SQ321 LHR-SIN Encountered Severe Turbulence [At least 1 Fatality and 30 Injured]

[MARTINE]

Can you correlate with location pls?

Sorry
CPH-SIN

 

[Quickstatus]

CPH-SIN

Sorry . Yes I understood 11hrs in SQ usually means EU-SIN. I meant where along the route did turbulence occur requiring SB on

 

[MARTINE]

Sorry . Yes I understood 11hrs in SQ usually means EU-SIN. I meant where along the route did turbulence occur requiring SB on

I am not as detail focussed as some about exactly where - was enjoying the Olympic coverage!!

 

[I love to travel]

MIne was interesting the other day EWR to SIN. On a few occasions very slight turbulence, seat belt sign on, service suspended. Far more bumpy over Japan, which is typical, and seat belt sign left off. No complaints.

BTW was one of very few who kept seatbelt on for the entire flight (at least in J)

 

[drron]

On SQ631 HND-SIN on Monday and SQ245 SIN-BNE on Tuesday there was minor turbulence. seat belt sign came on but service continued.

 

[SCM]

There is only one answer. No cabin crew should get injured because they have to do a meal service or other cabin crew duties and passengers don't get to decide how the SB sign is operated -there is nothing for them to know.

Any pilot interpretation of radar signals has to be in favour of safety not meal service

That has nothing to do with anything, you can never guarantee 100% that nobody gets injured - it's not possible, and nobody is asking whether anyone should or should not get injured, the point is what is the tradeoff between what length of suspension of services vs service quality. What you are talking about is not related to this.

 

[Quickstatus]

you can never guarantee 100% that nobody gets injured

Of course, it is impossible to completely eliminate injuries from turbulence. However decisions to turn seat belt signs on should be in favour of safety and not meal service. And again the pilots can determine what the upcoming situation is going to be using their radar. SQ has implemented additional training for all their crew which should improve the risk.

nobody is asking whether anyone should or should not get injured,

From where I am sitting, cabin crew should never have to do a cabin service if there is a risk of upcoming turbulence - the pilots determine that - not the pasenger.

what is the tradeoff

There is no tradeoff. If services are suspended then so be it. Service quality for me means everyone arrives uninjured.

 

[SCM]

Of course, it is impossible to completely eliminate injuries from turbulence. However decisions to turn seat belt signs on should be in favour of safety and not meal service. And again the pilots can determine what the upcoming situation is going to be using their radar. SQ has implemented additional training for all their crew which should improve the risk.

Are you saying previously they didn't favour safety? Surely not. Surely they would not, not put the seat belt signs on if there is a known risk of turbulance?

From where I am sitting, cabin crew should never have to do a cabin service if there is a risk of upcoming turbulence - the pilots determine that - not the pasenger.

Well in fact turbulence is not 100% predictable - far from it, so in fact if you want that, then the seat belt sign must always be on.

There is no tradeoff. If services are suspended then so be it. Service quality for me means everyone arrives uninjured.

There is in fact a trade off, this is not an opinion - if you fail to accept that, the term here is cognitive dissonance.

 

[jb747]

Are you saying previously they didn't favour safety? Surely not. Surely they would not, not put the seat belt signs on if there is a known risk of turbulance?

They, like many other airlines, allowed cabin crew to continue service whilst the signs were on, and from experience, they did so when the turbulence was well beyond mild. That is most definitely a service over safety mindset. It directly places the cabin crew at risk, and even worse, engenders a mind set amongst some passengers that they know better with regard to the signs and turbulence.

Well in fact turbulence is not 100% predictable - far from it, so in fact if you want that, then the seat belt sign must always be on.

And this is followed by some airlines, who in turn then allow passengers to move around when the signs are on. All they’ve really done is abrogate their own responsibility for management of the signs (and cabin activity), and passed the buck to people who have no idea.

There is in fact a trade off, this is not an opinion - if you fail to accept that, the term here is cognitive dissonance.

Too much Westworld?

You need to accept the fact that if the seat belt sign is to be used correctly, then there are times that service will be severely impacted. Your desire for service has no place in the decision to have the sign on or off.

 

[SCM]

They, like many other airlines, allowed cabin crew to continue service whilst the signs were on, and from experience, they did so when the turbulence was well beyond mild. That is most definitely a service over safety mindset. It directly places the cabin crew at risk, and even worse, engenders a mind set amongst some passengers that they know better with regard to the signs and turbulence.

Great - so my point has nothing to do with this, what I am saying is that they are using the seat-belt sign *much more* and *far more unnecessarily* than before.

You need to accept the fact that if the seat belt sign is to be used correctly, then there are times that service will be severely impacted. Your desire for service has no place in the decision to have the sign on or off.

