Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Severe turbulence LHR-SIN. One dead.

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Severe turbulence LHR-SIN. One dead.

Old 21st May 2024, 14:45
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 205
Received 93 Likes on 48 Posts
Originally Posted by srjumbo747
Unfortunately commercial aeroplanes cannot just dive down to a more acceptable level and hope the fuel will be paid for. Very, very occasionally we have the luxury of a bit of extra fuel but not that often.

Professional airline pilots (of which I am one) don’t necessarily sit in turbulence. I find that comment rather insulting.

Occasionally, we do get SIGMETS when there is a severe turbulence area on our route but often it’s not as severe as we feared. If it’s a few hundred miles wide there are no other options than to go through it.

There are occasions when a small thunderstorm cell pops up from nowhere and, despite having state of the art radar, it’s often best to look out the window and go round them.

Different times nowadays. Most of us are flying around with flight plan fuel and if we do need to descend we sometimes can’t because there’s other aircraft beneath us.

Small, private jets may have the luxury of being able to descend if they’re at FL450 as there’s no one else up there but the heavy metal/plastic have no option other than to lumber on at the lower levels.

The Singapore guys and gals are a professional lot. I feel for the pilots as well as the deceased and the injured. I can only imagine how awful they (the pilots) must be feeling.

I haven’t looked at these forums as much as I used to but it used to be professional pilots who posted but it seems on this thread it’s mere speculation spectators.
Well I do not intend to insult anyone here so if you find my comment insulting please disregard?
I assume you are on the 747 and of course fuel is more an issue to a mere GV?
However I have experienced hundreds of situations with airlines whereby we are sitting in unpleasant turbulence for lenghty periods, (many hours) and no attempt being made to improve the situation?
Of course it is not always possible due ATC restraints, other traffic, etc. but I cannot help to think the crew just cannot be bothered with trying to find an alternative a lot of the time?
I have flown the same routes as the world's airlines and 95% of the time I have found an alternative to getting tossed around! We don't always fly in the 40's, many times in the high 30's so mixing with all traffic.
If your operation constrains you to such a point where you cannot go up or down a few thousand feet to make things a bit more safer and confortable I am truly glad I got out of the airlines after just 3 unpleasant years there!
happyjack is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 14:48
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,487
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 12 Posts
Previous events with unfastened seatbelts tended to result in bruising, broken limbs; humans hitting objects.
Based on the photographs of this incident the greater risk appears to be objects hitting humans, and most concerning items of aircraft trim and service panels.

Edit:
Re aircraft structural integrity #58, the aircraft design requirements provide a structural margin judged adequate for expected conditions based on past records and worldly knowledge.
As such, an encounter with a c.b. vs the less concerning ' severe cruise turbulence ', then flying at the recommended turbulence speed, should be contained within the aircraft's normal manoeuvre limits.
For more extreme events there is a further structural margin - fail safe limit.
Historical events indicated that the ultimate margin could be challenged by inappropriate crew action - over controlling an aircraft with conventional controls. However, there should be benefits in this aspect for modern control systems with self adaptive control laws, but no system can be assumed to cover all situations, particularly with global warming.
Even if not more severe, then more frequent encounters.
,

Last edited by safetypee; 21st May 2024 at 15:11.
safetypee is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 14:53
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Oxford
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm gonna throw in my two cents because why not...

In my opinion, I think as professional pilots we partly have ourselves to blame for passenger's lax views on the seatbelt sign policy. Let's be honest, how many times have we tried to anticipate clear air turbuelence ahead be it from met charts or pilot reports, popped the seatbelt sign on and simply forgotten to switch it off despite not encountering a single lump in that duration (I'd have to take my shoes and socks off to count the amount of times I have...).
Of course we could sit here for hours discussing a plethora of factors as to why one would forget to switch off the seatbelt sign, and I agree that there are far more important things to be worried about when operating a large transport category jet. However I can't help but think to myself sometimes, as professional pilots if we were a bit more mindful towards the seatbelt sign and perhaps reduced the number of instances we simply forgot to turn it off, I do wonder if passengers would also become more mindful of it when it is illuminated and not fall under the assumption of "oh it's been smooth for 45 minutes, the pilot must have forgotten to turn it off so I'm off for a piss now".

