Qantas A330-300 Turbulence Incident Over Borneo

[Whittle]

Quoting the 'West Australian' 45 mins ago on Website

Six passengers and one crew have been injured on a Qantas flight bound for Perth. The A330-300 aircraft, similar to the ill-fated Air France airbus that crashed over the Atlantic Ocean on May 31, was en route to Perth from Hong Kong this morning when it struck “severe turbulence” over Borneo.
A spokesman said a “medical person” on board had advised the pilot to proceed after examining the injured.
It understood pilot Brett Flack, an airman with more than 14,500 flying hours, reported damage to overhead panels and to oxygen masks.
The flight, with 206 passengers and 13 crew on board, has just landed at Perth International Airport. A number of ambulances are waiting on the tarmac, along with Qantas support team. Unquote

Note: original article says 'damage two oxygen masks - assume this to be a journalistic error but it may be correct reporting

[blueloo]

Wow, wonder how did they get Flacky's name so fast.....

This might be legit turbulence as opposed to faulty AIRDU induced turbulence.....

[Whittle]

It certainly sounds like severe turbulence - passengers speaking of 'people flying around the cabin' but given that the injuries are reported as not serious then it may not have been as bad as that sounds, although bad enough no doubt. Passengers describing it like 'dropping off a 30-storey building'. Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigating, but Qantas stating ' no reason to link the incident to other recent in-flight incidents involving A330 aircraft'

[vapilot2004]

It would be a very interesting and possibly illuminating exercise to collect recent occurrences of said severe turbulence incidents and plot the airlines, aircraft and routes involved. :8

[taffazzi]

Good evening,

pretty much the same happened to TAM A330 de 26 of May.

Três feridos em vôo que sofreu queda brusca estão internados - (http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI3786463-EI8139,00-Tres+feridos+em+voo+que+sofreu+queda+brusca+estao+internados .html)

21 injured, 3 seriously.

Taffazzi

[Yaw String]

Very large, powerful convective cells over Borneo. We avoid them like the plague..100nm deviations not unheard of, although 20-40nm more common!
True to say though...often, the cloud surrounding these cells may appear benign, but, the same type of radar returns have completely different characteristics of turbulence, from one cloud to the next!
Best to give a wide berth.
No inference that the Qantas crew were doing other than this, is intended!

Clear air or CB related?
:ooh:

[Whittle]

Oleo - the pilot is being quoted by most sources as saying that the turbulence 'did not show on the radar' - not that the 'radar wasn't working'

[melbATC]

Clear air turbulence cant be detected by current doppler radar installed in aircraft.

Its amazing how the media assumes this means the radar wasn't working.:ugh:

[Yaw String]

Version 2

Maybe large portion of first time flyers on board!
How do we convince them to keep seat belt fastened whilst seated!
American crews frequent use of seatbelt sign may be the way although in my mind it becomes as useful as a warning that isn't canceled..ceases to become a deterrent and goes un-noticed after short time!

[bigjames]

I flew into Perth last night from Singapore on SQ215, also A330. about midway between java and northern australia, captain announced "rapid changes in wind direction" and sat the crew. moderate clear air turbulence but even on the air show, the wind was alternately displayed as 100km headwind/100km tail wind. after about 10 mins we decended from fl370 to fl 350 and the ride became much smoother. the qf flight was all over the tv/radio news this am. that particular area, java/borneo and the area north of the oz mainland is very unpredictable...

oh, and there were people headed to the toilets while the flight attendants were still strapped in!

[Whittle]

Extracted from statement by Qantas spokesman David Epstein:

..."The aircraft most likely encountered what is known as convective turbulence, which led to it rapidly gaining around 800 feet in altitude before returning to its cruising altitude of 38,000 feet,"...

...Although some media reports had suggested the aircraft was travelling through thunderstorms at the time of Monday's incident, there was no evidence of this....

...There is nothing to link the aircraft to anything untoward...

Unquote

Presumably part of the 'return to the cruising altitude of 38,000 feet' must have been somewhat rapid judging by the many reports from passengers of a 'plunge' and people hitting their heads on the ceiling.

The 'West Australian' reports that two air safety authority investigators have inspected the plane & downloaded Flight recorder data.

[Yaw String]

Nasty conditions over central Borneo as seen in this satellite image from evening of 21st. June at 1800Z
Believe schedule departure from HKG was 21st,1535Z(2335local)

http://www.sat.dundee.ac.uk/geobrowse/geobrowse.php?sat=2&year=2009&month=6&day=21&sat_num=1&slot=1800&ch=6&grid=1&size=2

[blueloo]

Initial media reports on the A330 with the uncooperative ADIRUs into Learmonth (VH QPA) - were that it hit severe turbulence.

