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

[drron]

The sash is only needed for take off and landing.

 

[Quickstatus]

. Are these seat-belts likely to become more common?

More common in F, J classes where there are front seats to brace against
For example the QF A380 F has lap sash belts (or so called 3 point seat belts)
Some even have airbags in the seat belt

 

[cgichard]

The sash is only needed for take off and landing.

I wish that had been made clear to me.

 

[lovestotravel]

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?

Ah, the good old regional/medium haul A350 with the small business seats....

 

[bcworld]

Ah, the good old regional/medium haul A350 with the small business seats....

This is considered a long haul product on most other airlines. I'd take it over the back/bum breaking A380 seat any day!

 

[Cynicor]

Truly don’t get the complaints about SQ regional J, and I fly it a bit. Of course sash off when flat or it would be terrible

 

[SCM]

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.

How is it made up? Unless you are constantly experiencing turbulence that will injure you, by definition the seat-belt was not necessary - it was a precaution, but it turned out not to be needed.

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

So who has more experience here, SQ or you? You were quick to jump to their defense when they over-reacting with their constantly going on seat-belt signs, but now you don't agree with them? Is it that you are always right and everyone else wrong?

 

[Quickstatus]

it was a precaution, but it turned out not to be needed.

Hindsight is always right post facto isnt it?. Problem is you dont know pre facto?

 

[Happy Trails]

I had both ends of the spectrum last month on an Eva flight.
Seat belt sign stayed for about three hours after departure and was totally ignored by passengers and cabin crew.
I mentioned it, conversationally, to an FA who didnt seem too concerned and coincidence I'm sure, but it was turned off shortly after.
It came on twice more toward the end of the flight, but now with strict Qantas-style admonitions for all to be seated and belted and service suspended.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The problem is no middle ground.

Conditions for experienced crew to work through may not be suitable for frail grandpa, or parent walking the aisle to sooth an infant, or for someone to be taking heavy items from a locker.

How to resolve that?

Most airlines seem to do it by using the seatbelt sign as ‘caution’, and ‘crew be seated’ as the absolute.

 

[SCM]

Hindsight is always right post facto isnt it?. Problem is you dont know pre facto?

They have survived and thrived in business for decades without it, so I think it's pretty obvious that it wasn't needed - it was just done to placate media.

 

[Quickstatus]

it, so I think it's pretty obvious that it wasn't needed

People get injured every year on airplanes due to turbulence. This is not a one off occurence. You dont know when the next one is going to occur. When you do let us know

 

[jb747]

Hindsight is always right post facto isnt it?. Problem is you dont know pre facto?

This is similar to the fuel policy of many airlines, using historic data to predict a future flight. You didn't need extra yesterday, so you won't need it today. If you could predict these things, then you'd be able to carry exactly the right fuel load for the engines to self extinguish as you parked at the gate. The pilots' use of the seat belt sign is always a prediction, but it's hopefully a prediction based upon knowledge. Allowing people to move around simply devalues the signs, and leads to people with no specific knowledge at all, assuming that they do. As for whether I know more about weather than SQ, well, I probably know more about it than their commercial department. I also managed to transit a lot of weather without anyone ever kissing the roof, or having overly long between toilet breaks. Or having to ignore the signs. There's a balance, which is not hard to achieve.

 

[SCM]

People get injured every year on airplanes due to turbulence. This is not a one off occurence. You dont know when the next one is going to occur. When you do let us know

Thank you for making my point - nobody knows, which is why such overreactions are not going to help anyone.

 

[Quickstatus]

nobody knows

Wrong. It is well known as there is unquestionable data out there not including SQ321.

I repeat, the problem is that you dont know when its going to happen. But everyone know it is going to happen again - just not when. Versions of SQ321 are repeated from time to time. Something about not learning from history and making the same mistake again comes to mind...

There's a balance, which is not hard to achieve.

Yes Balance in favour of safety rather than in favour of some other metric

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Wrong. It is well known as there is unquestionable data out there not including SQ321.

I repeat, the problem is that you dont know when its going to happen. But everyone know it is going to happen again - just not when. Versions of SQ321 are repeated from time to time. Something about not learning from history and making the same mistake again comes to mind...

It might be the case that it’s just not possible to mitigate the risk, in any meaningful way.

We’d literally have to follow the US carriers with seatbelt sign on for the entire flight, and no one allowed to move.

These incidents do occur, and hopefully lessons learned. If there were lessons from previous incidents that SQ didn’t follow - or any airline doesn’t follow - that warrants investigation. But if all the rules were followed, how much more can we do? (and still have a reasonably comfortable flight)

 

[Quickstatus]

But if all the rules were followed, how much more can we do? (and still have a reasonably comfortable flight)

Actually this is not about the rules (except to obey the SB sign. Its seems to be about

1) how passengers are able to conclude without any data or objective information, that if the SB sign is on and nothing happens, that it was not required in the first place.

2) that cabin service is a necessity that somehow overrides any crew safety considerations.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Actually this is not about the rules (except to obey the SB sign. Its seems to be about

1) how passengers are able to conclude without any data or objective information, that if the SB sign is on and nothing happens, that it was not required in the first place.

2) that cabin service is a necessity that somehow overrides any crew safety considerations.

But that’s the thing… there’s two elements to safety here. 1: conditions where it is fine for experienced crew to operate, but *may* be difficult for elderly or others to walk around confidently, and 2: actual physical danger.

In 1, Qantas wouldn’t even turn in the sign. But most others carriers will. To protect those who might get thrown off balance.

 

[Quickstatus]

may* be difficult for elderly to walk around confidently, and 2: actual physical danger.

Hmm, we can always find the edge case.
However hitting the roof is actually not dependent on age. Neither is the SB rule. Newtons first Law of Motion is independent of a person's age or agility. . I think SQ321 was not limited to a certain bracket.

The fact remains that (i think I posted a link previously) that cabin crew injuries remain significant. I dont think its because cebin crew are elderly

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Hmm, we can always find the edge case.
However hitting the roof is actually not dependent on age. Neither is the SB rule. Newtons first Law of Motion is independent of a person's age or agility. . I think SQ321 was not limited to a certain bracket.

Exact same conditions of light chop or the occasional bump… Qantas doesn’t even put the sign on, but other airlines do.

If it’s safe for Qantas crew to be working, isn’t it safe for crew on other airlines too?

99% percent of airlines use the SB was a cautionary indicator. Something potentially serious is usually indicated by ‘crew be seated’.