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

[jb747]

It was afternoon when it occurred and the sun likely just behind them.

They may well have been in cloud. Or it was hidden by cloud. Doesn't matter. That's what radar is for.

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?

You don't fly over baby cells....'cos they grow up very fast. Actually you don't fly over any cells.

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.

Some traffic may have been on data link, so you don't hear that. Calls happen all the time, though, and people filter out anything that doesn't include their callsign. It's more noise than information. There are always storms in that region...you're supposed to be able to work out how not to hit them.

 

[Sprucegoose]

It would be interesting to see if this matter is litigated in the American legal system. Under the Montreal Convention, passengers can choose to pursue claims from their country of residence, destination, or where the airline is domiciled. One suspects the Island State is firming its understanding of what a defence to these allegations may entail.

Corporates are generally slow to process bad news.

 

[RSD]

It would be interesting to see if this matter is litigated in the American legal system. Under the Montreal Convention, passengers can choose to pursue claims from their country of residence, destination, or where the airline is domiciled. One suspects the Island State is firming its understanding of what a defence to these allegations may entail.

Corporates are generally slow to process bad news.

Interesting! Destination as in the destination of the flight - or their final destination?

 

[jpp42]

Interesting! Destination as in the destination of the flight - or their final destination?

The Montreal Convention itself is not applicable to this situation as it has specific limitations to compensation for injury, death, and lost luggage. Perhaps the previous commentator was just referencing it as an example but not a specific instrument for this situation?

Usually for commercial matters what counts is the country where the fare is sold, which if purchased through the airline web sites, is the same as the origin of the itinerary. This could be different if purchased through a travel agent, but in that case, the agency would hold some liability for deceptive sales practices as well.

 

[Quickstatus]

What the plaintiff lawyers and 60minutes understand is that if they were the lawyers and the media advisors for SIA, they and SIA's insurers would instruct SIA to not make any public comment. They also know that until the accident report is published, any legal settlement will not be forthcoming.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What the plaintiff lawyers and 60minutes understand is that if they were the lawyers and the media advisors for SIA, they and SIA's insurers would instruct SIA to not make any public comment. They also know that until the accident report is published, any legal settlement will not be forthcoming.

Accident report or not, the onus is on the carrier to prove it was not negligent, or that the injury was caused solely by a third party.

I don’t know if you have to wait for the report in order to bring your case as the injured party. Injured parties may have immediate and pressing need for compensation.

 

[Quickstatus]

the onus is on the carrier to prove it was not negligen

Actually no. It is the plaintiff's burden to prove the defendant was negligent to whatever thr standard is for civil claims

I don’t know if you have to wait for the report in order to bring your case as the injured party

Yes you do, because you need something to show the defendant was negligent

Injured parties may have immediate and pressing need for compensation.

Agree. And this is problem
Once lawyers and insurers get involved everything grinds to a halt

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Actually no. It is the plaintiff's burden to prove the defendant was negligent to whatever thr standard is for civil claims



Yes you do, because you need something to show the defendant was negligent



Agree. And this is problem
Once lawyers and insurers get involved everything grinds to a halt

ordinarily you’re right. But the Montreal Convention governs the matter here.

There’s two tiers of damages under the convention. A lower strict liability threshold - up to 128k special drawing rights - and a claim in excess of 128k SDRs.

For the airline to avoid liability above 128k SDRs it must prove it was not negligent, or that the injury was caused by a third party. The plaintiff just has to bring a claim against the airline for ‘$x’. If that’s above 128k SDRs the airline must show why it shouldn’t pay.

So the onus of the proof is essentially reversed here… the airline must prove its case, not the other way around.

 

[jpp42]

They also know that until the accident report is published, any legal settlement will not be forthcoming.

Accident reports prepared according to ICAO Annex 13 are "no blame" and are not to be used in court proceedings. This doesn't necessarily mean the plaintiff's lawyers won't try it on, but Singapore is a common law jurisdiction (along with the UK, the origin of the flight), is a full signatory to ICAO, and not particularly plaintiff-friendly in such proceedings, so I doubt it would be accepted as valid evidence.

Also, I can see that Singapore has amended their Air Navigation Act to make this clear: https://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2014 APACAIG2/APAC AIG 2 - Agenda Item 2 - IP08 - Protection of Safety Information in Singapore.pdf . The only exception where such information might be allowed in court is in a criminal case.

So I don't think the release date of the report necessarily impacts much in terms of civil damage proceedings, those will need to proceed on their own separate evidence. Also, Singapore has a doctrine of proportionate liability, which will reduce damages based on the proportion that the plaintiff is considered to have contributed to the injury. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out with passengers who were injured despite knowing they were taking a risk by not having their seat belt fastened while seated.

Edit: previous commentator points out that the Montreal Convention applies, which can change a lot of things (as a result, perhaps UK law could apply as well as Singapore). That might be problematic for SIA in terms of trying to use proportionate liability to reduce their damages.

 

[Quickstatus]

So I don't think the release date of the report necessarily impacts much in terms of civil damage proceedings

Interesting thank you.
In any case the Accident report will inform parties on how to proceed.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interesting thank you.
In any case the Accident report will inform parties on how to proceed.

Parties don't have to wait for the accident report to come out. It could be years before that happens and the parties may well wish to start their claims before that to make sure that they're within the statue of limitations for the convention.

I'm not sure that an airline can say it is waiting for an accident report to delay proceedings.

 

[Quickstatus]

Parties don't have to wait for the accident report to come out. It could be years before that happens

They dont need to wait, but even the Montreal convention allows the airline to provide any evidence in it's favour

Whats unclear to me is whether the plaintiffs have made a claim. I don't know who got 60min involved. Possibly the plaintiff?. It is interesting there was no mention of a legal claim. Maybe that is being done outside of the public commentart