There is no scientific nor technical nor regulatory definition of when and how the seat belt sign should be used - it is entirely arbitrary, and thus the follow on impact to service.

 

[SCM]

Common sense prevails - SQ resumes doing meal service when seat belt sign is on:

SIA resumes meal service when seat-belt sign is on, lifts stricter rules after turbulence incident in May

Hot beverages, including soup, will still not be served if there is turbulence. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

 

[jb747]

Common sense prevails - SQ resumes doing meal service when seat belt sign is on:

It is not common sense in any way at all. It simply shows that commercial considerations have been allowed to override safety, and continues to reinforce the idea that seat belts aren’t necessary at all times when seated.

 

[Cynicor]

It is not common sense in any way at all. It simply shows that commercial considerations have been allowed to override safety, and continues to reinforce the idea that seat belts aren’t necessary at all times when seated.

100%. While I fly SQ because it goes where I need, the QF approach to the seatbelt sign is by far the best-
Off most of the time.
When turbulence is expected or experience to an extent that warrants it, they turn on the sign for safety and the cabin shuts down completely.
Once it’s done (or no longer expected), they turn the sign off.

American carriers use it for so much of the flight that it’s completely ignored, and SQ teach people that it can be ignored because the crew ignore it

 

[lovestotravel]

Now if they could just stop the seat belt sign announcements while I'm sleeping that would be great

 

[SCM]

It is not common sense in any way at all. It simply shows that commercial considerations have been allowed to override safety, and continues to reinforce the idea that seat belts aren’t necessary at all times when seated.

They aren't necessary 99% of the time - they are just born to mitigate risk. Again you and your opinions - first you say the captain should determine when they light up and it was correct, so now it's not correct? So are the pilots no longer determining when to use them? Were they before? But not before this incident?

Seriously, you need to admit that it's not so black and white. What is the definition of safety? What is the risk tolerance? How scientific is any of this? It's all nuance, there is no line in the sand.

 

[jb747]

They aren't necessary 99% of the time - they are just born to mitigate risk.

Got any more made up percentages for us? You have no idea whether they were necessary or not. Last time I looked, there’s no radar or INS data available at your seat, nor do you have the knowledge to interpret it anyway.

Again you and your opinions - first you say the captain should determine when they light up and it was correct, so now it's not correct? So are the pilots no longer determining when to use them? Were they before? But not before this incident?

Well, there’s opinions based on knowledge and experience, and then there’s those based on nothing. I suspect mine comes from the former.

The issue, is NOT whether the signs are turned on or not, but rather whether they are obeyed or not. In the case of some US carriers, they are on excessively, in what seems to be a way of passing the legal liability buck. In any case where people are allowed to move with the signs on, it reinforces the idea that they aren’t necessary. They need to be turned on, only when necessary, but then strictly obeyed.

Seriously, you need to admit that it's not so black and white. What is the definition of safety? What is the risk tolerance? How scientific is any of this? It's all nuance, there is no line in the sand.

It may not be black and white, but that’s up to the experience of the Captain to decide. What, exactly, is your relevant experience?

 

[Mickey Mouse]

It appears some people will always have a hard time with reality & common sense when they conflict with "comfort" or "entitlement"... I'd say the whole subject of seatbelts was a no-brainer but obviously there are people who don't like being told what to do, even when it's clearly in their interest.

Its a pity that when the seatbelt sign was first conceived, it wasn't implemented with two settings: amber and red ... ie
Amber = "Caution, senesible people remain seated and buckled up"
and
Red = "Buckle up now, don't leave your seat" ("... and there will be no meal service for the time being, you clown!")

As jb747 knows, even with the most informed analysis of all of the data at hand (which has improved massively over the decades), there are times when the worst doesn't eventuate. Anyone with a brain should be happy that they didn't cop a rollercoaster, rather than angry that the sign was on longer than they'd have liked (though ... "ignorance is bliss", not having seen what they were lucky enough to have avoided!)

 

[cgichard]

I encountered a shoulder + lap seat-belt for the first time on an A350-900 SQ flight recently. I found it very uncomfortable and hard to adjust, especially when lying flat, perhaps because I've shrunk with age to barely 5ft. Are these seat-belts likely to become more common?

 

[AIRwin]

I encountered a shoulder + lap seat-belt for the first time on an A350-900 SQ flight recently. I found it very uncomfortable and hard to adjust, especially when lying flat, perhaps because I've shrunk with age to barely 5ft. Are these seat-belts likely to become more common?

I thought the sash belt can remain unfastened when lying flat?

 

[cgichard]

I thought the sash belt can remain unfastened when lying flat?

I think that's what I ended up with but I had to ask for cabin crew help to get settled.