tyroner

Observation: On a recent UA flight the fasten seat belt sign remained illuminated for about 8 hours.
Hypothesis: It was accidental and was an oversight
Test: Were there turbulent episodes that would have alerted the pilot to the seatbelt sign status giving a chance to correct possible oversights? Yes, there were.
Outcome: Null hypothesis is therefore plausible i.e. It was deliberate.
Tentative theory: "On occasion the fasten seat belt sign is deliberately left illuminated in flight for extended periods"

Can we explore this theory by constructing and testing further hypotheses and perhaps seek to determine a unified process to explain the theory (i.e. a rationale).

Questions that might be asked:
Q. Was there turbulence?
A. Yes, as indicated in the test there was some moderate turbulence midway through that period but for the majority of the flight there was little to minor turbulence.
Q. Did the pilot make an announcement that there would be a lot of turbulence and the seatbelt sign would have to remain illuminated.
A. No passenger announcements were made on this matter.
Q. Did you sleep at all during the 8 hours and just miss the sign going off?
A. Yes, I dozed a little. However the seatbelt sign was always on when I was awake and if the sign had gone off and on again while I was asleep - the announcement is fairly loud. I was also paying attention to the sign.
Q. Did the fasten seatbelt sign extinguish at all during the flight?
A. Yes, in the final 1.5-2 hours of the flight usage of the seatbelt sign was as normal. The sign was extinguished for about 30-45 mins before some more significant turbulence kept it on for the rest of the flight.
Q. Why does this matter?
A. Firstly passenger safety. Keeping a fasten seatbelt sign illuminated for 8 hours will mean that people will use the restroom regardless and will be forced to ignore the sign. In this case, it is the passenger using their judgment instead of the captain as to whether it is safe to be out of their seat. This poses a risk to themselves and others around them. Secondly passenger comfort - I don't think I need to explain that to anyone!
Q. Why shouldn’t this be merged with a recent thread on bathroom use during ground wait?
A. This deals with pilot decisions in the air and is a different issue entirely.
Q. What were the specific flight details?
A. I am not providing them.

Weez_1000

I am curious if it was a UA or CO operated flight. I have seen a few posts that seem to indicate it's more prevalent on CO operated flights. I've had it happen on a quite a few flights from EWR-south Florida-EWR but I fly that route 30-40x a year so it's probably not a fair indication. I understand when there is turbulence but I've experienced it on perfectly calm flights. Never more than a few hours though, I would get up if it was more than an hour or two.

FWAAA

Maybe the pilots simply forgot to turn it off?

Yes, it happens. A few years ago, I was on an AA flight from SJU to JFK. There was lots of turbulence and after some on-again, off-again seat belt signs, the pilots got on the PA and curtly ordered the FAs to immediately discontinue all cabin service, sit down and buckle up and for all passengers to remain seated until further notice.

Of course, by then, the turbulence had largely subsided. 30-45 minutes later, a passenger in econ gets up to use the lav. First Class FA sees this from their jumpseat and screams at the passengers to SIT DOWN NOW because the seat belt sign was illuminated and because of the dangerous turbulence.

I calmly pointed at the sign, which was not illuminated and had not been lit up for the previous 30-45 minutes or so. FA sheepishly calls the flight deck and reminds them to turn it on, which they promptly did.

Later, I told the FA that if they could forget to turn it on, it was clearly possible to forget to turn it off. FA agreed.

paule123

TLDR, no need to get so scientific about it. I've seen this behavior on (PMCO) flights that were severe clear. With the seat belt light permanently on, the FA's don't need to do service in Y, a minimal service in F, barked at the kettles in Y to stay seated, but we could do cartwheels in the aisles in F.

Why not provide the flight details? Perhaps the pilot will respond with his "rationale"?

WineCountryUA

Questions
-- Did you ask a FA about the situation?

-- Did other passengers get up anyways?

tyroner

Excellent questions:

A) Yes - at about hour 6 I asked one of the FA. I had developed a good rapport with this attendant during the earlier dinner service and during the mid-flight service I casually mentioned that the light had remains illuminated continuously for the past 6 hours. I was given a steely stare and a terse response - 'we don't control that, that is controlled by the pilots'. I did not press on the matter given the tone and manner of delivery of this information as it would not have been productive.

B) Yes, some other passengers were up anyway.

FlyingNut724

I've noticed on CO operated flights that they are sometimes likely to turn it on at the first sign of bumps and leave it on.

tyroner

On the basis of flight number this would have been a PMCO flight.

jclarke

FWIW I flew EWR-PVG last year in a PMCO 772. The fasten seatbelt sign stayed illuminated the entire 14 hours.

Kacee

There have not been any pmCO flights since March 2012.

I've experienced the "they forgot to turn the seatbelt sign off" more or less equally on sCO and sUA.

It's immensely annoying.

lilpisher

I have also noticed that flights operated by sCO crews tend to have the seatbelt sign on much longer than those operated by sUA crews.

B787938

My experience is this:

sUA: "We're climbing through FL210 to a cruise of FL350. No reports of a bad ride so we'll turn the seatbelt sign off.

sCO: "We've been cruising at FL350 for 20 minutes. I guess we can turn the seatbelt sign off."

LaserSailor

Cartwheels with limes, Shirley

halls120

same here.

JetAway

I've had FA's tell me that it's a "Continental thing-something to do with the lawyers."