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

[Quickstatus]

As usual social media now replete with their favourite clickbait "plunged 6000 feet".

 

[MediumToast]

CNA reporting 73 year old British male was one of the deceased. Given reports of a defib being used, possible it may be the stress of event caused cardiac etc.

Probably died from the stress of reading the off-topic argument in this thread

 

[encryptededdy]

On the subjects of seatbelts in lie-flat seats, I really do prefer seat designs which have a seperate self-retracting, auto-locking seatbelt for when you're lying down. Much easier to have it tight whilst still being able to twist and turn in bed.

I'm specifically thinking of the seatbelt on the Finnair Airlounge seat and the ANA The Room seat. I think the SQ Long Haul Business seat has one too

OMG....never heard of a fatality due to turbulence before!!

I've read about it happening before in business jets (which are of course more affected by turbulence), but I've certainly not heard about a death in large commercial aircraft before.

Happened over the Bay of Bengal. I’ve experienced very bad turbulence that lasted close to an hour that was pretty unbearable. I can’t imagine though what it must’ve been like on this flight.

Agreed that area is really bad for turbulence. I find the area south of Tokyo is also very bad (last ~45min of flight from AU or NZ to Tokyo). In fact some JAL flight attendants were injured due to turbulence 150km from Narita not too long ago Four JAL Flight Attendants Injured Apparently Due to Turbulence at Altitude of 5,200 Meters En Route from Melbourne to Narita

 

[Mattg]

This is very sad for the loved ones of the deceased.

A good reminder to always wear a seatbelt when seated.

Well no normal person would be googling this kind of statistics unless it were presented directly to them. Hence the only source for me was from Air Crash Investigations from Nat Geo. Those were definitely prime time material still remember it to this day (rest of the TV channels are dead on any given day)

It might be better not to post such strong statements on a public forum about a topic you’re not informed about.

 

[bcworld]

Well no normal person would be googling this kind of statistics unless it were presented directly to them. Hence the only source for me was from Air Crash Investigations from Nat Geo. Those were definitely prime time material still remember it to this day (rest of the TV channels are dead on any given day)

And yet it seems you didn't pay attention to that either...because they did episodes on all 3 incidents you seem to have been completely unaware of based on your ramblings in this thread.

 

[fly2earth]

And yet it seems you didn't pay attention to that either...because they did episodes on all 3 incidents you seem to have been completely unaware of based on your ramblings in this thread.

As you can tell it has been 10 years since I last watched TV. I do remember the footages but not the specific airlines that it represents cause I have no reason to back then because I only fly a select few airlines so no other airlines register with me unless it is something that everyone else knows about. Only the major ones from the past few years came to my mind (the trans-Tasman flight) and the major ones OZ SFO and the two MH ones. The typical ones that everyone knows/hears about. Shocked to hear that the SQ event happened this century too and with 80 fatalities not sure how I missed up on that. The only reason I would choose SQ over other Asian airlines is probably their safety record without it it is interchangeable with CX/ANA/JAL and the likes. All fits the same purpose.

 

[GarrettM]

I actually had to google that up



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

Wrong Turn at Taipei: The crash of Singapore Airlines flight 006

How human flaws and a dangerous airport layout sent a Boeing 747 hurtling down a runway that was closed for construction.

admiralcloudberg.medium.com

 

[Kangol]

Geez, that's one hell of a belting. Imagine F with all that Krug dripping from the ceiling,

The caviar being smeared all over the walls would be even worse.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Here is my guess on the events that happened. Nothing is confirmed and as usual I will wait for the final investigation report.

Aircraft was flying around the Bay of Bengal. Around this time of the year the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) moves North. This is essentially the monsoon season that “shifts” north of Australia.

This zone can bring some very nasty weather and turbulence associated with it.

Looking at their FR24 data there’s a blip at about 07:50Z where they reached 37,275ft and then dropped again to 36,975ft. 10mins later it changes its heading (presumably for BKK) and descends (controllably) to 31,000ft at a rate of about 2,000fpm.

The masks dropping are not the most secure panels in the plane. Probably for good reason too . The same thing can be seen on a harder landing too.

