Seat belts!! Int. Quest. - Page 2

Doug Taylor · February 3rd, 2008, 19:32

I'm still continuing the takeoff!

jtrain609 · February 3rd, 2008, 21:14

Fly, and abort, what you brief.

Below 80 knots - abort for red and orange lights in your face.

Above 80 knots - abort for engine fire, failure, loss of directional control or any red lights in your face.

Above V1 we're going flying unless we have a control issue that will prevent us from rotating (citing the CHQ guys in JFK that aborted at like V2+15 when they couldn't rotate).

Ain't no seatbelts in there!

Minuteman · February 3rd, 2008, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Captain

Come on now, fill out a report for a seatbelt

Sure! If it happens a lot, that's a lot of data points to justify getting a checklist changed (as opposed to anecdotal evidence).

OldTownPilot · February 4th, 2008, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtrain609

(citing the CHQ guys in JFK that aborted at like V2+15 when they couldn't rotate).

Aroo??!!?

Nick · February 4th, 2008, 21:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

Aroo??!!?

The stupid elevator gust lock was FUBAR and they couldn't even pull the nose off of the ground.

Nick · February 4th, 2008, 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojo6911

Lets spice it up. There is an FAA guy in the jumpseat.

That wouldn't change it for me either.

Aborted takeoff with a fed in the jumpseat because of a seatbelt off? No way!

SoCalAprch · February 5th, 2008, 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

Aroo??!!?

They wouldn't have been able to rotate even if they wanted to. Elevator control rods decided to take the flight off because the gust lock wasn't being too nice to them.

jtrain609 · February 6th, 2008, 17:33

Those guys were lucky they were on such a long runway and not someplace like Ashville or some other podunk little airport or they woulda been grade a fux0red.

NightCargo · February 6th, 2008, 18:08

If you call an abort, and the PF (assuming the Capt) slams on the brakes, you are gonna end up part of the instrument panel. Now, if you end up incapacitated due to slamming your head off the glareshield, you have a first hand lesson on the reason for the seatbelt in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtrain609

Fly, and abort, what you brief.

Below 80 knots - abort for red and orange lights in your face.

Above 80 knots - abort for engine fire, failure, loss of directional control or any red lights in your face.

Above V1 we're going flying unless we have a control issue that will prevent us from rotating (citing the CHQ guys in JFK that aborted at like V2+15 when they couldn't rotate).

Ain't no seatbelts in there!

This about sums it up for me!

My interview answer: "I would continue the takeoff and fasten it at the soonest possible, SAFE time." If asked about breaking the regs, my response would be: "If we aborted the T/O, we would be putting our pax, crew, aircraft, and company at risk both physically and financially. Continuing the T/O is the SAFEST option and the reason we are supposed to wear seatbelts, is to provide protection in the event of unusual circumstances, such as an aborted T/O."

Something along those lines.

Screaming_Emu · February 6th, 2008, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojo6911

Lets spice it up. There is an FAA guy in the jumpseat.

Shouldn't be a difference in how you fly with the feds on board or not.

flyguy · February 7th, 2008, 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightCargo

If you call an abort, and the PF (assuming the Capt) slams on the brakes, you are gonna end up part of the instrument panel. Now, if you end up incapacitated due to slamming your head off the glareshield, you have a first hand lesson on the reason for the seatbelt in the first place.

I'm surprised you are the first one to bring that up. If we continue and we crash, I'll probably end up getting seriously injured or killed because I don't have my seatbelt on. But if we abort while I don't have my seatbelt on, again I'll probaly be injured. Now the chances of us crashing are pretty slim, so I'd go with that as being the safest option rather than the abort which will almost certainly lead to me being injured and puts the rest of the passengers at risk as well.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and intent of the law. The letter of the law may state that we must have our seatbelts on. But the intent of the law is to increase safety. If in this case continuing the takeoff is safter than aborting, common sense tells you that safety takes precedence over the law. That's how I would explain it in my interview also.

flyguy · February 7th, 2008, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screaming_Emu

Shouldn't be a difference in how you fly with the feds on board or not.

At least that's what we'd say in our interview of course.

grnclvrs · February 9th, 2008, 19:16

The belt is off, the reg is already broken. Why turn it into an emergency situation? Keep going and buy the other guy a beer later.

Pistolpak1 · February 11th, 2008, 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Doggy Dog

I'd wait until v1, then abort the takeoff

I'd steer the plane off in to the grass

Then I'd pull all the fire handle and blow the bottles

Then I'd order the FAs to blow all the slides

Then I'd hack apart the cockpit voice recorder with the crash axe

Then I'd takeoff all my clothes, go streaking through the cabin, jump out the aft slide and yell: "SO LONG, SUCKERS!"

I believe this is standard checklist procedure in the sim..... so I'll choose this answer.

. If there is an FAA check airman in the jumpseat. I say call it if notices. If he didn't then dont do something stupid that will definitely cause you to fail the ride. In oppose to possibly putting yourself in danger.