[AR1]

You know when they say keep your belt fastened - well they aren't joking. - And while I'm at it. Keep it on until you get to the terminal. I was on a 737 which made a rapid stop on a taxiway, and it was like hitting a brick wall - as the guy in front of me found out as he was propelled into the seat in front.:ok:

[falconer1]

the only useful posting in that otherwise useless thread..

PAX need more discipline and should have their seatbelts tight from blocks off to blocks on..

as long as that does not become the norm we will always have injured and in extremis dead pax due to turbulence..

it's as simple and sad as that

[rgbrock1]

Passengers described it like falling off a 30 floor building? How many people
know what it feels like to fall off a 30 floor building and live to tell the tale?
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[GE90115BL2]

In the last week I've flown that route 4 times and each time we diverted up to 60 NM off track, no big deal. The CB's and larger convective clouds were quite clear on the Radar and we avoided them. :ok:

You do need to be very pro-active with the radar tilt, gain and range.
It is very easy to miss a small cell and for 5 to 10 seconds "run into a small isolated cloud top" by mistake. Most of us have been there and done it, it's just that on those occasions nobody was injured.

Just another reminder to be very careful whilst avoiding WX in IMC ( day or night )

[ACL1011]

My understanding is that the turbulance occurred 4 hours into a 7 1/2 hour flight. It is perfectly reasonable to expect 6 passengers of 206 to be out of their seats midflight, perhaps answering nature's call or stretching (as you should do to prevent emboli). Alright, at least one of these six were seated and decided the seatbelt was too much hassle (Vicky, see link below). However, I have noticed over the last fifteen years an increasing proportion of the passengers I have had seated in my vicinity keep their belts on when seated, to the point now where I cannot remember the last time I saw someone who decided to leave it undone. So the message is getting through, but there will always be morons!

The scare-mongers are out in full-force for this incident. The first article I saw was in the Daily Mail (don't ask). Don't forget to click link to see dramatic footage of the Air France wreckage! *sigh*:

New Airbus plunge leaves seven injured as Qantas passengers smash into ceiling (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1194656/New-Airbus-plunge-leaves-seven-injured-Qantas-passengers-smash-ceiling.html )

Passengers, crew and loose articles were thrown towards the ceiling as the aircraft suddenly dropped, an experience that some likened to 'falling into a hole'.

One of the people to hit the ceiling was mother Vicky Richards, from Rockingham, south of Perth, who was with a group of family and friends returning from a holiday in Hong Kong.

Miss Elsie Hudson, who was part of the group, said Vicky was not wearing a seat belt when the aircraft ran into heavy turbulence.

'There was this massive drop and Vicky who was with us, didn't have a seat belt on, hit the roof, the console, and she actually cracked it and took one of the light covers off,' said Miss Hudson.

'She was in a lot of pain in the end,' Miss Hudson told The Australian when the plane landed. 'Her headache progressed worse and worse and her neck got worse and worse and by the end she couldn't move.'
Miss Richards was taken to hospital with suspected head and neck injuries.

Miss Hudson said the captain, Paul Flack, informed passengers as they were landing in Perth that the Airbus had run into a storm which the radars had not picked up

'He said because of the temperature issue, crystals sometimes form on the instruments that pick up the radars, that pick up the clouds.

'Apparently it didn't pick it up until they were in it.'

Another man received a cut on his head when he hit the ceiling. Other passengers not wearing seat belts were also thrown from their seats.

Although a storm is being blamed for the sudden plunge, air safety investigators have begun a thorough inquiry, aware that the aircraft is the same type as the doomed Air France jet.

'It was a severe meteorological incident,' said Mr David Epstein, Qantas' corporate affairs manager.

[Razoray]

ACL1011.....

first time post....on PPRUNe....:confused:

It seems that Airbus is going to have to do a good job of PR to get the publics confidence back. Every incident of the A330 is being reported.

My question is, what can Airbus do to restore confidence with the flying public?

Thanks,
RP

[lomapaseo]

It seems that Airbus is going to have to do a good job of PR to get the publics confidence back. Every incident of the A330 is being reported.

My question is, what can Airbus do to restore confidence with the flying public?

Thanks,
RP

They can keep quiet and tend to their busness of serving their customers, the airlines.