This is a good reminder that if it’s good enough for the pilots to keep their seatbelts fastened whilst seated, it’s good enough for passengers too.

 

[Blackadder]

Singapore Airlines hits clear air turbulence.

• A 73-year-old British man has died after a flight from London to Singapore hit turbulence, forcing it to make an emergency landing in Bangkok, Thailand.
• A student on board the plane said there was a "very dramatic drop", which launched some people into the ceiling and knocked their heads on the baggage cabins overhead.
• What's next? Singapore Airlines said 18 people were hospitalised, including a crew member, with DFAT confirming eight Australians among them.
  

 

[GarrettM]

Geoffrey Thomas says severe turbulence has increased by 55% over the past 40 years because of climate change. Obviously the BoB is a bit of a hot spot.

Questioned how the on board radar didn't pick up the severity of the storm involved, and why the pilots couldn't get around it.

 

[Mattg]

This is a good reminder that if it’s good enough for the pilots to keep their seatbelts fastened whilst seated, it’s good enough for passengers too.

Some passengers have said that the seatbelt sign was on during the incident. It does make me wonder how long the sign had been on for prior to this.

If it was less than a minute or two, I wonder why the pilots didn't see the horrible weather coming?

And if it was more than a minute or two, I wonder why so many passengers and crew were out of their seats and/or not wearing a seatbelt.

 

[zultan]

[Update 4]
Singapore Airlines (SIA) confirms that 131 passengers and 12 crew members who were on board SQ321 arrived in Singapore via a relief flight on 22 May 2024 at 0505hrs (Singapore Time). They were received upon their arrival at Singapore Changi Airport by Mr Goh Choon Phong, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Singapore Airlines.
Transportation to their homes or hotel accommodation has been arranged for passengers travelling to Singapore.
For passengers with onward connections, we have rebooked them on alternative flights. We have also arranged hotel accommodation or lounge access for them to rest until their next flight.
Singapore Airlines can confirm that one passenger who was on board SQ321 died during the incident.
As of 0505hrs on 22 May 2024, another 79 passengers and six crew members from SQ321 remain in Bangkok. This includes those receiving medical care, as well as their family members and loved ones who were on the flight.
A dedicated SIA team from Singapore is in Bangkok to assist our colleagues and the local authorities. We are providing all possible support to the passengers and crew from SQ321 who remain in Bangkok.
Mr Goh Choon Phong, CEO, Singapore Airlines, said: “On behalf of Singapore Airlines, I would like to express my deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of the deceased passenger. We also deeply apologise for the trauma experienced by all passengers and crew members on this flight. We are providing all possible assistance and support to them, along with their families and loved ones, during this difficult time. The well-being of our passengers and staff is our utmost priority.”

 

[Blackadder]

Wonder how many of the injured had their seat belts on?

 

[anat0l]

Geez, that's one hell of a belting. Imagine F with all that Krug dripping from the ceiling,

Better it drip from the ceiling than being hit by the bottle.

What I mean is I would happily pay $50 for a "safer" airline given with a good safety track record. I mean it is the most rational choice as opposed to a more budget-conscious choice which is also rational considering which variable you value more: safety versus money? I would trust a company that is too big to fail to take all precautions from these types of situations happening. As for other companies that could dissolve any minute probably less so.

I think it's hard to argue that this situation could have been better handled by almost any other airline.

Sure, we can comment post facto easily... i.e. of course you should have never flown through that area with the weather they had there. Even easier to say so when you're not a pilot or aviator yourself.

In a lot of cases, a good aviation culture is somewhat taking precautions but more responding to adverse incidents effectively. The latter seems what a lot of pilot simulator trainings are for.

No point speculating. Seatbelts help but they won't save you from a 7kg backpack to the head if someone else has stood up and is getting their bag out at the wrong time.

Sending best to the passengers, I'm sure it has been a very traumatic experience, most of all for the relatives of the deceased.

And that's if the backpack was actually 7 kg. We all know that the average weight is likely more than that (some are probably as heavy as checked bags).

Let's be honest, nearly no average person can take a 7 kg conk on the head without some damage.

