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

[Quickstatus]

If it’s safe for Qantas crew to be working

Thats my point, how would the passenger know prefacto

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thats my point, how would the passenger know prefacto

Because other than qantas, if the crew are up and about doing their regular duties, it’s *probably* going to be ok that if you urgently need to use the WC, you can. Crew know the operating procedures for their airline. They’ll be told when it’s ok for them to be working, and when it’s not. Captains shouldn’t be placing their crew in danger.

If crew are told to be seated, then it’s not ok for anyone to be up, for any reason.

 

[SCM]

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...

What exactly can we learn? What is your solution? I agree it is unpredictable, and nobody knows when it will happen, which is why I reiterate once more...

Unless you want to strap everyone in for 100% of the time of the flight, there is nothing to be done - you simply have to accept the risk and get on with living life.

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

It is a necessity whether you like it or not - within the context of the current market, and how much money airlines charge, yes it is a necessity.

There is nothing stopping you or anyone from starting nor petitioning an airline to have no flight attendants, and have everyone forcefully strapped in with a seat belt for the duration of the flight, no meal service, nothing - perfectly 100% safe, however good luck with your business.

 

[jb747]

What exactly can we learn? What is your solution? I agree it is unpredictable, and nobody knows when it will happen, which is why I reiterate once more...

Unless you want to strap everyone in for 100% of the time of the flight, there is nothing to be done - you simply have to accept the risk and get on with living life.

Nobody has suggested strapping people in for 100% of the time. All that is being discussed is the proper use of the seat belts, for all occupants of the aircraft, at any time the risk is deemed high enough to need it. I’d have thought that was pretty simple. It was the system I flew with for 35 years, and my seat belt sign was out for the vast majority of the time. But, when it was on, I meant it.

It is a necessity whether you like it or not - within the context of the current market, and how much money airlines charge, yes it is a necessity.

So, you’re placing a commercial consideration, which is probably more imagined than real, above the safety of the cabin crew (and any passengers they may impact). I don’t see that as a necessity.

There is nothing stopping you or anyone from starting nor petitioning an airline to have no flight attendants, and have everyone forcefully strapped in with a seat belt for the duration of the flight, no meal service, nothing - perfectly 100% safe, however good luck with your business.

And again, who has suggested that?

 

[oz_mark]

There is nothing stopping you or anyone from starting nor petitioning an airline to have no flight attendants, and have everyone forcefully strapped in with a seat belt for the duration of the flight, no meal service, nothing - perfectly 100% safe, however good luck with your business.

But here's a question. What is the primary purpose of the flight attendants?
(The fact that they are legally required to be there might be a hint)

 

[SCM]

Nobody has suggested strapping people in for 100% of the time. All that is being discussed is the proper use of the seat belts, for all occupants of the aircraft, at any time the risk is deemed high enough to need it. I’d have thought that was pretty simple. It was the system I flew with for 35 years, and my seat belt sign was out for the vast majority of the time. But, when it was on, I meant it.

This is all very arbitrary. Who defines what is too much risk? What are the thresholds? Is it personal judgement? Can we get an AI to be an impartial judge? What is the definition of "high enough risk" as well? Obviously SQ doesn't feel like there is equivalence between flight attendants and pax in this context - likely they realise most of the time the seat belts are not needed, but are simply looking for ways to get pax to strap in more often to minimise risk of situations such as what happened - precisely because it is so unpredictable.

So, you’re placing a commercial consideration, which is probably more imagined than real, above the safety of the cabin crew (and any passengers they may impact). I don’t see that as a necessity.

Without commercials being solid and working, there would be no business, there would be no jobs to give to the cabin crew.

And again, who has suggested that?

You are continuously implying it. Will you boycott SQ now that they have updated their policy and you are not happy with it?

But here's a question. What is the primary purpose of the flight attendants?
(The fact that they are legally required to be there might be a hint)

They wear many hats, there is no primary purpose - except perhaps to ensure application of laws pertaining to air travel.

They are legally required to be there - however the ratio of flight attendants differs dramatically between economy vs business vs first class, and that should give you a hint what their business purpose is.

 

[jb747]

This is all very arbitrary. Who defines what is too much risk? What are the thresholds? Is it personal judgement?

