Severe turbulence LHR-SIN. One dead.
Allow me: Been there...not.... done that. Captain goes for rest, spikey hair left to play alone. Probably playing with his phone screen too.
Enter a CB. when your asshole starts to eat the seat cushion fabric. Aircraft gets flicked and then into the jet upset. No such thing as an air pocket according to my tailor.
There is ........such a thing as loss of expat experience and replacement with heavily jelled hairdo locals. The Bay of Bengal needs concentration not abdication.
Air fwance jet upset mid ocean ....AF427. There you go. Abdication and not concentration. Or...fornication...... if you will. Good to be a retired old bloke now covered in bruises.
Recovery from jet upset, dutch roll, tuck under and high speed run. Training that you should never forget. If you had it.
Enter a CB. when your asshole starts to eat the seat cushion fabric. Aircraft gets flicked and then into the jet upset. No such thing as an air pocket according to my tailor.
There is ........such a thing as loss of expat experience and replacement with heavily jelled hairdo locals. The Bay of Bengal needs concentration not abdication.
Air fwance jet upset mid ocean ....AF427. There you go. Abdication and not concentration. Or...fornication...... if you will. Good to be a retired old bloke now covered in bruises.
Recovery from jet upset, dutch roll, tuck under and high speed run. Training that you should never forget. If you had it.
This is heart-breaking. From a recent news article, a woman is at the risk of loosing her baby to undergo surgery.
"Mr Khoo, who experienced numbness and cannot turn his neck properly, was initially in the ICU but has been transferred to a normal ward.
His wife, who is two months pregnant with their second child, will undergo surgery for her spine on Friday.
Ms Khoo said she only found out about her sister-in-law's pregnancy on Thursday when they were discussing her treatment options.
"The first doctor, actually, I think the communication is not very good," she said. "It (sounded like), you have to do the operation, but then you have to give up the baby."
"Mr Khoo, who experienced numbness and cannot turn his neck properly, was initially in the ICU but has been transferred to a normal ward.
His wife, who is two months pregnant with their second child, will undergo surgery for her spine on Friday.
Ms Khoo said she only found out about her sister-in-law's pregnancy on Thursday when they were discussing her treatment options.
"The first doctor, actually, I think the communication is not very good," she said. "It (sounded like), you have to do the operation, but then you have to give up the baby."
We, as SLF, are told that incidents as severe as this one are relatively rare.
But when you see the level of injury on this incident, it is terrifying to those who have no knowledge of the inner sanctum aboard an aircraft....the cockpit.
Reading the various reports such as the one you highlighted, another being a dance teacher returning to Australia with her husband, her husband is injured but she is now paralysed. And there are several other very significant and life changing spinal injuries being reported.
Aircraft encounter turbulence due to a variety of causal factors every day of the week, in many ways it goes with the territory that when you fly it could get bumpy with little or no notice. You will always have those who refuse to wear seatbelts or wear them wrongly (such as the so-called "influencers" who sit with knees under their chin and seatbelt fastened around their ankles or those wanting to sleep reclined and only have the seatbelt loosely fastened).
I stand to be corrected here but I don't think there has been another turbulence incident so severe that several pax received such devastating and life changing spinal injuries before. Has the design and manufacture of the seat changed so dramatically that such severe spinal injuries are going to be a regular occurrence?
I have noticed in more recent years that seats are thinner......nothing to do with personal weight but the "numb backside" seems to happen quicker than it used to do. There is little or no "give" in the seats anymore. I understand the desire to keep weight down overall with aircraft, fuel consumption etc. But could these changes to the design be detrimental to pax wellbeing in cases like this flight?
Whatever the final cause or causes for the behaviour of this aircraft are going to be, does the design and manufacture of the seating also need looking at too?
I understand that Singapore Airlines are going to suspend meal service when the seatbelt signs are on which would prevent equipment flying around the cabin during severe turbulence events. I am sure that there will be those who feel that the equipment on the loose on this flight did not help matters in regard to the severity of injuries.
