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

[fly2earth]

Wow, some photos here

Brit granddad, 73, who died of a heart attack in turbulence was on dream holiday

A BRITISH granddad who died of a heart attack in horror Singapore Airlines turbulence was on a dream holiday with his wife, it’s been revealed. Geoff Kitchen, 73, died of a heart attack after…

www.thesun.co.uk

I wonder if the one person was elderly and died from a heart attack perhaps due to the circumstances or they were just caught out without a seat-belt and it was so severe & that person got very unlucky in terms of their injuries.

Anytime there is severe turbulence without a heads up it's very dangerous, but a fatality? Is this the first fatality on SQ in the modern era?

Singapore Airlines plane 'fell 6,000 ft in three minutes' - flight data​

Would definitely die of a heart attack too as I haven't been on a roller coaster in over 20 years

 

[I love to travel]

Singapore Airlines plane 'fell 6,000 ft in three minutes' - flight data​

Would definitely die of a heart attack too as I haven't been on a roller coaster in over 20 years

For the pilots why would it have dropped that much during turbulence? @AviatorInsight @jb747

 

[Peanutbladder]

I hate

Yes I was just about to post that flying over the Bay of Bengal is the part of flying that I hate the most. Always make sure I have been to the toilet before reaching it.

I was in Vizag last week and they were advising that a very deep low had formed over the Bay of Bengal and were expecting the monsoon to start early, so I suspect it maybe a contributing factor

 

[dajop]

Singapore Airlines plane 'fell 6,000 ft in three minutes' - flight data​

Would definitely die of a heart attack too as I haven't been on a roller coaster in over 20 years

One for the pilots, would that be a controlled descent after hitting the turbulence? 6000ft in three minutes doesn’t sound like falling to me, seems not inconsistent with what can be seen on FlightAware following start of descent in normal circumstances.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Singapore Airlines plane 'fell 6,000 ft in three minutes' - flight data​

Would definitely die of a heart attack too as I haven't been on a roller coaster in over 20 years

Isn’t that like within the normal rate of descent for aircraft?

 

[fly2earth]

I hypothesise SQ's share price will fall as people stop paying a premium on their ticket (aka insurance taxes) for their no fatality track record that makes us think taking SQ is a "guarantee" of a safe flight if anything. And switch to another just-as-safe airline.

However SQ is too big to fail and the SIN government will keep them in business even if it has the track record of Malaysian Airlines/Air Asia or the like.

 

[33kft]

for their no fatality track record

uhm, I hate to break it to you....

 

[bcworld]

I hypothesise SQ's share price will fall as people stop paying a premium on their ticket (aka insurance taxes) for their no fatality track record that makes us think taking SQ is a "guarantee" of a safe flight if anything. And switch to another just-as-safe airline. However SQ is too big to fail and the SIN government will keep them in business even if it has the track record of Malaysian Airlines/Air Asia or the like.

What no fatality track record? How often do you reset the clock??

 

[fly2earth]

uhm, I hate to break it to you....

Sorry to be the bearer awkward news (breaks awkward silence)

 

[bcworld]

Sorry to be the bearer awkward news (breaks awkward silence)

I'm not sure you're a big follower of news!

 

[kpc]

uhm, I hate to break it to you....

SQ006 and MI185 off the top of my head!

 

[fly2earth]

SQ006 and MI185 off the top of my head!

I actually had to google that up

31 October 2000 – Singapore Airlines Flight 006, a Boeing 747-400, attempted to take off on the wrong runway...It collided with the construction equipment that was parked on a closed runway, killing 83 of the 179 onboard and injuring a further 71 people. This was the first fatal accident involving a Singapore Airlines aircraft. The aircraft 9V-SPK was painted in a "Tropical" promotional livery at the time of the accident. The only other aircraft painted with the promotional livery, another 747-400 registered 9V-SPL, was immediately removed from service and repainted with standard Singapore Airlines livery.


EDIT: How in the world do you attempt to take off on a wrong runway and collide with an immobile construction equipment is beyond my imagination

 

[hutch]

I hypothesise SQ's share price will fall as people stop paying a premium on their ticket (aka insurance taxes) for their no fatality track record that makes us think taking SQ is a "guarantee" of a safe flight if anything. And switch to another just-as-safe airline.

However SQ is too big to fail and the SIN government will keep them in business even if it has the track record of Malaysian Airlines/Air Asia or the like.

Let me know when you find an airline that doesn't experience turbulence.

 

[fly2earth]

Let me know when you find an airline that doesn't experience turbulence.

You don't know the premium people will pay to fly a failsafe airline. Call me old fashioned but an insurance is still an insurance even if it provides marginal safety benefits as long as you buy into the belief that it works. Same reasoning for flying Qantas a more established airline over with a proven safety factor regardless of their cost and service as opposed to other budget carriers priced just a little bit lower.

 

[I love to travel]

You don't know the premium people will pay to fly a failsafe airline. Call me old fashioned but an insurance is still an insurance even if it provides marginal safety benefits as long as you buy into the belief that it works.

I cannot honestly believe that people will stop flying SIA because of this. Hopefully put on their seatbelts will be an outcome for some.

 

[bcworld]

You don't know the premium people will pay to fly a failsafe airline. Call me old fashioned but an insurance is still an insurance even if it provides marginal safety benefits as long as you buy into the belief that it works.

There are no failsafe airlines.

 

[fly2earth]

There are no failsafe airlines.

Well I happily pay the $50 safety tax to fly Qantas on the golden triangle. SIA would have t drop their fares by $200-300 return versus the same amount given all other conditions are the same in order for me to rebook with them versus other carriers given all the other variables remain constant.

 

[hutch]

You don't know the premium people will pay to fly a failsafe airline. Call me old fashioned but an insurance is still an insurance even if it provides marginal safety benefits as long as you buy into the belief that it works. Same reasoning for flying Qantas a more established airline over with a proven safety factor regardless of their cost and service as opposed to other budget carriers priced just a little bit lower.

Reality is, something like this, is quickly out of the news cycle. It's not a whole jet going down or missing...

As for people paying premiums only for failsafe airlines... It didn't stop them flying SQ before this, or Emirates, or JAL...

 

[kpc]

One passenger told Reuters the aircraft had begun “tilting up and there was shaking”.

“So I started bracing for what was happening, and very suddenly there was a very dramatic drop,” 28-year-old Dzafran Azmir said.

“So everyone seated and not wearing seatbelt was launched immediately into the ceiling.

“Some people hit their heads on the baggage cabins overhead and dented it, they hit the places where lights and masks are and broke straight through it.”

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/one-dead-after-singapore-airlines-flight-from-london-hits-heavy-turbulence/news-story/18a7833184e645deb85c61e18eca84a7

 

[bcworld]

Well I happily pay the $50 safety tax to fly Qantas on the golden triangle. SIA would have t drop their fares by $200-300 return versus the same amount given all other conditions are the same in order for me to rebook with them versus other carriers given all the other variables remain constant.

But Qantas had an incident with an A330 off WA when the aircraft went into an uncommanded descent and passengers went through the ceiling. Does the pure good fortune that no one was killed render them "failsafe"?