The Captain - who is sitting there, looking at the radar, and perhaps watching his coffee being spilt. Yes, it’s his judgment. Who would you like to be the arbiter?

Can we get an AI to be an impartial judge? What is the definition of "high enough risk" as well?

You will, at the same time pilots are replaced. And how exactly would you like to quantify that. As already stated, it’s a prediction, not a measure of G loading. One is in the future, and the other is too late.

Obviously SQ doesn't feel like there is equivalence between flight attendants and pax in this context - likely they realise most of the time the seat belts are not needed, but are simply looking for ways to get pax to strap in more often to minimise risk of situations such as what happened - precisely because it is so unpredictable.

You’re making assumptions as to SQ’s motives without any inside knowledge of their decision making.

What they are doing is teaching people to ignore the signs. They don’t need to be on very often, and cabin crew NEVER need to be doing service whilst they are.

Without commercials being solid and working, there would be no business, there would be no jobs to give to the cabin crew.

Which has absolutely zero to do with any discussion of proper seat belt and sign usage. On the other hand, killing passengers ‘cos the sign isn’t on, or comes on just as you hit the CB, isn’t a good look.

You are continuously implying it.

Not at all, but you know that. What I am saying is that IF the sign is on, then ALL people, must be strapped in.

 

[Quickstatus]

if the crew are up and about doing their regular duties, it’s *probably* going to be ok that if you urgently need to use the WC, you can

If crew are told to be seated, then it’s not ok for anyone to be up, for any reason.

"Probably" is very problematic.
I, as a passenger, can only go by the SB sign - and its binary nature. It would be foolish to assume that the the active SB sign has any intepretation other than "SB on" means everyone without exceptions. No Aviation Regulatory agency in the world differentiate between SB signs for passengers vs crew. Now, the final decision to attach the seat belt rests with the person sitting in the seat. If indeed the loo is more urgent, then that is up to the person to take the risk of disobeying the SB sign. But it cannot be that, passengers/ the airline, require cabin crew to undertake a cabin F&B service despite a SB on sign because there is some element of "necessity" to it. That some airlines use the SB sign in ways that are difficult to understand should not alter that.

Who defines what is too much risk? What are the thresholds? Is it personal judgement? Can we get an AI to be an impartial judge? What is the definition of "high enough risk" as well?

Luckily you paid for a seat on an airplane which has a minimum of 2 pilots + all the technology so that you can, as the captain says: "sit back, relax and enjoy the flight". There is no vote, no grey area and nothing to dispute. Well actually, you can dispute all you want - when the aircraft lands and maybe you will get some FF points and a voucher sent your way in compensation for suspension of cabin service with a clarification that "safety is our first priority" - as per airline business model. After all, that is a lot cheaper than having to pay workers comp or having to divert somewhere because one or more cabin crew or passengers are injured. It is extremely expensive when people are injured on an aircraft - more so if it needs to divert. Cheaper if the operation of the seat belt sign has an overriding safety imperative.

Could you next time tell the aircraft cabin service manager that cabin service is a necessity and that the SB sign should be disabled during cabin service. I wonder how that would go?

 

[SCM]

Not at all, but you know that. What I am saying is that IF the sign is on, then ALL people, must be strapped in.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on most of the things, but to this point - isn't it obvious what SQ has done - which is try and toe a middle ground of risk, in that they are willing to have flight attendants to take marginally more risk in order to deliver the expected amount of service, while still opting to reduce risk in terms of pax due to unexpectedly bad turbulence?

Flight attendants are probably fit and young enough and without serious medical conditions, that even if the worst happens, it's unlikely that they are for instance going to experience a heart attack (or significantly less likely), so the overall risk is far less - whereas with pax, they are unable to make such a risk determination.

Could you next time tell the aircraft cabin service manager that cabin service is a necessity and that the SB sign should be disabled during cabin service. I wonder how that would go?

Well I think people have made that implication, and I think people have complained about the service, and I think that's why SQ has changed their policies, and then I no longer need to be worried about this.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't think we're ever going to agree on most of the things, but to this point - isn't it obvious what SQ has done - which is try and toe a middle ground of risk, in that they are willing to have flight attendants to take marginally more risk in order to deliver the expected amount of service, while still opting to reduce risk in terms of pax due to unexpectedly bad turbulence?