All food for thought by the way, I'm not here to speculate and my thoughts are with the victim's families and wish those injured a speedy recovery.
CessNah is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 14:54
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: germany
Age: 59
Posts: 211
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by MichaelOLearyGenius
I donít know the full details but itís time to make it a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt while seated on an aeroplane just like it is in cars.
why?
According to Darwin it is better for mankind to leave that decision to the passengers themselves.
inbalance is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 14:59
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: EU
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by happyjack
Well I do not intend to insult anyone here so if you find my comment insulting please disregard?
I assume you are on the 747 and of course fuel is more an issue to a mere GV?
However I have experienced hundreds of situations with airlines whereby we are sitting in unpleasant turbulence for lenghty periods, (many hours) and no attempt being made to improve the situation?
Of course it is not always possible due ATC restraints, other traffic, etc. but I cannot help to think the crew just cannot be bothered with trying to find an alternative a lot of the time?
I have flown the same routes as the world's airlines and 95% of the time I have found an alternative to getting tossed around! We don't always fly in the 40's, many times in the high 30's so mixing with all traffic.
If your operation constrains you to such a point where you cannot go up or down a few thousand feet to make things a bit more safer and confortable I am truly glad I got out of the airlines after just 3 unpleasant years there!
Thanks a lotÖ. Already disregarded!!

Used to fly the 747 but not for many years. Now on a plastic jet.

We donít deliberately fly in turbulence and get as hacked off with it as the passengers do but often there is no alternative. Going through China, for example, the only way to get around weather is to declare a Mayday.

Over Africa Iíve known it to be turbulent for many hours and there is no alternative.

Years ago, whilst flying up the Eastern Seaboard. I heard a stressed US pilot asking ATC when the turbulence would stop and was given a curt reply from an equally stressed controller, ďIt will stop when you landĒ.

Who knows what happened to Singapore but no doubt we will eventually find out. Just glad it wasnít me!
srjumbo747 is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:11
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Perth
Posts: 71
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by CessNah
I'm gonna throw in my two cents because why not...

In my opinion, I think as professional pilots we partly have ourselves to blame for passenger's lax views on the seatbelt sign policy. Let's be honest, how many times have we tried to anticipate clear air turbuelence ahead be it from met charts or pilot reports, popped the seatbelt sign on and simply forgotten to switch it off despite not encountering a single lump in that duration (I'd have to take my shoes and socks off to count the amount of times I have...).
Of course we could sit here for hours discussing a plethora of factors as to why one would forget to switch off the seatbelt sign, and I agree that there are far more important things to be worried about when operating a large transport category jet. However I can't help but think to myself sometimes, as professional pilots if we were a bit more mindful towards the seatbelt sign and perhaps reduced the number of instances we simply forgot to turn it off, I do wonder if passengers would also become more mindful of it when it is illuminated and not fall under the assumption of "oh it's been smooth for 45 minutes, the pilot must have forgotten to turn it off so I'm off for a piss now".

All food for thought by the way, I'm not here to speculate and my thoughts are with the victim's families and wish those injured a speedy recovery.
I for one keep my seat belt fastened when seated. just a prudent thing to do.

but my philosophy is if the seatbelt sign is kept on for too long and if one needs to go to the loo, the one needs to go, especially if there are children involved. don't think it's reasonable to strap someone in their seat for say 30mins or more, esp if they are busting and fhe alrernative is perhaps turbulence injury or soiled clothing. This is of course if I see cabin crew still going about their service.

Only exception to this is when cabin crew are ordered back to their stations... you then know it's very serious. then again I have not seen this happen for a prolonged amount of time.

On this note why are cabin crew generally allowed to move about when the seat belt sign is on? are their heads made of harder material or something 🤔 😅😭
zegnaangelo is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:20
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oran
Posts: 146
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The problem is when we are entering and area of forecast turbulence do we put the seat belt sign on or wait for injuries then put it on ? In my opinion Iíd rather have the seatbelt sign on and find no turbulence rather than switch the sign off and people get injured.
icemanalgeria is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:23
  #68 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
This is not a 747 or a 737.

It is a FBW aircraft with specific operating margins. I wish people here understood that not all sizes fit all.
PPRuNeUser0221 is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:34
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Up yer nose, again.
Age: 67
Posts: 1,242
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by skwdenyer
Presumably it would ultimately require car-like sensors in every buckle to monitor?
And what are you going to do while in flight?
Peter Fanelli is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:35
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 2,718
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
I stand to be corrected, but I have no recollection of any civil airliner having been written off due to flying through turbulence
It's a long time ago, but BOAC 707 near Mt Fuji, Japan in 1966 comes to mind. In flight break-up due severe CAT. No survivors.
Wycombe is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:37
  #71 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Wycombe
It's a long time ago, but BOAC 707 near Mt Fuji, Japan in 1966 comes to mind. In flight break-up due severe CAT. No survivors.
Well, why don't you finish what you started. Who deviated from the flight plan there? Let's get it out... come on

