CAL 744 in hard landing at DPS after turbulence
 

Several people (varying from 9 to 13, according to reports) suffered injuries after a CAL 747-400 had a hard landing at Denpasar, Indonesia, apparently after flying through turbulence; initial reports understandably sketchy.

AIrcraft on runway, but damage not visible.

I'll reread the report but I see no info about a hard landing.

Case of clear air turbulence enroute... 5 cabin crew and 1 pax sustained serious injuries, 30plus various other injuries

So it has nothing to do with a hard landing despite the header. I hope you are better at legal affairs.

Sorry, but initial reports referred to a hard landing:

China Airlines makes a hard landing in Bali

I was at a remote computer and was unable to attach the original article.

Hope the injured recover fully and quickly.

I've seen captains at CAL covering the entire windshield with newspaper,
and that makes me wonder if it was a real case of CAT :=

They still do that? Amazing.
They also use the meal tray liners, which are thin plastic and if you rub them onto the window they stay in place with the static cling. You can see that they are being used because the logo imprints itself in reverse on the glass.

I flew over Canada often and loved to darken the cockpit to see the Northern Lights, and had some FOs who had been on the route many years say in awe "what are they?" Most pilots of Asian airlines turn on the Storm lights after takeoff and never turn them off, so they cannot see anything outside the cockpit at night, paper on the glass or not.

Even after all these years. Amazing.

Seatbelt sign was ON at the time of CAT. There would have been many more hurt if it wasn't ON.

Doubtful - a lot of the troglodytes that are passengers pay no attention to any announcements or warnings - warnings and announcements are for other people and most passengers ignore them*



















*Especially announcements about hand phones and staying seated until the plane has come to a complete stop.

Reacting to your posts is getting be a habit, Lord Toad.It's not the cretin who refuses to do up his/her seat belt who concerns me, bit the poor bastard they're likely to land on in a CAT encounter like the one that occurred here. Unfortunately, it's usually the poor sod 'safely' strapped into his or her seat whose neck is injured by the 250 lbs of idiocy that's returning to a 1G status via the roof racks.

I know the PR weenies would never allow the airlines to stress this point in safety messages. If they did, people sitting around these cretins might be a little - or a lot - more outspoken when they see their neighbour isn't strapped in.

Maybe a nicely constructed, politically correct message along the lines of "Any passenger not obeying the seat belt sign - or the airline's suggestion that seat belts should be loosely fastened whenever you are seated - should ensure they are really well insured, because if your unsecured, dead weight, obviously brain-dead body injures another passenger, the airline will offer all assistance to the injured passenger in their efforts to sue the proverbial arse off you".

CAT
 

Yes, from Bali, local and Australian media report that before TOD the A/C dropped from 350 to 250 due to CAT/pockets common in these parts. No hard landing.
Happened to me once in a CX L1011. Several passengers literally hit the roof, including one who lost most of his front teeth!

"We recommend that when seated keep your seat belt fastened, just like we do on the flight deck"

When will folks listen?

The second Tuesday of next week.

If , the this incident was as bad a reported, how come the airframe left DPS as scheduled on the return flight not long afterwards...

A more thorough beneath the skin inspection would surely be appropriate. As it would ahve been for a certain VC10 (G-ASIX)that fell sideways from the sky over the Andes 40 years ago, got a late night check on landing locally and then flew a revenue service home to LGW- only then was it found that a main tail fin spar had gone and much work was required.

CAL really ought to have inspected this aircraft to a deeper level before singing it off for flight- IF the incident was from FL35-250 - that is a 10K height excursion.

Clueless
 

Clueless. Routine unless you really don't have a clue?

Was that the one where there was an application to ferry the machine from LGW to Wisley for repairs - and the inspector said "Fly it?? - I wouldn't even walk underneath it!"
Wonder how dear old Flash and TC are? Wonderful Chaps

Were other aircraft affected by the Turbulence?

Philipat

If you consider my experienced, trained, safety culture - sensible caution (not over caution) "clueless" as you say, and think I "do not have a clue",
I suggest to you that we have different standards.

I did clearly use the word "IF" - in relation to this incident. I did not say "IS".

IF, repeat if, the incident was a 10K height excursion, with the reported level of injury, I and my colleagues would not consider it a "routine" event for the airframe -as you cite it to be and in my solely personal opinion, a departure 60 minutes later, could be an issue.

As such -I cited the VC10 incident in support of my views and subsequent posters confirm the context of that.

So matey, I am not clueless. If you are on site and know more than we do, then great, over to you man, but do try not be so judgemental.

Accidents happen you know- usually as a result of a number of strings all snapping in sequence.

I am scheduled to do DPS next month, and I shall ask with an open mind what the real level of this incident was.

Fly safe

maybe?
 

...IMC....WX radar antenna 0 deg +1 deg... FL350,CB ahead with a vertical grow of 4000 ft/min. Small green dot ( ice does not give good return echos,right?) on the navigation display, "don't worries attitude" :8( I have seen that ) :}BANG!
CAT, if associated with jet stream,does not come and go in short period of time. Did any other aircraft reported turbulence before or after CAL? My bet is on the table.

how common is 10.000 ft drop?
 

Phillipat states the flight dropped from FL350 to FL250. I can t find that info anywhere. How sure is this info, and indeed any other planes affected?

it would have to be one hell of a CAT encounter to drop 10,000'

My money is on what VONKLUFFEN said.

yes, even CX has made that mistake.

If you can't see out the window because it's dark or ur in IMC then you must be very careful while operating in these areas, any areas in fact. ( and if u have the windows totally covered up then u are a reckless fool. )

Good knowledge of wx radar use and principles is a must.

10,000'.......or 200?
 

Macau Daily Times - 30 hurt in turbulence on China Airlines flight says airline

30 injured because of clear-air-turbulence - Taiwan News Online

Both report an "up and down motion" of 200' or 60m lasting about 10 seconds.

Seat belts lights on as crew had already detected turbulence on radar.

I agree with Vonkluffen and ACMS as well, true CAT is not that common in that area, however large CB's and TS certainly are! Only takes a few moments of inattention and ' WHACK ' :ooh: ( so I'm told ;-) ) . Be careful out there!

Buggs

"Seat belts lights on as crew had already detected turbulence on radar"

can someone tell me how do you detect CAT on your radar?

You can't see CLEAR air turb.

They must have seen water drop intensity colours and interpreted their radar accordingly.:ok:

Why would any pilot cover up the windshield with newspaper or meal tray??? What's the point of doing this?

According to newspaper reports CAL has just done it again on a flight from HKG to BKK. Several pax and crew injured. I find it hard to believe it was CAT. As others have said, it's far more likely they flew through the top of a CB.

epc

The newspaper is there to stop rays from the sun damaging delicate skin and eyes :E

covering up the window
 

I'm not a pilot. It seems a really unsafe thing to do to cover the windshields. Are the Boings and Airbuses and traffic control now so advanced now as to render the eyes irrelevant in flying?

Absolutely not!!

I believe the majority of these "unexpected" turbulence encounters are not real CAT at all but the crew have flown through a CB top. No way are they going to admit to inattention to the tilt or gain controls or they were failing to operate the radar correctly. Mysterious sudden CAT encounter covers a lot of sins and no one can prove otherwise.

Slats One, are you sure about the "scheduled service" flight home of the VC10? I flew with David (Flash) Philips, the Captain of the Andes upset flight, many times in later years on the DC10, and I believe he told me the aeroplane was patched up, but empty-ferried home to LGW where the true extent of the damage was then discovered.
Michael