The article doesn't state it, but that's because the passengers, like the co-pilot, fell towards the ceiling of the airplane during this episode. Apparently, the headphone cables are stronger than those sockets.
Over my December travels, dozens of passengers on all 4 segments I flew openly flaunted the seat-belt sign, getting up to go to the bathroom and standing in the aisle waiting for it in full view of flight attendants, who didn't say anything. I broke down and did so myself, as the seat belt sign was on for the vast majority of the flight and I was getting desperate.
In the years prior, I've been sternly commanded to get fuck back to my seat when queueing for the bathroom, even with the seat belt sign off. Never observed anyone out and about while it was on. Maybe the only care in the front of the plane, since you might be preparing to rush the flight deck or something?
Any frequent fliers notice this change?
I don't think he had much of an option since the seat belt sign was on pretty much the whole flight which was 4 hours long.
You're usually also not yelled at when queuing for the loo, provided the seat-belt sign is off.
What I do notice a lot, though, is passengers that unbuckle half a second after touch down.
To me this seems incredibly stupid.
For starters: it's really dangerous to them and by extension to their fellow passengers and to emphasize the idiocy: They're off the plane exatly zero seconds earlier than when they just stay buckled up until the plane arrives at the gate.
Personally, I just stay buckled up, while sitting. The inconvenience is minor. Especially compared to the inconvenience when your head crashes through the overhead bin, due to sudden turbulences.
That's great, except that your tubby ass will become a missile if anything happens to this vehicle. Also, planes have a habit of randomly jumping around with no warning because of invisible turbulence.
I always leave my belt on when seated. No good reason not to do so. I'll tighten it for take-off and landing, and loosen a bit in-flight.
As for stewards commanding passengers back to their seats, as noted above, it seems to depend on the level of expected turbulence. If it's minor bumps, and the stewards are still serving coffee, they rarely seem to object if the odd passenger goes to the toilet. But, if the stewards are told to buckle-up, they appear to take a more active role in keeping passengers seated.
And all that said, a pilot's proclivity to turning on the seat-belt light seems to vary widely. I was on a United trans-Atlantic flight in 2016 where the light was on for any mild bumps. Then, in January, on an Icelandair flight, the lights never came on, despite a few moderate bumps.
Honestly, I don't understand how this is supposed to work. If we can't get in line, then we have to watch carefully, and as soon as someone leaves the bathroom, jump up and run down the aisle to it. But everyone else who wants to go is doing the same, which means that the person whose seat is closest to the bathroom wins, and everyone else needs to got back to their seats. So people farther away don't get to go, while those sitting near them also grow increasingly frustrated.
"a maximum indicated air speed of 358kt (662km/h), or Mach 0.9", while at 30000ft, Mach 0.9 is typically 983.7 km/h(source among others: https://www.globalaircraft.org/converter.htm)
Maybe "indicated" makes a difference, but so wide?
However indicated airspeed is still very useful as it measures the air resistance the aircraft is encountering which determines lift and airframe stresses (which is why the airframe speed limit is in indicated airspeed and not actual airspeed).
They were truly at 0.9 mach, had they increased speed by 11% they would have broken the sound barrier, well before the indicated air speed would have read a >mach 1 number.
"“Up to 24% of the aircraft occupants were rendered temporarily unfit for duties following the incident,” the report adds, referring to 25 passengers and seven crew members."
I read that as 'up to 24% of the 25 passengers and seven crew members'. I completely missed the quote at the bottom (beneath the image) that refers to the 198 people. And you're right, the figures don't add up anyway.
(Actually the way I see it there are never more than zero souls aboard, but I understand it's a metaphor)
"Ankh-Morpork! Brawling city of a hundred thousand souls! And, as the Patrician privately observed, ten times that number of actual people."
- Pratchett, Terry (1989), Guards! Guards!, Corgi UK.
I suggest the usage is wry rather than derogatory, unless accompanied by more specific disparagement.
Same goes for any corporate jets used by corporate executives.