wxguy

I think sometimes the seatbelt sign switch is magically connected to the atmosphere so that when the sign is lit, it is smooth. As soon as it is turned off, the bumps begin. Lather, rinse repeat!

Yesterday I was on a KUL-BKK TG flight, where that must have happened four times. During the meal service I asked an FA for a Diet Coke (they were bringing trays while the sign was on), and she said, "I'm not allowed to service drinks while the sign is on, but I can bring you a glass of water." She went into the galley and brought me a glass of water, but couldn't bring me a Diet Coke.

At least UA brings me Diet Coke when the seatbelt sign is on ^

adambrau

I have been on several EWR-HKG flights where the seat belt sign is illuminated for hours - I think the pilots just forget to turn it off. In any case, it's one of the better features of US airlines - none of the flight attendants ever say a thing about going to the lavatory unless they themselves have been told to strap in. I find foreign carriers (European especially) to be much more strict about challenging access to the loo just because the sign is illuminated. And frankly, at the risk of making an ageist un-PC comment, I find I am just as able to safely move around the plane as the cabin crew is

YadiMolina

Are you sure????

On my last flight the flight attendant described seat belt rules and proclaimed "just because the crew is up and moving around the cabin doesn't mean it's safe for you to do so."

I tried to observe their turbulence-resisting techniques while doling out food and drinks with the seat belt light illuminated.

Loren Pechtel

Just because they said that doesn't make it true.

adambadam

Not trying to be a doucebag. I honestly think the pilots just forget to turn off the seat belt sign sometimes. I always feel very safe on United because of the experience of the cockpit and cabin crews, but I think I would rather take the statistical odds of risking injury to myself or others (whatever those are) than remaining in my seat and peeing in my pants because I feel scared to risk a quick jaunt to the lavatory. Of course the crew has better training than me. Of course they have to say what they are told to. But very few do IMHO

The piece that irks me is the policy not to turn it off until cruising altitude or later. Given how early they are boarding the planes it just creates that much more of a gap in access to facilities.

Mike Jacoubowsky

But safe to assume there's no reminder of any sort that the sign has been on for "x" amount of time? No disrespect intended, but as you mentioned, there are many more important things w/regards flying a plane than monitoring seatbelt sign status. I get the feeling that a friendly call from the FA asking if the seatbelt sign still needed to be on might not be very welcome.

I'm trying to very nicely suggest that not all pilots may be as attentive to the status of the seatbelt sign as you, but an FA might feel that any questions fielded up front in that regard should be avoided. And maybe they should be; maybe the FAs shouldn't be asking such things, maybe that's just not how things should be done, questioning something up front.

I have the greatest respect for the cockpit crew, and feel awkward bringing up the appropriateness of asking an FA if the seat belt light still needs to be on (thinking maybe it's been forgotten about). But there, I did it.

fl1ger

Moin!

I have to agree that the seatbelt sign is on way to long and to much on UA, so much that I began to ignore it (which me being german really was hard ;-). On other carriers I fly (mostly european), the seatbelt sign goes off shortly after the 10000 feet ding, and only comes on if there is turbulence and 10 to 15 minutes before landing. That is how it should be, because anything else will make people ignore it in actually dangerous times (landing, taxiing, real turbulence).

So long
-Ralf

weero

You mean the safe UA vs the unsafe Lufthansa and Qantas ?

I know it anathema in this forum to criticise pilots but this is nonsensical claim. This has everything to do with airline culture and less than zero with implemented safety as it teaches the passengers that the sign is meaningless.

Kudos to you for how you handle the seat belt indicator but it is very atypical for UA (and some select other carriers) as a whole.

travelinmanS

I don't think this is a UA thing, I think it is a US airline thing. I switched from star to OW to avoid UA and the only airline in OW that consistently keeps the seatbelt sign on for 60+ minutes post take off is AA. UA, when I used to fly them, did the exact same thing. I love taking CX now as the sign is off 10-15 min after takeoff and stays off generally until turbulence is pretty choppy. The only other country that has airlines that do this is China. Whenever I fly CA, CZ or MU it's the same experience, seat belt sign stays on forever, sometimes the whole flight.

It is a safety issue because you never know when it "really" is important to stay seated. I wish US and Chinese airlines would re-consider their behavior in this respect.

weero

Yes that was a very unfortunate evolution that happened about 2 years ago. And it even plagues longhaul CA intl. flights, not just the domestic routes.
Was lucky with Shendong and China Southern but CA and MU definitely abuse their signs big time.

zkzkz

But it's *not* "more conservative" to leave the light all the time. A light that's on all the time is no more useful than a light that's off all the time. It provides exactly the same information to passengers.

The goal of the light is to inform passengers when the safest time to go is. A light that's on all the time leaves passengers without any information to go on and leaves them at *greater* risk than a light that's off even when there is risk of turbulence as long as it's less risk than other times when it's on.

why fly

its crazy! I hate it, makes for crowded washroom lines.

sgw2124

Just flew DEL -EWR on Aug 25, and the seat belt sign stayed on for the majority of the flight. There were a few bumps on the climb out, but most of the flight was smooth. The seat belt sign stayed on for over 9 hours straight.

I used my judgment, and used the lav when necessary. I had a birds eye view from 9D of several passengers "hanging out" in the galley near the J mid cabin lavs chatting it up and none of the FA's said a word about it.

Mike Jacoubowsky

It's not so easy speaking to my pilot friend (777 rated, with AA) on a bike ride, 'cuz he travels at .82 mach and I'm just trying to get in the draft behind his wheel. But this was a high priority, so in-between my asthmatic breaths, I queried him on the subject.

He said some pilots are just inattentive. He actually used the word "lazy" but I let him pull back from that a bit and yes, lots going on, it's just not a high priority.

He thinks it's a real problem because it breeds lack of respect for those times when everyone really should be belted in tight. It's personally a real problem for him when he's a passenger 'cuz he'd like to follow the rules but he's been on too many flights where the sign just seems to be left on without regard to conditions.

He is not offended in any way shape or form if he gets a call from the back, asking if the sign still needs to be on. He doesn't get that call very often, but does get suggestions that the light should be on because there are "passengers who need to settle down." In his case, and he knows this is different for others, that's not a reason to have the seatbelt sign on (unless it's pretty extreme).

He doesn't think it's a CYA thing, he thinks it's common sense to have the seatbelt sign on if you think you might be flying into something, even if it's not too likely. Some Captains have a higher or lower tolerance for "light chop" than others. They really are looking out for your safety. But again, yes, he thinks the seatbelt sign is kind of a one-way "sticky" thing. Easily goes on, not so easily goes off.

triplefives

It really depends on the captain. On one flight to HKG, one captain left the seatbelt sign off during light to moderate chop - nothing serious. What stood out is that numerous other captains would have turned it on. I thought this captain was particularly awesome. I'm pretty sure it was intentionally left off because this particular flight also had channel 9 turned on -- which is a rarity nowadays for the SFO-HKG pairing. UA really should be pushing their captains to enable it if they're promoting that as something exclusive to UA, but this is a conversation for another topic.