It's the collective job of the airlines to minimze fright to their passengers. They can do this best by addressing specific passenger concerns.

I don't have any specific concerns, do you?

[Razoray]

Lomapaseo.....

I do not. But the press is running wild.

And the more negative press that comes out the more concerned passengers will become.

[lomapaseo]

the press is running wild.

And the more negative press that comes out the more concerned passengers will become.



Most of the passengers concern from reading the press will be confusion, but they will remain as passengers hoping for a better outcome. Eventually the press will turn to something else like an earthquake or a bus plunge off a bridge.

[vapilot2004]

Razoray:

Airbus really has no public confidence issues now. In their early days, there was a concerted effort by the media to focus on them and their new-to-the-world-of-commercial-aviation aircraft, particularly on any shortcomings, real or imagined - but no more.

This is simply how the mass media operates. Had there been a highly publicized and very negative incident involving, say for example a Braniff Airlines Captain (sorry Braniff - RIP), it's a safe bet that in the coming weeks we would be subjected to a stream of news reports even if a Braniff pilot were to merely break wind. It's the nature of the beastly media.

[P2bleed]

I spoke to a friend of mine (pilot) who was on the flight. He explained that as he was asleep with his seat belt on he was unaware of the occurance. When he did wake up a baby was crying and a hotess explain the situation.

He gave Qantas a 10 for the debriefing after the arrival into Perth.

[Hydroman400]

I don't think Airbus need to worry, this seems to be another case of flight crew not using the weather radar correctly....ciampino incident, dragon air and many more. The buck stops with the airline to ensure that the crew are fully trained to use the equipment.

[DC-ATE]

Hydroman400 -
I don't think Airbus need to worry, this seems to be another case of flight crew not using the weather radar correctly....

While that is possible, unless you were in the cockpit AND know how to use airborne radar yourself, I think you should reconsider your accusation.

[Hydroman400]

With all due respect DC-ATE I don't think I will. I'll wait for the report on this one but it would not be the first time incorrect use of the weather radar was a contributing factor.

[falconer1]

there is a halfway decent thread in the Tech section here about WX radar and training..

so please be our guest there..

and no, WX radar has not changed THAT much in the last 40 years..

it's been dressed up in bits & bytes, and low or high power X or C band, whatever you prefer, but it still carries exactly the same limitations as it did 40 years ago..only in color now.. a bit like TV...actually the program has gotten worse a bit...

so let's discuss that in the tech section down below

[Groaner]

I've also noticed pax are slooowly getting better at keeping their belts on. But IMHO it is not-so-subtly discouraged by cabin crew who ignore seatbelt warnings.

Sure, many do the right thing, and of course there are phases of the flight where the CC are supposed to be walking around whilst the pax are belted up.

But surely everyone here can recall cases of CC sitting on jump seats doing not much without belts on? Pax see this, and (a natural human instinct) feel that if they (the CC experts) don't bother, then why should they?

[filejw]

Using wx radar is not a perfict when it comes to turbulence avoidance. You can be using every tool in the box and still get crap beat out of you...

[A37575]

so let's discuss that in the tech section down below

Aircraft clipping the tops of CB's in IMC and then getting into all sorts of trouble, is a common occurrence world wide. Only the pilots concerned will know why they didn't "see" the offending cloud on their weather radar and for obvious reasons involving legal liability, media interest and job security they ain't gonna talk! While most of the new radars may give give a better "view", at medium altitudes the problem will always exist of low reflectivity of CB tops at high altitudes.

Some Pilot Radar Information Handbooks are supplied with the radar installation. From my experience, these POH are very often not made available to pilots unless they are keen enough to search for them in operator's technical libraries. Occasionally, selected paragraphs from these POH may find their way into company operations manuals. The result is that the art of radar weather interpretation is often a case of learning on the job, with the occasional "mistake" causing broken bones and scared passengers.

Some of the best lessons are learned by "playing" with the radar tilt and Gain controls while looking at isolated CB cells as you pass them by in VMC.

I have no experience of the latest radars installed in the big jets, but believe me, it was the careful use of the variable Gain Control set to max gain in the older radars, that allowed you to pick up the dry tops of big cells and thus warn you of something big ahead and allow time to take whatever action was necessary to avoid the weather.

