Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

KLM 777 Turbulence Incident?

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

KLM 777 Turbulence Incident?

Old 31st May 2007, 06:12
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2
KLM 777 Turbulence Incident?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=270433
KLM airliner hits turbulence, 16 hurt
Thursday May 31 13:49 AEST
At least 16 people were hurt when a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines airliner bound for the Japanese city of Osaka hit turbulence soon after take-off from Amsterdam, officials said on Thursday.
The Boeing-777 KLM flight 867, with 262 passengers and 14 crew on board, touched down at the Kansai International Airport in Osaka, around 9.15am (1045 AEST) on Thursday, airport officials said.
Of the 16 people including three crew hurt, nine had been taken to hospital, a firefighter said.

"Their injuries are not life-threatening," he said.
volare123 is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 07:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16
13 passengers + 2 crew injured KLM 777 (due to turbulence)

http://www.nu.nl/news/1095729/10/Gew...rbulentie.html
Quick translation: Heavy turbulence above St. Petersburg, Russia. 13 passenger + 2 crew injured in a KLM flight from Amsterdam to Japanese airport Kansai. Plane undamaged, could continue flight. According to KLM, the pilot had warned passengers about upcoming turbulence, but the crew was still out and about serving drinks. Whatever they were serving fell on top of the passengers. One of the crew was taken to a Osaka hospital with burn wounds, 8 others also transported to hospital.
On board 262 passengers + 14 crew.

<update>
News item was updated to say injuries were minor, mostly bruises. Only 3 crew went to hospital.

I suppose this turbulence was much worse than what was visible on WX radar? Of course, I was not there to see it, so its hard to say anything about it.

Last edited by PieterPan; 31st May 2007 at 07:33. Reason: news item was updated
PieterPan is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 07:55
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,292
I suppose this turbulence was much worse than what was visible on WX radar? Of course, I was not there to see it, so its hard to say anything about it.
CAT is NEVER visable on the WX Radar- Only precipitation.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 08:49
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,252
St Petersburg has been having some exceptionally hot weather in recent days (was there 2 days ago, was 33C and some torrential TS) so likely to be CBs rather than CAT.

So :

Flight deck had made announcement but service was allowed to continue.

After the incident which occurred overhead a major city flight continued for, what, 9 hours, then when it arrived 9 pax taken to hospital.

For those who say that Russian medical standards leave something to be desired then Helsinki was about 30 mins away.

What sort of operation is this ?
WHBM is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 08:50
  #5 (permalink)  
KPL
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1
I'm not sure it was CAT. I don't know what time this incident happened - but I was flying in that area yesterday at 20.00 utc and there was a sigmet forecasting severe turbulence due to embd ts intsf top FL390..
KPL is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 10:04
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: _
Posts: 350
Quite simple - signs go on, hot drinks services stops. If you're happy enough to have a full cup of tea/coffee in your hand and hold it over your nether regions while you're in your comfy seat in 0A or 0B, it's smooth enough to have the signs off. If it's not, switch the signs on or standby for injuries and/or getting your ass sued.
dontdoit is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 10:21
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: various locales
Posts: 1,513
Especially if there was a Sigmet in force. I'm sure the met man didn't issue a warning just for the sheer hell of it.
Green Flash is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 10:29
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
After the incident which occurred overhead a major city flight continued for, what, 9 hours, then when it arrived 9 pax taken to hospital.
For those who say that Russian medical standards leave something to be desired then Helsinki was about 30 mins away.
What sort of operation is this ?
Pretty standard I'd say... Injuries do not sound too serious - but more importantly, I am sure the crew / Pax assessed them and/or communicated with the ground as part of the decision making process.
I am aware of numerous instances, up to and including broken bones, where flights have "continued". I cannot recall, but am sure there are some, where flights have diverted...
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 10:49
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,252
Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft View Post
I cannot recall, but am sure there are some, where flights have diverted
Well I can recall one because I was on board, very similar. LAX-LHR, CAT over the Rockies, several pax and crew in a poor way, burned off fuel and diverted to Chicago, several offloaded.