And more importantly, the safety protocols that were put in place after that
PPRuNeUser0221 is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:40
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by NOC40
Humans simply aren't strong enough to "brace yourself" against even -1G (imagine the plane being turned upside down). And at +2G you're being dumped onto the floor/seats whatever you do. Seatbelts are rated to around 1500kg: how much do you bench press?
-1 g is already very extreme and is the point where airframe inspections start to be required (normal envelope is from - 1.0 g to + 2.5 g). Even then, the distance to travel is less and you are better able to lessen the impact when standing.
procede is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:43
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Wycombe
It's a long time ago, but BOAC 707 near Mt Fuji, Japan in 1966 comes to mind. In flight break-up due severe CAT. No survivors.
NLM Cityhopper flight 431. (6 October 1981, Moerdijk the Netherlands, Fokker 28). But they did fly into a tornado during a thunderstorm. Loads of +6.8g and -3.2g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLM_CityHopper_Flight_431
procede is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:43
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Surrey UK
Age: 75
Posts: 236
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
CAT or a severe downdraft ?
aeromech3 is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 15:48
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: GA, USA
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 0
Received 68 Likes on 32 Posts
Originally Posted by Andy_S
Interested SLF rather than professional here......

I assume that the diversion into Bangkok was based on this event being a medical emergency rather than any danger to the aircraft itself. I have read nothing, nor seen any professionally informed comment to the effect that the structural integrity of the airframe is likely to have been compromised.

I stand to be corrected, but I have no recollection of any civil airliner having been written off due to flying through turbulence.
The crew was notified of the injuries by the cabin crew. They may or may not have had airplane systems go offline.
They have two very large engines on pylons attached to the wing structure. Structural damage to some extent is likely.
This was probably a convective event which could have been associated with hail which could have damaged the radome.
Any of those are reasons are enough to divert.
You are always better off on the ground then in the air.
B2N2 is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 16:04
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 257
Received 18 Likes on 9 Posts
BOAC 707 near Mount Fuji in Ď66.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911

I wonder if other aircraft in the area, on the airway experienced something similar?
BoeingDriver99 is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 16:09
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Age: 43
Posts: 1,634
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Widger
I am a little bit staggered but not surprised at the comments by some on here in climate change denial. Whilst in your short flying history you may not have noticed a big change, if you research over a few decades, you will see it. This is a report from the scientific experts, showing that Turbulence has increased including clear air turbulence.

Aviation turbulence soared by up to 55% as the world warmed Ė new research - Connecting Research (reading.ac.uk)
As a data analyst, we would expect the pre and the post measurement periods to be measured in the same way. Of course the early days of flying have a lot less flights and meausrements were made less frequently and with less reliable instruments. For example the diagnosis of autism has exploded mainly because Doctors know what they're looking for, rather than there being more autistic people. "Scientific experts" can be bought and sold depending where the funding goes. I know, I work in the field.
Skipness One Foxtrot is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 16:10
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 31
Posts: 501
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a note of observation.

It looks this occurred in the Yangon FIR, as shortly after they descended and declared the Mayday, diverting to BKK. Aircraft routing P646 PTN P646, but appears to be deviating after the Pathein VOR. This is the Sat Grab at 0750UTC when SIN321 was navigating through that area. Coverage of ADSB looks a little scarce around there, but seems semi-reliable, with a few aircraft deviating in that region. FIN131 at FL410 deviating to the North along with BBC388 at FL330 to the north. SWR181 was closest to SIA321 and appears to have deviated to the North slightly. HIM890 at FL350 deviated well south of that area vs everyone else.

FR24 showing +1152fpm at 07:49:31UTC, then +1664fpm at 07:49:46UTC - aircraft then levels off at FL374 before descending at -1536fpm - lasting at least a minute - occurring on the deviation from PTN VOR.

Flightradar24 on X: "We have finished processing granular ADS-B data sent by #SQ321. Data indicates the turbulence event occurred at 07:49 UTC.
//t.co/8taJrD7JVB

Last edited by HeathrowAirport; 21st May 2024 at 16:28. Reason: FR24 data source
HeathrowAirport is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 16:22
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,834
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Andy_S
Interested SLF rather than professional here......

I assume that the diversion into Bangkok was based on this event being a medical emergency rather than any danger to the aircraft itself. I have read nothing, nor seen any professionally informed comment to the effect that the structural integrity of the airframe is likely to have been compromised.

I stand to be corrected, but I have no recollection of any civil airliner having been written off due to flying through turbulence.
BOAC 707 broke up in extreme turbulence after flying past Mt Fuji.
There are others too. Braniff BAC 111 being one! Cant remember the dates but you can always Google them!
White Knight is offline  
Old 21st May 2024, 16:28
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,731
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 35 Posts
Well let's have a look at a Met overview across Asia. It's not as if it's been storms all the way, is it ?

And from past experience (I didn't fly here in the 1930s-40s - only heard about it) that's geographically nothing unusual to be like this.

WHBM is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.