Singapore flight turbulence tragedy

[Freespirit44]

Posting for traffic.

Since I have heard the news I am absolutely terrified.

I am a VERY anxious flyer. For this reason I haven't flown in over seven years.

The news of this tragedy has triggered me as i have a short haul flight next week from the UK.

Anyone else feel the same?

@Kucinghitam

You’re welcome. Yep Bay of Bengal can be a bit of a sod.

Also it's often the time for the pre-arrival meal service on those routes, sometimes I have wondered whether airlines might start modifying their service times to take into account known turbulent sectors of the journey.

When I was working we used to brief cabin crew on the timings of entry into forecast areas of turbulence so they could maybe adjust the meal service…but of course those forecasts weren’t that reliable, though they may have improved.

Other problem is it’s hard to be too flexible with the meals on the really long flights because you have to cater for passengers really wanting to sleep as long as possible and also the fact the crew members have mandatory rest period, so oft times on that particular route you can only really serve up in the last 2 hours or so when all the cabin crew are back at work.

If I could just add to the comment by the Flight Radar people and this whole issue that seems to be persisting, even in the press, that the problem was caused by the aircraft perhaps dropping many hundreds of feet- I think what’s sometimes not understood is what causes the problems in turbulence isn’t large altitude changes, it’s rapid changes in vertical speed (i.e. the speed up/down)

In really simplistic terms what you really don’t want in an aircraft is a sudden increase in any downwards speed if you have people not strapped in - if the change is rapid enough unrestrained passengers will head for the ceiling (newton’s first law of motion) and that can happen even if the aircraft only dips rapidly maybe twenty or thirty feet from it’s starting altitude..the Singapore aircraft went through a cycle of ups and down and was at one point 400 feet adrift from where it should have been.

@notimagain can you explain ‘400 adrift from where it should have been’. Thanks.

Yep.

Just prior to the turbulence encounter they were cruising at their assigned cruise altitude of 37,000 feet, (Flight Level 370 in aviation speak). You’d expect in normal flight to be absolutely at that altitude, plus or minus almost nothing.

The Flight Radar data (best info we have so far until we hear anything from the investigation)) has them at one point in the turbulence encounter going up to about 37,400 feet, so they were 400 feet adrift/above their assigned level, before they eventually recovered back to 37,000 feet.

Many thanks.

And now 12 people injured by turbulence on a Dublin flight.

And now 12 people injured by turbulence on a Dublin flight.

I just saw that. The description of the injuries from the Singapore flight are horrific too. Over 100 injured.

Twenty two people sustained spinal and spinal cord injuries.
Six sustained skull and brain injuries.
Thirteen have injuries to their bones, muscles and other organs.
The patients have been grouped according to their most severe injuries, but some do fall into multiple categories.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103883404

It’ll be interesting to see if measures are put into place now that it’s becoming more common.

@CharityShopFinds

It’ll be interesting to see if measures are put into place now that it’s becoming more common.

I’m not sure what extra measures could be put in place.

From the POV of aircraft actually avoiding it we’re stuck with the current level but slowly improving level of forecasting and the current but slowly improving generation of on-board weather radars (which can’t detect all forms of turbulence).

As far measures on board I’m afraid despite all the pleas and publicity about staying strapped on whenever possible there is definitely a cohort of passengers who simply insist on unbuckling the moment the seat belt sign goes off (and some who are resistant to buckling up even when the signs are on).

I know some suggest make it mandatory for passengers to always wear their belts and never leave their seats but that simply won’t work on Long Haul flights.

BTW despite some academic papers that get quoted in the MSM the jury is still out as too how more common turbulence itself actually is - but of course if the number of people flying increases more people are exposed to it’s effects.

I was surprised to read that Singapore airlines has put in place that if the seatbelt lights are on then they won’t provide food during that time. 10 years ago I remember British airways crew sitting down for this reason so I was really confused when I read that yesterday.

Seat Belts signs on= no service and crew sat down wasn’t a blanket rule at BA in my time there.

As I recall it how it usually worked was that if the seatbelts signs were turned on then hot drinks would not be served.

OTOH Meal service could continue (if the Cabin crew were OK with it) unless word came from the flight crew up front that things were going to get properly rough, in which case the trollies/meals got stowed and the Cabin Crew would go to their seats.

The Singapore rule change is going to make things interesting for their cabin service on a lot of their routes, given the weather you frequently encounter going into/out of their home base.

I was puzzled too because when I traveled with American Airlines many years ago there was severe turbulence and the cabin crew had to strap in as a matter of course. We weren't served our breakfast as a result. I can only assume that somewhere along the line the rules changed. I don't often fly these days so I wouldn't know

FWIW the rules about cabin crew procedures in turbulence are company specific and agreed with the relevant regulator, so US procedures may well not align with Singapore’s which may well not align with what BA, Virgin etc might do.

FWIW fortunately very few people experience genuine severe turbulence as defined by people like ICAO and the World Met Organisation( I experienced it once in my flying career, in clear air, nobody hurt but it was very very unpleasant)

I think many people would find continuous moderate more than enough, very unpleasant and it would halt cabin service.

Here’s the World Met organisation definitions of moderate and severe turbulence:

• Moderate: There may be moderate changes in aircraft attitude and/or height but the aircraft remains in control at all times. Air speed variations are usually small. Changes in accelerometer readings of 0.5-­1.0g at the aircraft’s centre of gravity. Occupants feel strain against seat belts. There is difficulty in walking. Loose objects move about.

• Severe: Abrupt changes in aircraft attitude and/or height. The aircraft may be out of control for short periods. Air speed variations are usually large. Changes in accelerometer readings greater than 1.0 g at the aircraft’s centre of gravity (but note, Military aviators regard +4g/­2g as severe. Objects are forced violently against seat belts. Loose objects are tossed about.

Thank you for this, I conceed that it was moderate turbulence I experienced in that case. As you say very very unpleasant and everyone had to be strapped in. Severe must be a whole different kettle of fish. I'm assuming the Singapore Airlines incident was defined as severe?

@existentialpain

. I'm assuming the Singapore Airlines incident was defined as severe?

Yet to see anything official, the Singapore accident/incident sounds as if it fits “Severe” at the very least, there’s actually an even higher level - “extreme”, which is defined as “Effects are more pronounced than for severe intensity.”…..😱

Maybe it wasn’t ba but American Airlines I know it was a long time ago flying back to uk. I remember a man getting pissed off cuz he didn’t get his food and the crew had to tell him they were sorry but the seat belts were on so they had to stop.

I think that is in an alcohol solution isn’t it ( or used to be?) I can never help wondering if it is the herbal extracts or the alcohol that helps but I agree it does seem to work.

For anyone still interested:

https://www.mot.gov.sg/news/Details/transport-safety-investigation-bureau-preliminary-investigation-findings-of-incident-involving-sq321

This will have been the bit that really did the damage:

”At 07:49:40 hr, the aircraft experienced a rapid change in G as recorded vertical acceleration decreased from +ve 1.35G to negative (-ve) 1.5G, within 0.6 sec. This likely resulted in the occupants who were not belted up to become airborne.
At 07:49:41 hr, the vertical acceleration changed from -ve 1.5G to +ve 1.5G within 4 sec. This likely resulted in the occupants who were airborne to fall back down.”