As an SLF with many years of long haul flights and several uncomfortable hours being bounced about, my own personal experiences with the seats becoming - and I cannot find another way to say this - significantly harder, more flimsy and far less cushion effect against even moderate turbulence, do people think or feel that in light of what are truly devastating spinal injuries, that the interior fixtures and fittings such as the seats, should be examined closely and perhaps evaluated and tested to see if the seats and cabin "furniture" has contributed to the injury toll on this flight?
I am just curious if there might be a link tween the severity and number of spinal type injury on this flight and the desire to lighten everything up within the cabin to save, amongst other things, fuel consumption/cost?
The following users liked this post:
Back to reality
This thread is full of suggestions and analysis ad nauseum, with almost every second contributor offering advice on how we can change the aircraft design, procedures, equipment, training and more.
But look at the statistics. Around 100,000 commercial aircraft fly daily around the world, and one study I found online indicates that 135 or so experience moderate to severe turbulence, of which a vanishingly small number report injuries. My calculator reports that the risk of severe turbulence on any flight is less than 0.0014, and you can probably divide that by at least a hundred to a thousand as a risk factor for injury.
While this event was significant it must be acknowledged that severe injurious turbulence represents an incredibly low risk for passengers and crew.
But look at the statistics. Around 100,000 commercial aircraft fly daily around the world, and one study I found online indicates that 135 or so experience moderate to severe turbulence, of which a vanishingly small number report injuries. My calculator reports that the risk of severe turbulence on any flight is less than 0.0014, and you can probably divide that by at least a hundred to a thousand as a risk factor for injury.
While this event was significant it must be acknowledged that severe injurious turbulence represents an incredibly low risk for passengers and crew.
The following 3 users liked this post by nojwod:
I have had over time just one major turbulence upset, which needed diversion and passengers (and FAs) taken to hospital. I commented on it here long ago, and by coincidence got a PM from the FO involved, who described the technicalities.
Regarding pax in seat belts, I can only offer a study I was involved with about cars, quite a while ago but well after they had become compulsory to wear. At that time UK compliance was around 98-99%, while USA compliance was some 70%. There were also divergent figures for other countries, and the numbers correlated well to the various statistics for road fatalities per million miles. One can notice on carriers of various nationalities unclicking going on all around, the second the seat belt light goes off. Not long ago a seatmate buckled up when the FA came down checking for departure - and immediately unbuckled again after they passed, with a smirk. This was in the exit row
.
Regarding pax in seat belts, I can only offer a study I was involved with about cars, quite a while ago but well after they had become compulsory to wear. At that time UK compliance was around 98-99%, while USA compliance was some 70%. There were also divergent figures for other countries, and the numbers correlated well to the various statistics for road fatalities per million miles. One can notice on carriers of various nationalities unclicking going on all around, the second the seat belt light goes off. Not long ago a seatmate buckled up when the FA came down checking for departure - and immediately unbuckled again after they passed, with a smirk. This was in the exit row
.This thread is full of suggestions and analysis ad nauseum, with almost every second contributor offering advice on how we can change the aircraft design, procedures, equipment, training and more.
But look at the statistics. Around 100,000 commercial aircraft fly daily around the world, and one study I found online indicates that 135 or so experience moderate to severe turbulence, of which a vanishingly small number report injuries. My calculator reports that the risk of severe turbulence on any flight is less than 0.0014, and you can probably divide that by at least a hundred to a thousand as a risk factor for injury.
While this event was significant it must be acknowledged that severe injurious turbulence represents an incredibly low risk for passengers and crew.
But look at the statistics. Around 100,000 commercial aircraft fly daily around the world, and one study I found online indicates that 135 or so experience moderate to severe turbulence, of which a vanishingly small number report injuries. My calculator reports that the risk of severe turbulence on any flight is less than 0.0014, and you can probably divide that by at least a hundred to a thousand as a risk factor for injury.
While this event was significant it must be acknowledged that severe injurious turbulence represents an incredibly low risk for passengers and crew.
The following users liked this post:
This thread is full of suggestions and analysis ad nauseum, with almost every second contributor offering advice on how we can change the aircraft design, procedures, equipment, training and more.
