 

[Alanslegal]

We taxiing back to the gate, and the plane turns in and is moving s-l-o-w-l-y anyway Mr Clown in 5D decides it's ok to get up and start unloading his bag from the overhead bin. Then Ms Clown in 5C does the same thing. This is while the plane is still moving.

In situations like this, I am always wishing in my head that the plane makes an unexpected hard brake, jolt them enough so they tumble a few metres down the 'bowling lane' aisle .... that would be enough to teach them not to stand up against the warning signs

 

[nlagalle]

Have you flown to or from India ? If not, I suggest you don't. You will be ranting like crazy!

Oh I have.. and don't get me started on that!!

 

[nlagalle]

The switching of the phone on is of no issue to me. The plane has landed and is on the taxi way to the terminal, no big deal to switch phones on.

Those extra couple of minutes are what is needed to make a call to my ride to come pick me up from the airport. We live about 22 mins away and calling immediately on landing makes the difference.

My reason for the phone is this. Under regulations phones must be off if you have to walk on the tarmac. this is due to re-fuelling and electromagnetic interference. Now at MEL an SYD that many not ever happen at all, but you don't know. so if everyone thinks they can just turn on their phone when they think they can, what happens if they have to switch them off again? I bet more than half don't.

 

[markis10]

My reason for the phone is this. Under regulations phones must be off if you have to walk on the tarmac. this is due to re-fuelling and electromagnetic interference. Now at MEL an SYD that many not ever happen at all, but you don't know. so if everyone thinks they can just turn on their phone when they think they can, what happens if they have to switch them off again? I bet more than half don't.

Airline regs only, most refuelers have a mobile and its not switched off, especially at GA airports where thats how you organize a top up, CAR 20.9 permits the use of electrical devices when more than 15M from a refueling point and does not differentiate from aerobridge or tarmac ops in terms of deplaning AFAIK. Note that its illegal to clip your seat belt together while refelling, people ignoring the seatbelt off light and buckling up are just as guilty, even if they have the right intentions in terms of overall safety.

But rules are still rules and must be followed, I am not condoning the action regardless of the scientific analysis done. An analysis by the Centre for the Study of Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility Centre at the University of Oklahoma in August 2001 stated “While it may be theoretically possible for a spark from a cell phone battery to ignite gas vapor under very precise conditions, the historical evidence does not support the need for further research.” In fact a dropped mobile phone regardless of its operational status is more likely to be a source of sparks than an operational one in ones pocket!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

In situations like this, I am always wishing in my head that the plane makes an unexpected hard brake, jolt them enough so they tumble a few metres down the 'bowling lane' aisle .... that would be enough to teach them not to stand up against the warning signs

My reason for the phone is this. Under regulations phones must be off if you have to walk on the tarmac. this is due to re-fuelling and electromagnetic interference. Now at MEL an SYD that many not ever happen at all, but you don't know. so if everyone thinks they can just turn on their phone when they think they can, what happens if they have to switch them off again? I bet more than half don't.

these seem to be examples of 'would have, could have, might have' type scenarios which are unlikely to ever pose any real safety danger.

people are asked to keep their seatbelts fastened because they might think that the plane has reached the terminal building when in fact it hasn't (it might be waiting for a gate). Wandering around the aircraft while it starts taxi-ing at speed could be dangerous. Secondly the 'remain seated' is to allow cabin crew to perform functions such as cross-checking doors on arrival and making it easy for them to get from one side of the aircraft to the other.

A very s-l-o-w entry to a jetbridge (as was reported by the OP) is unlikely to trigger any sort of damage or pose much of a safety risk. And even if it does - it happens how often? Do I condone it? no. Is it likely to upset me? nope. Compared driving your car one is clearly dangerous, one is not.

As for the refueling - it also seems to be an urban myth that mobile phones can set off any sort of explosion... even mythbusters found it almost impossible. Most of the emails with graphic warnings and anecdotes have never been proven to have actually taken place.

Like the 'noise cancelling headphones' thread where several posters were strongly arguing that there were all sorts of dangers 'just because someone said so' doesn't actually mean there are. We need to use a little common sense. (And now supposedly the headphones aren't so dangerous after all )

I am far more concerned seeing families with their children seatbelted in cars when they are being refueled than I am about mobile phone use. Like planes, it should be mandated that all passengers in a vehicle are made to release their seatbelts while filling up. A much more sensible safety precaution.

