Narrative:

The flight was sbound on V139 in the vicinity of drift intersection. The seat belt sign was on. The WX radar was indicating level 1 activity ahead of us. As a precaution, the aircraft was slowed to 170 KTS prior to entering this area so we could determine the actual conditions. There were not any pilot reports available. As we passed through this area, there was only occasional light turbulence. Then, without warning, a moment of turbulence occurred that forced the occupants against their seat belts and caused loose objects to become airborne. After this 1 moment, only occasional light turbulence occurred during the remainder of the flight. Afterwards, the flight attendant called to say that she and 2 passenger had sustained non-life threatening injuries. The 2 passenger were very large individuals. They did not request seat belt extenders. It is my opinion that their seat belts were not properly buckled. The flight attendant was in a passenger seat when the turbulence occurred. She was wearing the seat belt, however, it detached at the point where the belt connects with the seat frame. Why it was not properly secured to the seat is unknown to me. More pilot reports would certainly be useful. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that the loose passenger seat belt used by the cabin attendant was not properly clipped to the seat frame attach point and the 2 large passenger really needed the seat belt extensions carried aboard the aircraft for that purpose. He pointed out that it is sometimes difficult for attendants to find out and then have larger than normal passenger use the seat belt extensions. He further stated that he did not believe that there was a seat belt design deficiency of the aircraft but a complacency of the company maintenance to not check all belts for security and proper attachments during daily maintenance checks. He also stated that he had heard of no other reported incident from other crews. He said that he filed this report mainly upon the advise of other crewmembers to help protect himself from possible FAA action, even though he had not heard from the FAA regarding this matter.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 1 CABIN ATTENDANT AND 2 PAX RECEIVED MINOR INJURIES AS A RESULT OF SEAT BELTS COMING LOOSE DURING TURB IN A DH8 ACFT.

Narrative: THE FLT WAS SBOUND ON V139 IN THE VICINITY OF DRIFT INTXN. THE SEAT BELT SIGN WAS ON. THE WX RADAR WAS INDICATING LEVEL 1 ACTIVITY AHEAD OF US. AS A PRECAUTION, THE ACFT WAS SLOWED TO 170 KTS PRIOR TO ENTERING THIS AREA SO WE COULD DETERMINE THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS. THERE WERE NOT ANY PLT RPTS AVAILABLE. AS WE PASSED THROUGH THIS AREA, THERE WAS ONLY OCCASIONAL LIGHT TURB. THEN, WITHOUT WARNING, A MOMENT OF TURB OCCURRED THAT FORCED THE OCCUPANTS AGAINST THEIR SEAT BELTS AND CAUSED LOOSE OBJECTS TO BECOME AIRBORNE. AFTER THIS 1 MOMENT, ONLY OCCASIONAL LIGHT TURB OCCURRED DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE FLT. AFTERWARDS, THE FLT ATTENDANT CALLED TO SAY THAT SHE AND 2 PAX HAD SUSTAINED NON-LIFE THREATENING INJURIES. THE 2 PAX WERE VERY LARGE INDIVIDUALS. THEY DID NOT REQUEST SEAT BELT EXTENDERS. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THEIR SEAT BELTS WERE NOT PROPERLY BUCKLED. THE FLT ATTENDANT WAS IN A PAX SEAT WHEN THE TURB OCCURRED. SHE WAS WEARING THE SEAT BELT, HOWEVER, IT DETACHED AT THE POINT WHERE THE BELT CONNECTS WITH THE SEAT FRAME. WHY IT WAS NOT PROPERLY SECURED TO THE SEAT IS UNKNOWN TO ME. MORE PLT RPTS WOULD CERTAINLY BE USEFUL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE LOOSE PAX SEAT BELT USED BY THE CAB WAS NOT PROPERLY CLIPPED TO THE SEAT FRAME ATTACH POINT AND THE 2 LARGE PAX REALLY NEEDED THE SEAT BELT EXTENSIONS CARRIED ABOARD THE ACFT FOR THAT PURPOSE. HE POINTED OUT THAT IT IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT FOR ATTENDANTS TO FIND OUT AND THEN HAVE LARGER THAN NORMAL PAX USE THE SEAT BELT EXTENSIONS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A SEAT BELT DESIGN DEFICIENCY OF THE ACFT BUT A COMPLACENCY OF THE COMPANY MAINT TO NOT CHK ALL BELTS FOR SECURITY AND PROPER ATTACHMENTS DURING DAILY MAINT CHKS. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD HEARD OF NO OTHER RPTED INCIDENT FROM OTHER CREWS. HE SAID THAT HE FILED THIS RPT MAINLY UPON THE ADVISE OF OTHER CREWMEMBERS TO HELP PROTECT HIMSELF FROM POSSIBLE FAA ACTION, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NOT HEARD FROM THE FAA REGARDING THIS MATTER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.