But look at the statistics. Around 100,000 commercial aircraft fly daily around the world, and one study I found online indicates that 135 or so experience moderate to severe turbulence, of which a vanishingly small number report injuries. My calculator reports that the risk of severe turbulence on any flight is less than 0.0014, and you can probably divide that by at least a hundred to a thousand as a risk factor for injury.
While this event was significant it must be acknowledged that severe injurious turbulence represents an incredibly low risk for passengers and crew.
But look at the statistics. Around 100,000 commercial aircraft fly daily around the world, and one study I found online indicates that 135 or so experience moderate to severe turbulence, of which a vanishingly small number report injuries. My calculator reports that the risk of severe turbulence on any flight is less than 0.0014, and you can probably divide that by at least a hundred to a thousand as a risk factor for injury.
While this event was significant it must be acknowledged that severe injurious turbulence represents an incredibly low risk for passengers and crew.
It is why , historically, the Middle East and Far East Airlines were stuffed full of expats to keep things tickety boo. Now, those expat western pilots are mostly gone.
Rgds Right20deg
Right20deg: I so agree with you, hence a ‘like’ from me. I have no idea what actually happened but as this is a rumour network I will throw my oar in. If you have actually done the job you can make an educated guess as to what really happened….
I have flown long haul as captain and trainer on Airbus and Boeing types and with augmented crews and frequently in this geographic area. Just occasionally when easing back to the bunk I had concerns about leaving two first officers at the helm particularly if I knew them relatively well. I hasten to add before flak comes in, 90 percent of the time I had total faith in the professionalism of the operating crew. However, with less and less experience in the relief crew position coupled with to a certain extent and understandable complacency it is not out with the bounds of possibility that they accidentally blundered into a very active and energetic cb.
Long haul flying is a combination of long periods of relative tedium sandwiched between periods of high activity. A lack of arousal, some lack of attention to the weather radar or even looking outside and voila we are in a potential jet upset situation. I am very wary of the ‘turbulence is not dangerous’ mantra as the well documented cases quoted would prove. However, the vast majority of the time of course it is not; however aim your jet at a volatile thunderstorm and you could find out the hard way.
It would appear that despite all the media driven Boeing bashing the 777 is thankfully a tough old bird. However it is prudent to remember that the g limit on airliners is 2.5/-1.
Anecdotally for the climate change and ‘turbulence is getting worse’ brigade: in my 40 year career, the very worst turbulence I experienced was over the Pacific, 1988, myself and the relief first officer at the sharp end, the captain inexplicably never left the bunk, the good old classic B747. I really thought that the wings were going to come off. The second worse was mid Atlantic some 10 years later. Go figure.
I have flown long haul as captain and trainer on Airbus and Boeing types and with augmented crews and frequently in this geographic area. Just occasionally when easing back to the bunk I had concerns about leaving two first officers at the helm particularly if I knew them relatively well. I hasten to add before flak comes in, 90 percent of the time I had total faith in the professionalism of the operating crew. However, with less and less experience in the relief crew position coupled with to a certain extent and understandable complacency it is not out with the bounds of possibility that they accidentally blundered into a very active and energetic cb.
Long haul flying is a combination of long periods of relative tedium sandwiched between periods of high activity. A lack of arousal, some lack of attention to the weather radar or even looking outside and voila we are in a potential jet upset situation. I am very wary of the ‘turbulence is not dangerous’ mantra as the well documented cases quoted would prove. However, the vast majority of the time of course it is not; however aim your jet at a volatile thunderstorm and you could find out the hard way.
It would appear that despite all the media driven Boeing bashing the 777 is thankfully a tough old bird. However it is prudent to remember that the g limit on airliners is 2.5/-1.
Anecdotally for the climate change and ‘turbulence is getting worse’ brigade: in my 40 year career, the very worst turbulence I experienced was over the Pacific, 1988, myself and the relief first officer at the sharp end, the captain inexplicably never left the bunk, the good old classic B747. I really thought that the wings were going to come off. The second worse was mid Atlantic some 10 years later. Go figure.