Continuing when you are mid-ocean is one thing, when you are overhead major cities (or only 2 hours out of base) but ABOUT to head out over Siberia (or the Atlantic) with injured persons on board is another.
WHBM is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 11:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
Rather than get into a long discussion I shall bow to your superior knowledge of the situation. Of course they should have diverted immediately to HEL for a few bruises. Of course the entire KLM crew were complete plonkers to have even considered continuing... and as for KLM as an operator
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 11:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,252
I'm always a bit disappointed when threads go into unnecessary overstatement/sarcasm about the comments of others; at least we have escaped (so far) the banal response that we should wait until 2012 for the official report.

If we are going to be like this over who can assess the injuries, which of the crew on board had a medical degree ?
WHBM is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 11:30
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
I'm always a bit disappointed when threads go into unnecessary overstatement/sarcasm about the comments of others;
Yours were not "comments" as I read them, but unequivolcal criticism of the crew and KLM
What sort of operation is this ?
You have clearly implied they should have diverted, and then backed that up
Continuing when you are mid-ocean is one thing, when you are overhead major cities (or only 2 hours out of base) but ABOUT to head out over Siberia (or the Atlantic) with injured persons on board is another.
I do not know the extent of the injuries, and whether any subsequent inestigation will say they did the right or wrong thing. All I did was comment that what they did, given what we know, is typical.
Maybe you would like to make your views known also to BA, Virgin and the AAIB, since your views disagree with theirs (2 more flights with inuries on board that headed over the Atlantic):
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...43__g_vrom.cfm
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...36__g_viio.cfm
I for one do not mind "comment" or questions about "incidents". But critisicising specific individuals by someone who does not know the facts I find unacceptable...
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 11:44
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
WHBM

thank you for your note of civility. old PPRuNe sometimes goes ballistic when people question a pilot's judgement...but I think I agree with you on this one.

Most every airline worth its salt has some sort of radio medical assistance available...I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to KLM that there was some real medical evaluation either onboard or via radio link. and then a decision was made in accordance with that advice.

of course money may have been part of the equation too.

a pilot should always make it clear that if there is turbulence ahead all passengers and cabin crew must return to seats/secure cabin and get their seat belts on tightly.

while there is some truth to the idea that wx radar doesn't show CAT...how did the pilots know there was turbulence ahead? sigmet?(yes) PIREP? *(maybe), or it wasn't CAT and wx radar did show something of turbulence ahead. on some of our planes we have a special magenta color over and above read indicating possible severe/extreme turbulence...but it is only valid on the 40 nm range...not much warning at 7 miles a minute.

now for some sharp pilots, careful monitoring and comparison of outside air temp (properly corrected as in SAT),can lead one to suspect possible clear air turbulence ahead.

all in all, I prefer the course of action to get down to a good hospital asap...its only money if one acts in this fashion.


we can all recall the thread with injuries near florida and a flight that continued to england...with similiar arguments and no clear cut victor.
bomarc is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 11:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 906
I seem to recall a discussion on PPRuNe a few months back reference a flight out of Miami or Orlando bound for the UK which experienced turbulence with consequential injuries to some passengers and crew a few hours after take off.
On that occasion, as now, a few people (who may not have been ideally qualified to pass judgement) whipped up a storm because the crew elected to continue to their destination. Eventually, wiser heads prevailed, and I think the defense they made of the crews judgement has some relevance in this case.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ida+turbulence

Last edited by Andy_S; 31st May 2007 at 12:04. Reason: Added link for Florida turbulence thread
Andy_S is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 12:11
  #15 (permalink)  
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Give us a break!

So, based on one journalists interpretation we have a judge, jury and executioner telling us all that the crew must have ignored the possibility of turbulence and then decided that they would continue to their destination with a pile of near-corpses, groaning whilst their wounds seeped and festered.

"Injury". Have you even stopped to think about the term? It could mean a paper cut, a simple bruise or, of course, an amputation or whatever. Just because the report says there were "injuries" doesn't mean that they were serious.

Are you telling us that if one of the crew got a blister from touching a hot tray from the oven tha you'd divert immediately? Of course not. But hang on.... that's a burn injury. Quick, I have no mre facts. They should have diverted immediately. Condemn them and their airline.