The Auto or CAL setting of the radar Gain control is not always the optimum setting at high altitudes. If a variable Gain is available, then taking it out of Auto or CAL to the Maximum Gain stop at high cruise altitudes (30,000 to 37,000 ft in the 737 I flew), can often give a tiny "echo" within 40 miles ahead of the top of a CB. But it goes without saying you must know what you are looking for. It appears as a few almost indiscernable dots on the screen - and if you have that dot(s) with zero tilt, then you can be sure there is a big bugger ahead.

If you return to Auto or CAL (depending on the radar type) the echo vanishes and you wouldn't have a clue about what is ahead unless you lower the tilt control. It is the CB top that concerns you because in IMC you can't always "see" it.

You can have all the mathematical calculations you like when talking about tilts and ground returns and so on but I could never remember them anyway. But I do know from long experience that the variable Gain control set to maximum setting at high cruise levels was a life saver on more than a few occasions among seriously nasty areas of CB's.

[Yaw String]

A37575
Agree on your technique and do the same, most successfully, so far!
Patrolled the cabin on way back home yesterday and reminded the 20% of pax to strap in! Not to say that they didn't just unstrap after I had gone!:ugh::ugh:

[linksys]

I agree,

Don't forget about "Wx/turb" function which is really good up to 40nm range.

[Phlap1]

Its not about functions. These low power digital toys simply
do not penetrate nor show enough of the true weather ahead.
Is the power output 10% or less of older (inferior) radars NO
probably less.So, the radars are low powered toys , the aircraft
are thin, minimally structured toys, the biased aft C of G toy
flight control systems all save weight and fuel.
Until
Bang, we hit a bad cell
All the toys reach their design limits at once

Aviation has reached a watershed, all the toys have come
home to roost, at the bottom of the ocean!

[linksys]

i Agree..

latest RDR-4000 weather radar system, really sucks when it comes to
wx detection beyond 80nm.

[Beausoleil]

Re seatbelts.

I always have my seatbelt on when in my seat. Most people I see do.

That said, please only use the seatbelt sign when there is good reason to expect turbulence. It seems to me passengers have now got used to ignoring it when they want to use the restrooms. partly I think because I've been on a lot of flights where it has been left on for hours on end with no sign of trouble.

Anyone who flies regularly knows that when the pilot expects turbulence that would actually hurt someone not strapped in, he or she doesn't just put the seatbelt sign on, he or she asks the crew to strap in too. Just how dangerous is the threat of turbulence if it's ok for cabin crew to be handing out scalding hot cups of coffee from unsecured trolleys?

It seems to me that passengers should strap in whenever seated. What's needed is a sign that tells people there is a significant danger from getting up and moving around.

[priapism]

AR1 and falconer1,

The reports I have heard indicate that the fasten seat belt sign was not on.
Obviously , neither of you have had to get up to use a toilet on an international flight. It seems nearly all of the pax injured were waiting to use the loo at the time the turbulence hit.

[HarryMann]

It seems nearly all of the pax injured were waiting to use the loo at the time the turbulence hit.

Possibly off topic... possibly relevant?

Seems to me from going to concerts, going to the cinema, and sitting in a/c as SLF, that a helluva lot (of 20 & 30 year olds of both sexes) have a bladder retention time of less than an hour or two, or they are overdrinking..

Constant alcohol/coffee/tea/cola drinking to excess (all diuretics) should be 'discouraged', where it is currently 'encouraged!' - they're all creating a BIG problem for when they get to 40 or 50 IMHO

Being honest, I'm 60 next year, and whilst I know my bladder isn't quite what it was, am astonished that youngsters today can be up and back for a wee 2 to 3 times whilst I 'might' go once, sometimes for comfort rather than absolute necessity.
There 'are' limits to this ridiculous emphasis on 'hydration'... what's the point if water is being replaced by strong diuretics? Seen the size of Americanos & cappucinos being sold as 'small or medium' in the Uk lately - very vulgur and a cheap marketing trick - THAT much coffee is madness - it's meant to be a 'short, sharp quick hit' and not for taking a bloody bath in :ugh:

PS1. Also worth noting that women have a larger bladder than men, maybe something to do with cave-living & nurturing young c.f fight-or-flight of the hunter...

PS2. Also worth noting that carrying heaps of bottled alcohol on-board (some to be carried off as duty frees) is also 'madness' when so much effort has been put into saving weight in a/c design & manufacture. This not only is heavy itself, but requires space and extra structural weight to constrain and contain it.

[TyreCreep]

Also worth noting that carrying heaps of bottled alcohol on-board (some to be carried off as duty frees) is also 'madness' when so much effort has been put into saving weight in a/c design & manufacture. This not only is heavy itself, but requires space and extra structural weight to constrain and contain it.