The following 2 users liked this post by olster:
Yes, back in the 70s a UK Comet, complete with iso contour- green screen radar and bubble compass entered an embedded CB at 35000 ft in Spain. They got flicked, inverted, every instrument gyro toppled and they got spat out at 12000ft over the Pyrenees. A stiff landing drink restored things with a brief voyage report. Fuselage bonding was not as good in those days. A plasma ball went the length of the cabin with associated passenger screams. Memories....we know a song about that....
This was not just...... clear air turbulence. This was a jet upset with loss of control. And negligence by the crew. DP Davies Handling the Big Jets refers !
It is why , historically, the Middle East and Far East Airlines were stuffed full of expats to keep things tickety boo. Now, those expat western pilots are mostly gone.
Rgds Right20deg
It is why , historically, the Middle East and Far East Airlines were stuffed full of expats to keep things tickety boo. Now, those expat western pilots are mostly gone.
Rgds Right20deg
You don't know that. Your post smacks of colonial racism. Most of us moved on from the master/servant mentality but it appears not all.
The following users liked this post:
As for thinner and firmmer seat cushions, decades ago Mercedes Benz were one of the pioneers in seat research that showed somewhat stiffer cushions were more comfortable over a long journey than soft ones. Any apparent increase in numb bum symptoms can generally be attributed to health and getting older.
Other than those who might have been hit by flying objects I would bet not one passenger with a suitably latched seatbelt suffered anything other than minor bruising if at all.
Colonial racism. You have to laugh. One is always one post away from ‘offense’ on the good old web. With this incident, we are speculating, as other posters have said, in particular those of us who actually have done the job we should be able to conjecture the likely series of events without ludicrous jibes about racism. I once worked for probably the most prominent ‘colonial’ airline and I don’t remember any ‘master / servant’ mentality among my former colleagues at all, quite the reverse as life was a lot more sensible then. Indeed on my first flight as a B747 captain from Hong Kong to Melbourne after the most grueling 6 months of training and checking, somewhat to my relief and surprise, I found myself as master and my servant first officer approximately 150 miles west of track over the South China Sea avoiding thunderstorms. We wondered whether we would ever point at Australia. We were highly aware of the potentially dangerous effect of flying through a thunderstorm as all professional pilots are. I have no idea of the nationality or race of the crew of this SQ flight, it is not important. However, I think the tea, coffee, probably no biscuits interview at Changi HQ will be ahem, interesting…
The following 4 users liked this post by olster:
When you get into a car, you fasten your seatbelt. “Clunk click every trip.” I feel very uncomfortable in taxis without seatbelts which I have no option with in third world countries. Keeping your belt fastened needs to become second nature to pax in the same way as it is for car journeys.
Many inflight magazines show exercises you can perform while seated.
I've just pulled out my copy of “Handling the Big Jets” which unfortunately most of my F/Os haven’t even hear of, let alone read after all it’s 50 years old now. The author’s advice is still relevant and his description of storm turbulence should be republished and sent to everyone holding a pilot’s license.
Many inflight magazines show exercises you can perform while seated.
I've just pulled out my copy of “Handling the Big Jets” which unfortunately most of my F/Os haven’t even hear of, let alone read after all it’s 50 years old now. The author’s advice is still relevant and his description of storm turbulence should be republished and sent to everyone holding a pilot’s license.
The following users liked this post:
Moderator
This was a jet upset with loss of control.
Three general type events could have happened: Competent, attentive crew happens into clear air turbulence, and the airplane is severely jolted, or, inattentive crew blunders into very unstable air which causes the airplane to be severely jolted, or, in competent crew "loses control". Though I have never flown a jet, I have done lots of zero to negative 1G flight testing. From my experience doing this in airplanes up to 10000 pounds, I have to ask, could an airplane the mass if a 777 be forced by flight control input to "jolt" into negative G? Or would an attempt to "jolt" it into negative G simply result in a bunt? I'm not suggesting that an airplane of the mass cannot be controlled into negative G flight, but could it be jolted into negative G by control input? For the negative G flying I have done. I opine not, Sure, you can cause an unbelted occupant to lift out of their seat, and maybe bump the ceiling, but could you control the airplane into negative G so violently that hitting the ceiling was injurious? I have yet to be convinced of that possibility!