I have no doubt that KLM have access to the same services that most legacy and other well run airlines have, namely MedLink. Using that service you get immediate access to a doctor who is trained to assess any injuries described by the trained cabin crew or even a doctor who is on board. Based on the assessment they will recommend whether to divert immediately or whether there is no need. Any injuries or illnesses are assessed and if, as in most cases, the injury has been treated with adequate first aid then the flight can continue.

If any injuries or illnesses are assessed as needing immediate treatment at a hospital they will then advise on which hospital is best suited and equipped to handle the patients. It does not mean that they will recommend diversion to the nearest airport but to the nearest airport to a suitable medical facility which can treat the symptoms.

So, please spare us the Kangaroo Court and the immediate rush to judgement. The only facts you have are a couple of lines of journalistic licence and immediately you claim to know the facts and condemn the crew and the airline. Well, I guess that's it. Case closed.
cargo boy is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 12:21
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
I thought medicine and science were one of the few things Russia was actually good at?!
Re-Heat is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 12:40
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Benelux
Posts: 290
STOP! STOP! STOP!
Injuries were assessed as not life threatning. Crew and pax with injuries were consulted and wanted to continue rather than divert, be treated, and take possible lengthy delay miles from point of dep or dest.
End of story.
BRUpax is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 13:56
  #18 (permalink)  
NSC
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: FFM
Posts: 49
ULLI 302200Z 20001MPS 4500 BR SCT050 OVC066 17/16 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 302130Z 21001MPS 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 18/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 302100Z 19002MPS 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 18/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 302030Z 22002MPS 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 18/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 302000Z 17002MPS 130V210 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 18/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 301930Z 12003MPS 090V150 9999 SCT050CB OVC066 19/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 301900Z VRB01MPS 9999 -SHRA BKN050CB OVC066 19/17 Q1006 NOSIG=
ULLI 301830Z 26002MPS 220V330 9999 BKN050CB OVC066 19/17 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301800Z 24004MPS 210V270 9999 -SHRA BKN036CB OVC066 20/17 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301730Z 22003MPS 170V280 9999 TS BKN036CB OVC066 20/17 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301700Z 23006MPS 4700 -TSRA BKN036CB OVC066 21/18 Q1005 TEMPO 20010G15MPS TSRA RMK 10L/23006G09MPS=
ULLI 301630Z 24002MPS 120V290 9999 BKN033CB OVC066 21/19 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301600Z 17002MPS 080V210 5000 -SHRA BKN031CB OVC066 21/19 Q1005 TEMPO TSRA=
ULLI 301530Z VRB01MPS 6000 -TSRA BKN033CB OVC066 23/18 Q1005 NOSIG=
ULLI 301500Z 06002MPS 030V090 9999 BKN033CB OVC066 23/18 Q1005 BECMG TSRA=
ULLI 301430Z 35002MPS 270V360 9999 SCT033CB BKN066 23/18 Q1005 NOSIG=
ULLI 301400Z 32002MPS 270V360 9999 SCT033TCU BKN066 24/18 Q1005 NOSIG=
ULLI 301330Z 36003MPS 250V360 9999 SCT033 BKN066 24/18 Q1005 NOSIG=
=

as you can see there were moderate to sever thundershowers and CU and CB's, so i bet this was no CAT but definitely shown on the WX radar

maybe the flight was operating at max range and a diversion around the wx was not possible without a fuelstop in lets say UNWW

just my educated gues

cheers
NSC is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 14:09
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not where I want to be
Age: 66
Posts: 233
BRUpax:
Crew and pax with injuries were consulted and wanted to continue rather than divert, be treated, and take possible lengthy delay miles from point of dep or dest.
End of story.
Not taking sides here, but as SLC I'm happy to see that we were consulted and that our advice was heeded.
Not an everyday occurence.
Per
Ancient Mariner is offline  
Old 31st May 2007, 15:20
  #20 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,546
Flight deck had made announcement....
Automation knows no bounds.

Did the flight crew have to push a button or was it automatic? Clever things these modern flight decks.
M.Mouse is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.