Cask wine in a cardboard box to be served into a paper cup should be fine for economy class, considering how low the fares are anyway. This should save quite a bit of weight, reduce waste and be safer (cannot easily be used as a weapon unlike a glass bottle, and it tends to do people less harm if it flies around the cabin). Potentially more environmentally friendly than plastic bottles and cups too.

[Xeque]

Why do airlines bother with in-flight duty free when just about every major airport now offers arrival duty free at (sometimes) very competitive prices?

[Me Myself]

Folks, I'm a pilot...............and I hate turbulence because no matter what, you are never really sure of what you're going to get. Maybe I am in the wrong line of work ?
However, asking for flight without turbulence is like asking for a channel crossing without surf.
I do my darned best to avoid them, starting with a thorough flight planning and so far, specially with CAT it's worked well.
It's created some tension with dispatch because they were just lazy and didn't feel like doing the flight plan all over gain. I couldn't care less.

But sometimes, unfortunatly, it's unavoidable. If you have bad weather over the airfield, you still have to go in and that involves bumps.

Having said this, I agree, some pilots do not give a hoot about what the pax feel at the back. This will be the same kind that keeps his PA to a minimum, will let you wonder why you're still taxiing after an hour or why you ve been circling for an hour only to discover that they've diverted to another airport.

[FlightlessParrot]

@Beausoleil--absolutely right. I always have my seatbelt on when seated, and I get annoyed when the Seatbelts sign is left on for ages with no apparent reason, and the cabin crew up. I assume it's sometimes for kya legal reasons. @HarryMann--try not taking a leak Auckland-Los Angeles, or even Auckland-Hong Kong. There's a real problem in the advice given to pax: on the one hand, move around to avoid DVT; on the other, seat belts on at all times. To avoid dehydration, consume lots of fluids, but keep seat belts on at all times. So the sensible passenger keeps their belt fastened, but has to take a leak occasionally. So in any unexpected turbulence, there will always be a chance of a few injuries. So may the skygods remember that some of their passengers are actually quite intelligent, but may have bad luck. Less contempt, please.

[Yaw String]

Groundedpolly,... my new policy when seatbelts have been on for some time due appearance ahead (day) or radar indications (night) of likely turbulence.: When conditions indicate the sudden onset of turbulence..a short PA urging those people in washrooms to make there way back to seats in a timely fashion..whilst trying not to cause nasty accidents due rushing!!! As in ALL situations beyond the norm..good communication will always keep 98% of the folks happy! Depends on how much one cares about ones job me thinks.:ok:..

[DingerX]

Points of fact in no particular order:

Duty Free generates more profit per kilo than pax.
Women have larger bladders probably because waiting in line is less an option for them than it is for men.
In airliner design, a good way to save money is to delete a lavatory. Duty free generates revenue; serving alcohol makes sure the alcoholics don't fly with someone else, and probably generates revenue as well. Besides, the less a lav is free, the less likely people will try to use it. So you keep them to the required minimum.
Load factors are very high these days.

So on LH you will have people standing in the aisle, waiting to use the head. It only takes one inoperative toilet to make that a crowd.

[HarryMann]

... :)

Was just pointing out the factors mitigating towards longer queues at the loos... and diuretic drinks are on that list - don't shoot the messenger!

As far as dehydration is concerned, it's probably too late once on-board and slightly dehydrated, as it can take 2 days to rehydrate. Ideally one should be hydrating several days before a long flight, and not exacerbating the situation at altitude by drinking lots of alcohol or coffee.

But of course, we can't 'tell' people what to do, maybe there is some small print in the 'recommendations to pax' when booking a long distance flight :rolleyes: Heaven forfend - we might offend... however well intentioned!

As for 'duty-free profits', why the heck can't that be sorted out at destination, without carrying tons of it around at 35,000 ft and Mach .8 something or other... surely that's not be beyond the wit of man or enterprise, nor negotiation :ugh:

[Graybeard]

Duty Free should be killed by special import tariffs. It's an inexcusable waste of energy, unless its value density is so high it would be air cargo anyhow.

What happened to the talk of the QF A330?

GB

[lomapaseo]

Points of fact in no particular order:

Duty Free generates more profit per kilo than pax.
Women have larger bladders probably because waiting in line is less an option for them than it is for men.
In airliner design, a good way to save money is to delete a lavatory. Duty free generates revenue; serving alcohol makes sure the alcoholics don't fly with someone else, and probably generates revenue as well. Besides, the less a lav is free, the less likely people will try to use it. So you keep them to the required minimum.
Load factors are very high these days.