Geoffrey Thomas says severe turbulence has increased by 55% over the past 40 years because of climate change. Obviously the BoB is a bit of a hot spot.

Questioned how the on board radar didn't pick up the severity of the storm involved, and why the pilots couldn't get around it.

I thought I read in the "Ask a Pilot" thread once that radars detect weather and storm cells but it doesn't really give a strong indication of how bad that weather region might be in terms of turbulence. You could fly through stormy weather and be relatively fine, whereas another area (which may not have storms) is quite choppy. And then there's an argument for how long the turbulence could be (you might be fine taking a bit of chop for 2 minutes, as opposed to something that might be more sustained).

I thought I remember reading that turbulence (and/or avoiding the hot zones) tends to be more from listening to other pilot reports than just relying on the weather radar alone. You could take the cautious approach and never fly through any stormy areas, but I suspect that would be impractical, and I don't think this would avoid any turbulence at all, even bad ones like this.

Then there's the whole inertia in requesting a change in the flight path. The pilots would have had to have been very convinced that this was a really bad idea before requesting to change course, rather than plough through (or rather change course only once they realised how bad the weather really was). Sure, this time, it was likely the wrong decision, and the pilots may well be paying for this with their careers or their lives.

 

[MediumToast]

We have also arranged hotel accommodation or lounge access for them to rest until their next flight.

I wonder which lounge(s) they'll be treated to?

 

[jb747]

Flightradar has a granular trace of the aircraft data.

1 dead, dozens injured in SQ321 turbulence | Flightradar24 Blog

1 person died and dozens were injured when Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 experienced turbulence near Thailand.

www.flightradar24.com

By my reckoning, it would have been daylight. Weather in that part of the world can be interesting, but never really all that difficult to avoid. The FR item referenced above shows a couple of weather cells in the vicinity, but not large. Should have been quite clear on the radar, if it was on an appropriate scale, and mode.

There is NO SUCH THING as an air pocket. It’s an invention of the lazy journalist. A 6,000 foot descent in 3 or so minutes is simply a normal descent. You can do that in a minute if you’re keen. This descent is part of the diversion and has nothing to do with the event.

SQ do not have as rigid a seat belt policy as QF. That means that crew may still be wandering around, and actually serving, whilst the sign is on. Crazy.

The FR data shows that the aircraft did not lose any height at all, but basically climbed a couple of hundred feet. There are two downward pulses, but no way of telling whether they were weather, autopilot, or pilot, induced.

We have no G data, but it’s safe to assume that the aircraft went at least slightly negative. That’s what puts people on the roof. But the recovery from that will almost certainly be nudging 2g, so your fall back to the floor region won’t be with the normal gravity we’re associated with. A fall of a meter or so at 2g would not be anything like tripping over in your garden….and we know how many people are hurt at home by simple falls.

Someone mentioned the turbulence that you almost always experience near Tokyo. That’s CAT (clear air turbulence). Generally uncomfortable, but not what will have been at play here.

 

[zultan]

I think it's hard to argue that this situation could have been better handled by almost any other airline.

Anecdotally, I always found BA/Qantas to be a bit more reassuring when it came to turbulence. Captain would announce that they'd become aware of rough air ahead and they'd be changing route accordingly, whereas SA cabin crew would tell you "Captain has turned on the seatbelt sign" and you'd bounce through it.

 

[Berlin]

Reminds me why I (almost) always adhere to the seatbelt signs and in the rare cases when it surprises you while on the loo, I rush as much as possible back to the seat to get strapped in. Why do I say "almost" always? Because there are certain cry wolf airlines out there, almost exclusively in the US and China. They are the only ones from experience where pilots really "forget" to switch off the sign and as a result, everyone just ignores it and no one seems to care.

But outside these two geographies, I find these warnings used responsibly and it's usually for a reason. On SQ or QF, if that sign is on, you know that you better be strapped tightly into your seat!

 

[SeatBackForward]

No point speculating. Seatbelts help but they won't save you from a 7kg backpack to the head if someone else has stood up and is getting their bag out at the wrong time.

From the few photos made available, it looks like the overhead bins did their job!