In the world of air travel, flight attendants do much more than serve drinks and snacks—they are highly trained safety professionals, responsible for the well-being of all passengers. Among the many safety protocols they follow, one unusual practice often catches the eye: flight attendants sitting on their hands during takeoff and landing. While it may look odd to the average traveler, there is an important reason behind this procedure.
Image Credit: @_hennylim_ TikTok
Let’s explore the purpose of this practice and how it plays a critical role in ensuring safety during flights.
The Bracing Position Explained by a Flight Attendant
If you’ve ever noticed flight attendants buckling up in their jump seats and adopting a particular posture—sitting on their hands as the plane takes off or prepares to land—you might wonder what they’re doing. In a viral TikTok video, Cebu Pacific flight attendant Henny Lim sheds light on this often-overlooked protocol.
According to Lim, the posture flight attendants take, known as the bracing position, involves several key actions:
Fastening seatbelts securely
Sitting upright
Placing hands on their thighs with thumbs tucked in
Keeping arms relaxed
Ensuring their feet are flat on the floor
While this position may seem strange to passengers, it’s designed to serve a crucial purpose, especially in the event of an emergency.
Purpose of the Bracing Position
The main goal of the bracing position is to minimize movement and reduce the risk of injury if a crash or emergency landing occurs. During an impact, bodies can be thrown forward with significant force, leading to dangerous, uncontrolled movements, or flailing, which increases the risk of injury. By sitting on their hands and securing themselves, flight attendants limit their body’s motion and protect their limbs from potential harm.
Additionally, flight attendants use this time to mentally prepare for emergency scenarios. As Lim explains, this involves conducting a “silent review” where they mentally go over safety procedures, emergency exits, equipment, and commands. This mental preparation ensures they can act swiftly and effectively in the event of an emergency, prioritizing passenger safety at all times.
Jim Caviezel Takes a Stand: Refuses to Work with Robert De Niro
Unexpectedly, Jim Caviezel, an actor, made news when he openly declared that he would never collaborate with Oscar winner Robert De Niro. Widely known for his performance as Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” Caviezel has called De Niro a “wretched, ungodly man.” This audacious claim has spurred a spirited discussion over the viability of personal convictions and business partnerships in Hollywood.
Devoted to Christianity and renowned for his unshakable adherence to moral values, Caviezel has been transparent about his religious beliefs. These ingrained convictions have informed his choice to keep his distance from Robert De Niro. Although Caviezel did not elaborate on their falling out, it is obvious that his decision is the result of a disagreement with his values. The actor feels that there is a difference between De Niro’s public persona and his previous actions, and he wants to work on projects that are consistent with his own moral principles.
This incident calls into question how performers manage their own convictions in the politically charged and cooperative world of Hollywood. While diversity of thought and expression has always been respected in the profession, there are increasingly more examples of actors setting boundaries based on personal principles. Caviezel’s reluctance to collaborate with De Niro is indicative of a shifting society in which people are more willing to stand by their values, even if doing so puts them in danger of losing their jobs.
The entertainment business has seen firsthand how an actor’s public remarks may help or hurt their career. Although Caviezel’s refusal to work with De Niro might win him over to supporters who share his values and respect his dedication to his convictions, it also raises questions about possible negative effects on his future partnerships and how business people view him. Some people would proceed cautiously with such public pronouncements, and it’s still unclear how this incident will affect Caviezel’s professional path.
One of the key characteristics of Caviezel’s public presence has been his strong Christian faith. He gained notoriety as an actor willing to take on parts that align with his spiritual beliefs because to his depiction of Jesus Christ in “The Passion of the Christ.” The argument with De Niro highlights the difficulties actors encounter in trying to uphold their morality in a field notorious for its complexity and moral ambiguities.
Beyond the specific performers engaged, consideration of the larger ramifications for Hollywood and the entertainment business at large is prompted by Caviezel’s refusal to collaborate with De Niro. The continuous conflict between individual convictions and the collective process of filmmaking is brought to light by this incident. There may be a change in the dynamics of the industry if more actors choose to use their platforms to voice their ideals and stand up for causes that are important to them.
The topic of how personal beliefs and professional obligations intersect in Hollywood has gained attention as a result of Jim Caviezel’s resolute refusal to work with Robert De Niro on moral reasons. The narrow line that separates personal ethics from the communal spirit that characterizes filmmaking is brought to light by this incident. The conflict between Caviezel and De Niro highlights the difficulties and complications experienced by performers who work hard to be true to their values as the entertainment business strives to negotiate these intricacies.
Leave a Reply