So on LH you will have people standing in the aisle, waiting to use the head. It only takes one inoperative toilet to make that a crowd.

I had to read all the way to the end to squeeze a possible link out of this with the thread subject and even then I had to imagine an inference of fact :)

[SummerLightning]

No, I can't see any reason at all why the size of women's bladders, passengers regardless of gender wanting liquid refreshment and (God forbid!) needing to use the in-flight facilities, has completely taken over what was an interesting thread.

As a probationer here, I hesitate to say that the debate might be better if everyone were to sit down and belt up!

[Arik]

As SLF, child of a now retired pilot, I always keep my seatbelt on & have flown through bad turbulence in the past & it never ceases to amaze me how many PAX don't wear their seatbelts.

I've preached to my neighbours around me about keeping it on. But from my point of view, the emergency briefing is often ignored as it's always done in the same routine on every flight on every type of aircraft.

Maybe if trainers were a little ingenious about emergency briefing to change it, make PAX sit up & think there may be a little more concentration on it AND for CC to explain & demonstrate at the end; KEEP your BELT FASTENED LOOSELY throughout the flight!

Show a couple of simulated videos to PAX about what can happen whilst flying through turbulence during taxi-ing - radical but could be effective!

Arik

[Noseup]

I agree - there seems to be a proliferation of recent turbulence incidence on Airbus aircraft - or is this just a reporting issue. Any reports on other aircraft types of injury-causing turbulence?:ouch:

[Coyote44]

I've always followed a great statement " It's better to say I could have, than to say I should have "............could've gone thru that gap?, is always better than, should've gone round the storm!!!

If you think there is a small chance of a blip being a CB,... AVOID IT !!

Just like B73757 said, those dots are bad news, believe me, been there, done that!

I'm sure this will be helpful in the tech column.

[Tee Emm]

For sheer unadulterated stupidity this one is hard to beat even though it happened over 20 years ago;
737 operator flying from Guam to Nauru then to Noumea and Sydney. Typhoon brewing up on 737 track Nauru to Noumea abeam of the Santa Cruz islands. The aircraft weather radar had been u/s all the way from Guam (and before that from Hong Kong). Rather than wait at Guam or Nauru for radar spares and technician from Australia or New Zealand, someone decided the flights should continue all the way to Melbourne where spares available. As a frequent passenger with this company I was aware the radar was u/s and wasn't too happy about travelling but business was urgent and I did.

The captain on the Nauru - Noumea - Melbourne legs decided wisely to keep seat belts on through any IMC. We were in IMC and light chop in the last known position of the typhoon astride our track abeam the Santa Cruz islands. Children were running around the cabin and climbing over seat while seat belts were on. Me, down the back knew radar was u/s and was shi...ting blue lights that we would run smack into CB circling the storm centre. I warned one of the local island flight attendants that the children were in danger as we could clobbered any minute as the crew were flying blind. I was curtly told to mind my own business by the idiot female islander and that the captain knew what he was doing. She had no idea about u/s radar because the captain kept it to the cockpit crew only and had decided not to tell his flight attendants. After all, he reasoned, the seat belts were on so what you don't know won't hurt you.

We hit a couple of CB tops without warning and kids flew in all directions but unhurt. In fact they laughed at free flight. The flight attendants sat down with relatives in the cabin and didn't stop the kids from playing up and down the aisle. No one in that 737 knew what monster CB's were ahead unseen. The FA's had absolutely no bloody idea of the potential danger and the captain never informed them. We arrived in Melbourne eventually.

Heard the 737 departed next day with radar still inop due nil spares and flew same route in reverse with CB's still around. Following day it flew Nauru to Nandi, Fiji and back and encountered very severe turb in CB and on arrival at Nauru airport, captain of that flight grounded the aircraft for turbulence inspection. Spares arrived all the way from Australia a couple of days later. Some operators like to keep to schedule regardless of risk... But as I said, it was well over 20 years ago..

[Nunc]

Amazing yarn Tee, a frequent passenger knew about a U/S radar but not the operating cabin crew, amazing.

[AerocatS2A]

What I find interesting about your story Tee Emm is that you allowed the pressure of business to get you on an aeroplane for a flight that you thought was unsafe. Sounds very similar to the thought processes that lead to the operator flying the aircraft with no weather radar so it could get back to a maintenance base.