So that leaves in my mind, accidental CAT encounter, or blunder into very unstable air. One is an accident, the other an error, either, to me, is a loss of control....
We were highly aware of the potentially dangerous effect of flying through a thunderstorm as all professional pilots are. I have no idea of the nationality or race of the crew of this SQ flight, it is not important.
The following 3 users liked this post by Pilot DAR:
Or they simply flew into an embedded thunderstorm, or a non embedded storm. Yes, hard to believe, but I am sure I don’t need to remind anyone, that distractions on long missions are not certainly no surprise. Whatever happened, the crew was clearly doing something else. Some weather data coming out now indicates that they certainly entered some form of cloud. Whoopsy.
Rgds R20deg
Reference the use seat belts/harnesses I regularly travel on a local bus (it's actually a minibus operated by the council round the villages) in which all seats are equipped with a diagonal harness.
I have yet to see any passenger don the harness.
Similarly I have travelled on coaches fitted with seat belts and have yet to see anyone fasten them.
I have yet to see any passenger don the harness.
Similarly I have travelled on coaches fitted with seat belts and have yet to see anyone fasten them.
But since I'm not an ATPL holder and therefore can't possibly have anything useful to add to the thread I'll shut up again.
The following users liked this post:
Reference the use seat belts/harnesses I regularly travel on a local bus (it's actually a minibus operated by the council round the villages) in which all seats are equipped with a diagonal harness.
I have yet to see any passenger don the harness.
Similarly I have travelled on coaches fitted with seat belts and have yet to see anyone fasten them.
I have yet to see any passenger don the harness.
Similarly I have travelled on coaches fitted with seat belts and have yet to see anyone fasten them.
The following users liked this post:
Yes, there is usually a choice. Safety first is no accident. With modern SESMA and OFDM recorders fitted to aircraft, the Head of Training with union rep can place the aircraft telemetry into a re animation computer programme and as the crew arrive for debrief show them exactly what happened a few hours earlier. A brilliant tool for learning and modifying attitudes and behaviour. Its been available for many years in the major players. Just hit the animate button and sip your tea slowly.
I've pulled this off another thread about the incident. Credit to Hollywood1 on the Australia, New Zealand and Pacific forum.
It appears one aircraft ahead, (Finnair 131), and two aircraft following behind SQ321, (IGO 1053 and SQ331) diverted around its flight path so there must have been something painted on the radar and not CAT. Check out the tracks of Finnar 131 (a few minutes before SQ321), and Indigo 1053 and SQ331 (a few minutes behind SQ321). This is on FR24 playback. Take note of the time. It's been reported that the severe turbulence SQ321 experienced occurred at 0750 UTC.
0738 UTC: Finair 131 ahead of SQ321 appears to divert to left of track
0750 UTC: when the severe turbulence event was reported to have occurred. Finnair 131 is left of track.
0753 UTC: IGO 1053 a few minutes behind SQ321 appears to divert left of track as well.
0816 UTC: SQ331 has diverted around the area that SQ321 flew through. The diversion left of track was initiated at 0804 .
It appears one aircraft ahead, (Finnair 131), and two aircraft following behind SQ321, (IGO 1053 and SQ331) diverted around its flight path so there must have been something painted on the radar and not CAT. Check out the tracks of Finnar 131 (a few minutes before SQ321), and Indigo 1053 and SQ331 (a few minutes behind SQ321). This is on FR24 playback. Take note of the time. It's been reported that the severe turbulence SQ321 experienced occurred at 0750 UTC.
0738 UTC: Finair 131 ahead of SQ321 appears to divert to left of track
0750 UTC: when the severe turbulence event was reported to have occurred. Finnair 131 is left of track.
0753 UTC: IGO 1053 a few minutes behind SQ321 appears to divert left of track as well.
0816 UTC: SQ331 has diverted around the area that SQ321 flew through. The diversion left of track was initiated at 0804 .
The following users liked this post: