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

[RooFlyer]

90 mins in on SQ228 and we have just broken through clouds at 10,000m and have had light to moderate chop most of the time. Now calm, seat belt sign still on but they have allowed a couple of pax urgent toilet runs.

5 mins into calm and a now pax are getting edgy. A PA call to remain seated.

 

[Quickstatus]

shift in gravitational force

What are the accelerometers on aircraft like this?
The report uses incorrect terminology though - there is no change in gravitational force under any circumstances.

So basically they flew in the air for 4-4.6 seconds

Not necessarily. It depends the time duration where G is zero or negative.
G is not a force but actually acceleration.
1G = 9.8m/s2

 

[drron]

Richard de Crespigny on 7 news tonight saying the 777 was close to breaking up in this event.

 

[Berlin]

It always amazes me how often some people have to go to the loo immeditely they are in the air. The toilets at most irports are better than those on the plane. We always go before we board.

I’m one of those guilty of enjoying more than my fare share of alcoholic beverages which tends to induce the need for the loo.

But I hear heavy tea drinkers have similar problems and there’s also plenty of health conditions that can make people needing to p€€ more frequently. And of course there’s also people who are dead scared of flying and being nervous can also lead to an urge to see the toilet.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And - no surprise - no mention of ‘plummeting two kilometres’ or ‘plunging 6000 feet’.

Actually news.com(.au)… of all publications!… printed the details of the initial investigation and at the end of the article said the pilots then began a controlled descent over 6000 feet. Going on to say ‘it was initially reported the 6000 feet drop had caused the injury’.

So they acknowledged they got it wrong!

 

[Quickstatus]

Richard de Crespigny

May have forgotten about China airlines 006 (747-SP) which actually did mid air aerobatics - invert/dives for about 3 minutes and lost 30,000 feet in altitude . Vertical acceleration estimated to be 5.1G at one stage (page 12 of report). Some bits of the horizontal stabiliser fell off and the wings were bent but otherwise the airframe survived. At one stage descended 10,000 feet in 30 seconds - pitch angle up to 68deg nose down

 

[JohnM]

Actually news.com(.au)… of all publications!… printed the details of the initial investigation and at the end of the article said the pilots then began a controlled descent over 6000 feet. Going on to say ‘it was initially reported the 6000 feet drop had caused the injury’.

So they acknowledged they got it wrong!

I haven't seen any acknowledgement from The Conversation that their Science Editor got it wrong (Newsletter 23 May).

But, hey, how could they admit to making an error against the backdrop of their self-proclaimed and supercilious 'Academic Rigour, Journalistic Flair' mantra?

They were the ones to turn a clumsy MSM 6000 feet (BTW, the conventional measure of aviation altitude), mere 'plunge' into arguably an emotively more terrifying two kilometre (and I'm sure an attempt at the much more sophisticated and academic-sounding multi-syllable) 'plummeting'.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a (ret) well-published research scientist who's been around academics all my working life and has edited a scientific journal.

I know academic rigour when I see it - and also, often sadly, journalistic 'flair' when it goes (oh, so easily and commonly) off the rails...

Disgraceful stuff.

 

[jb747]

RdC’s concern would be based on the negative g figure, not the positive. There is nominally a 50% margin from the normal limit, to the point where damage is an issue, but the sort of damage isn’t really defined. It could be anything from permanent deformation to outright failure. Aircraft weight is also a factor. Whilst they aren’t normally expressed as positive and negative lift limits, that is what they are, at least as far as the wing structure is concerned.

 

[bcworld]

So they acknowledged they got it wrong!

They didn't get it wrong. The deliberately ran with that line for 2-3 days.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

They didn't get it wrong. The deliberately ran with that line for 2-3 days.

Well… I think they actually believed that was the case. But it was good of them to acknowledge they got it wrong!

 

[elanshin]

It always amazes me how often some people have to go to the loo immeditely they are in the air. The toilets at most irports are better than those on the plane. We always go before we board.

Wouldn't apply for SQ228 but I've definitely been busting once as I boarded at SIN. It can get pretty bad if there's a delay past the security gates since last I checked they didn't have toilets in the secure boarding area. I think i was waiting there 45mins and was of one mind to ask to go back out into the terminal.

 

[Berlin]

Wouldn't apply for SQ228 but I've definitely been busting once as I boarded at SIN. It can get pretty bad if there's a delay past the security gates since last I checked they didn't have toilets in the secure boarding area. I think i was waiting there 45mins and was of one mind to ask to go back out into the terminal.

Good point- I hadn’t even thought of that! There’s quite a few airports around where you can’t get to the loo past the security. I believe some gates in Changi have a separate “emergency” toilet inside the secure area but many don’t.

 

[drron]

Boy if i visit the throne room within an hour i don't have to visit it again in an 8 -9 hour flight plus up to an hour to get to the hotel. We used to have a name for those sort of bladders.

 

[bcworld]

Well… I think they actually believed that was the case.

I think that's very charitable of you!

 

[jb747]

Boy if i visit the throne room within an hour i don't have to visit it again in an 8 -9 hour flight plus up to an hour to get to the hotel. We used to have a name for those sort of bladders.

Yeh…a young person’s.

 

[Comoman]

Good point- I hadn’t even thought of that! There’s quite a few airports around where you can’t get to the loo past the security. I believe some gates in Changi have a separate “emergency” toilet inside the secure area but many don’t.

Most don’t have toilets - in T3 only A1-8 and B1- 4 (which each is one large holding area) have toilets etc.

 

[fly2earth]

Boy if i visit the throne room within an hour i don't have to visit it again in an 8 -9 hour flight plus up to an hour to get to the hotel. We used to have a name for those sort of bladders.

The only time in my life where I have been misled by Google, Siri, and chatgpt (Someone call the Dr)

 

[Berlin]

Most don’t have toilets - in T3 only A1-8 and B1- 4 (which each is one large holding area) have toilets etc.

Ah yes. I think the former is what I call the “Aussie cage” around midnight because all the overnight flights to Australia tend to go from there

 

[jase05]

SQ offering US$10k for minor injuries as starters

Singapore Airlines offers $10,000 compensation to those injured in turbulence flight | Singapore | The Guardian

The airline has said that anyone who sustained serious injuries on SQ321 last month could be entitled to a larger payment

amp.theguardian.com

 

[I love to travel]

SQ offering US$10k for minor injuries as starters

Singapore Airlines offers $10,000 compensation to those injured in turbulence flight | Singapore | The Guardian

The airline has said that anyone who sustained serious injuries on SQ321 last month could be entitled to a larger payment

amp.theguardian.com

Kudos to them for the way they have handled this.