Flight attendants are probably fit and young enough and without serious medical conditions, that even if the worst happens, it's unlikely that they are for instance going to experience a heart attack (or significantly less likely), so the overall risk is far less - whereas with pax, they are unable to make such a risk determination.

I think it’s *almost* right.

If there is any chance of bad turbulence, pax and crew should be seated. Period. Being fit and healthy is not going to stop serious injury when the turbulence is bad,

But the seat belt sign is useful for those who may be unsteady on their feet…. frail, infirm, parents carrying infants. Even a slight bump can be unsettling and enough to put them off balance.

But light bumps are quite usual for experienced cabin crew.

 

[SCM]

I think it’s *almost* right.

If there is any chance of bad turbulence, pax and crew should be seated. Period. Being fit and healthy is not going to stop serious injury when the turbulence is bad,

But the seat belt sign is useful for those who may be unsteady on their feet…. frail, infirm, parents carrying infants. Even a slight bump can be unsettling and enough to put them off balance.

But light bumps are quite usual for experienced cabin crew.

Yours is a philosophical point of view more so than a practical one. Once again - what is the definition of bad turbulence? How can we predict it? I think we can all agree it's not really possible.

My only point here has been that SQ did not get the balance right on their initial overreaction where a very significant part of the flight, service was suspended - and it also causes a lot of stops and starts which is quite comical.

It cannot be that most or a large part of the flight, the service is suspended or it's suspended say 50 times during the flight, that's a completely different travel experience than normal.

I think SQ saw the writing on the fall, and opted to cancel that approach before they got permanent reputational damage.

 

[MooTime]

I'll just add that a sporting phrase may suit here.

"It's a captain's call"

 

[elanshin]

 

[RSD]

I wonder if the captain was in the bunk and the FO didn't read the situation right?

 

[N860CR]

I wonder if the captain was in the bunk and the FO didn't read the situation right?

As in was one pilot on the flight deck? Doesn’t happen. I believe Singapore have at least two captains on these flights. Regardless, rank is likely not a contributing factor

 

[RSD]

As in was one pilot on the flight deck? Doesn’t happen. I believe Singapore have at least two captains on these flights. Regardless, rank is likely not a contributing factor

Not one pilot - was thinking FO and SO on the flight deck - but I don't know how Singapore operate their crews.

 

[jb747]

I wonder if the captain was in the bunk and the FO didn't read the situation right?

Singapore don't leave FOs in charge. Their 'heavy' crews carry an extra Captain and FO, or if you only need 3, then just an extra Captain.

Not one pilot - was thinking FO and SO on the flight deck - but I don't know how Singapore operate their crews.

QF operate that way, but not SQ. In many ways, SQ's FOs are similar to 'landee' SOs. They don't have command endorsements.

 

[jb747]

I completely agree with Woody. They flew into a cell. Radar in automatic, brain in neutral.

For what it's worth, Woody was an instructor at Pearce when I was on Pilots' course. He was then posted to the Empire Test Pilot school, so he's a real Test Pilot (and he's kept that skill alive with technical involvement in ICAO). In QF he retired as a 380 Captain, having also had command on the 767 and 330. You can't get much more knowledge.

 

[Quickstatus]

They flew into a cell

It was afternoon when it occurred and the sun likely just behind them.
I wonder what they saw looking out the window - was the cell below them initially but rapidly rising?, or were the storm cells visible in the window?

Follow on podcast 60min "extra minutes" with Woodward.
The presenter is trying to stir up fear in people....

 

[RSD]

I completely agree with Woody. They flew into a cell. Radar in automatic, brain in neutral.

For what it's worth, Woody was an instructor at Pearce when I was on Pilots' course. He was then posted to the Empire Test Pilot school, so he's a real Test Pilot (and he's kept that skill alive with technical involvement in ICAO). In QF he retired as a 380 Captain, having also had command on the 767 and 330. You can't get much more knowledge.

Seems like it wouldn't have taken a lot of knowledge to have avoided that cell - one would assume that there would have been some radio traffic with aircraft diverting from course to avoid it as well - that should have alerted them enough for them to have a closer look at what was going on.