Pistolpak1 · February 11th, 2008, 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyguy

I'm surprised you are the first one to bring that up. If we continue and we crash, I'll probably end up getting seriously injured or killed because I don't have my seatbelt on. But if we abort while I don't have my seatbelt on, again I'll probaly be injured. Now the chances of us crashing are pretty slim, so I'd go with that as being the safest option rather than the abort which will almost certainly lead to me being injured and puts the rest of the passengers at risk as well.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and intent of the law. The letter of the law may state that we must have our seatbelts on. But the intent of the law is to increase safety. If in this case continuing the takeoff is safter than aborting, common sense tells you that safety takes precedence over the law. That's how I would explain it in my interview also.

Good answer. I agree. It's important to keep your priorites in order and go with the safest option.

sigpilot · February 12th, 2008, 02:09

This is a lot like the cockpit door opening on the takeoff roll. Which happened a few times on the Saab and once on the 170 due to the door not being properly secured. Each time we continued and closed the door after climbing through a safe altitude.

When you at LGA and cleared for an immediate takeoff with traffic on a 2 mile final its safer to continue just like a seat belt. If something happens and you slam into the windshield its your own damn fault..

stoki · February 13th, 2008, 00:41

I agree with everyone above.

But now lets say, that the improbable happens, the airplane hits some massive turbulence on take-off and the pilot without the seat-belt gets launched from his seat and in some way with his body blocks the controls somehow, causing the airplane to somehow crash (yea, very specific I know lol) I imagine everyone would probably be all over the flight-crew for not having their seat-belts secured, and that they should have aborted the take-off when they had the chance and when one of the pilots saw the other without seatbelts on the take-off roll. I wonder how the investigation would play out, assuming that on the voice recorder, during the take-off roll the seat-belts are mentioned (which they probably wouldnt be, but lets say "what if" ).

flyguy · February 13th, 2008, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoki

I agree with everyone above.

But now lets say, that the improbable happens, the airplane hits some massive turbulence on take-off and the pilot without the seat-belt gets launched from his seat and in some way with his body blocks the controls somehow, causing the airplane to somehow crash (yea, very specific I know lol) I imagine everyone would probably be all over the flight-crew for not having their seat-belts secured, and that they should have aborted the take-off when they had the chance and when one of the pilots saw the other without seatbelts on the take-off roll. I wonder how the investigation would play out, assuming that on the voice recorder, during the take-off roll the seat-belts are mentioned (which they probably wouldnt be, but lets say "what if" ).

OOhhh...I wanna play.

Okay, well, what if they decide to abort, and the pilot without the seatbelt gets trust forward and his leg goes straight into one of the rudder pedals, causing the plane to violently veer off the runway and on to the parellel runway right in front of a 747 on its takoff roll, the two planes colide, there is a huge explosion, 400 dead passengers and crew, and it turns into one of those infamous stories that they teach about in airline ground schools. Would the investigatiors not say they should have continued the takeoff?

stoki · February 14th, 2008, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyguy

OOhhh...I wanna play.

Okay, well, what if they decide to abort, and the pilot without the seatbelt gets trust forward and his leg goes straight into one of the rudder pedals, causing the plane to violently veer off the runway and on to the parellel runway right in front of a 747 on its takoff roll, the two planes colide, there is a huge explosion, 400 dead passengers and crew, and it turns into one of those infamous stories that they teach about in airline ground schools. Would the investigatiors not say they should have continued the takeoff?

I imagine at that point they would have to revise the FAR on seatbelts to something like "seatbelts must be fastened during taxi-takeoff-landing, unless the fastening of, or measures taken to fasten, or attempts made to fasten seatbelts during the above listed operations, will compromise the safety of the flight or operation."

jynxyjoe · February 14th, 2008, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Doggy Dog

I'd wait until v1, then abort the takeoff

I'd steer the plane off in to the grass

Then I'd pull all the fire handle and blow the bottles

Then I'd order the FAs to blow all the slides

Then I'd hack apart the cockpit voice recorder with the crash axe

Then I'd takeoff all my clothes, go streaking through the cabin, jump out the aft slide and yell: "SO LONG, SUCKERS!"

Only thing I'd add to that is plug in the MP3 player and have the FO blare Benny Hill music over the PA at top volume.

Bumblebee · February 15th, 2008, 00:42

We have seatbelt and shoulder harness checks in our checklist as well. I would not abort the takeoff, and would fix it once I was at a safe altitude. If the FAA noticed, I would say, "I'll never do that again", and then file the ASAP.

Other than that I would self disclose to the captain, and would follow his suggestion.

Ethan, it's a lot more bumpy in the turboprop. . . maybe you don't need seatbelts in a jet

you can find out in a week or so

Judge · February 17th, 2008, 23:19

Never abort for someone not wearing a seatbealt. Where is the danger to flight? No where! Control malfunctions or interruptions can happen in many different scenarios. If your other pilot is eating a sandwich during rotation there is no reason to abort. A reason to strike them with a club, maybe. But no reason to abort the takeoff resulting in further danger to everyone else aboard. Use common sense in operating a/c and you will be quite happy.