 

[nlagalle]

these seem to be examples of 'would have, could have, might have' type scenarios which are unlikely to ever pose any real safety danger.

A very s-l-o-w entry to a jetbridge (as was reported by the OP) is unlikely to trigger any sort of damage or pose much of a safety risk. And even if it does - it happens how often? Do I condone it? no. Is it likely to upset me? nope. Compared driving your car one is clearly dangerous, one is not.

My point being he was already trying to get his hand luggage from the bin. what would happen if the plane lurched, did brake enough for him to lose a grip on his luggage and send it forward or back into another pax.

Yes you could say all rules are there for 'would have, could have, might have' but they are still there for a reason.

He had the attitude of "I can do as I please as I know better" when he spoke and thankfully got shot down by the PA announcement.

 

[markis10]

Like the 'noise cancelling headphones' thread where several posters were strongly arguing that there were all sorts of dangers 'just because someone said so' doesn't actually mean there are. We need to use a little common sense. (And now supposedly the headphones aren't so dangerous after all )

I am far more concerned seeing families with their children seatbelted in cars when they are being refueled than I am about mobile phone use. Like planes, it should be mandated that all passengers in a vehicle are made to release their seatbelts while filling up. A much more sensible safety precaution.

It is mandated that all passengers should have their seatbelts undone during refueling - see the previously mentioned CAR, just like its mandated by federal law that all passengers must do as told by crew, regardless of the reasons behind such airline requests and whether they are valid or not reasons, common sense plays a part in the making of rules and removing them. Common sense is not a valid reason for ignoring or denying to comply with requests from cabin crew or airline staff.

 

[samh004]

It is mandated that all passengers should have their seatbelts undone during refueling - see the previously mentioned CAR, just like its mandated by federal law that all passengers must do as told by crew, regardless of the reasons behind such airline requests and whether they are valid or not reasons, common sense plays a part in the making of rules and removing them. Common sense is not a valid reason for ignoring or denying to comply with requests from cabin crew or airline staff.

Interesting you say that. Onboard QF689 yesterday the captain needed to add an extra ton of fuel and althoughthis was explained, never mentioned that anyone should undo their seat belts. Should he have?

 

[ejb]

Interesting you say that. Onboard QF689 yesterday the captain needed to add an extra ton of fuel and althoughthis was explained, never mentioned that anyone should undo their seat belts. Should he have?

I believe he should have. I have had this situation once and the PA announcement was clear that all pax should have their seatbelt undone.

I guess though sometimes this message is missed by the crew.

ejb

 

[markis10]

Interesting you say that. Onboard QF689 yesterday the captain needed to add an extra ton of fuel and althoughthis was explained, never mentioned that anyone should undo their seat belts. Should he have?

Yes, unless he had an exemption from CAO 20.9 4.2.2:

4.2.2 The operator of an aircraft that has an underwing fuelling system must ensure
that fuel is not loaded onto the aircraft using this system while passengers are
on board, or entering or leaving, the aircraft unless the fuel is aviation grade
turbine fuel that contains anti-static additive or is loaded in the USA and
meets the ASTM D 1655 standard and the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) before the fuel is loaded, all persons who may be on board, or entering or
leaving, the aircraft while the fuel is loaded are told that:
(i) fuel is to be loaded; and
(ii) their seat-belts must not be fastened while the fuel is loaded; and
(iii) they must not smoke, use any electrical equipment (other than
medical equipment used for treating a patient, the operation of which
will not affect the safety of any person on board the aircraft) or do
anything else that might cause fuel vapours to ignite during the
loading;

 

[Fantic125]

Have you flown to or from India ? If not, I suggest you don't. You will be ranting like crazy!

I agree! They are crazy in India! :!:

Some of the flights in China are just as bad! I had a couple of flights last week in and out of PEK and HGH where almost as soon as the wheels hit the runway the Y Crew were running up and down the aisles literally yelling at people to sit back down!

 

[k_sheep]

Why should seatbelts be undone when refuelling? I often wondered about this when I hear the PA message.

 

[markis10]

Why should seatbelts be undone when refuelling? I often wondered about this when I hear the PA message.

Because clicking them together could generate a spark, a remote risk but real enough!