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

 

[jb747]

I wonder where the proof, either way, will come from. Aircraft radar data isn’t recorded, and whilst it’s all well and good for Woody and me to say they flew into a cell, that hardly constitutes proof. The accident report may well say that it was a possible, or even likely cause, but they deal with facts, and the only fact that isn’t open to contention is that it was weather related.

 

[Sprucegoose]

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

Thailand has ratified the Montreal Convention - therefore claimants can use the Thai legal system for compensation as they can utilise the UK and Singapore legal systems being the originator of the flight/destination and domicile of Singapore Airlines. I believe they can also use the territory where the contract was made - this will be driven by the facts. Tickets purchased in the USA and Australia could be considered Isupposedly.

This is not legal advice.

 

[Sprucegoose]

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

Both, but Singapore due to SIA’s domicile, plus where the travel contract was made (where was the ticket purchased?) and the place of the accident - Thailand

That might be problematic for SIA in terms of trying to use proportionate liability to reduce their damages

SIA have apologised for the incident and offered compensation to their passengers.

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

SIA is currently hoping to settle the matter - see above

I don't know who got 60min involved

60 minutes did. They’re in the business of increasing advertising revenue through running stories people like to watch.

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

SIA has commenced settling claims by making offers and apologising to those affected. I don't believe there is any doubt as to who is at fault; however, some affected pax may deem the level of compensation inadequate. Proportionate liability and other legal matters that cannot be agreed upon may be pursued in a legal jurisdiction and possibly outside the Montreal Convention. There are settlements around the world every day of the week.

 

[Quickstatus]

There are settlements every day of the week around the world.

Which are outside the court. Any disagreement can then be litigated in the court within the 4 corners of any umbrella scheme incl Montreal convention

60min did - not my question. Did the plaintiff go to 60min who then decided it was worth a story?. Maybe to push the issue along to quicker resolution?. Im not there yet re degree of liability (fault). Ill wait for the acccident report though I think SIA does carry significant liability. 60min is not an accident report.

There was other aircrafts who also flew through red cell (and ignored by 60min) while Woodward only concentrated in the one which SQ flew through. The suggestion of the video was that other aircraft (except for H9890 A320 who was the only aircraft to avoid all the weather altogether ) avoided the cell that SQ flew through and that SQ should have done the same but ignored the fact they too flew through cells in their path. A B737 (BG388) , B777 (LX181), A359 (AY131) flew through much the same weather possible worse if you believe the red cells



In settlements both parties can be liable and liability can also be mitigated by various factors. It also can't be assumed that settlements mean one party has admitted 100% liability. They can agree or disagree on liability and agree or disagree on the amount of damages - under whatever legal theory both sides agree to use.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Which are outside the court. Any disagreement can then be litigated in the court within the 4 corners of any umbrella scheme incl Montreal convention

60min did - not my question. Did the plaintiff go to 60min who then decided it was worth a story?. Maybe to push the issue along to quicker resolution?. Im not there yet re degree of liability (fault). Ill wait for the acccident report though I think SIA does carry significant liability. 60min is not an accident report.

There was other aircrafts who also flew through red cell (and ignored by 60min) while Woodward only concentrated in the one which SQ flew through. The suggestion of the video was that other aircraft (except for H9890 A320 who was the only aircraft to avoid all the weather altogether ) avoided the cell that SQ flew through and that SQ should have done the same but ignored the fact they too flew through cells in their path. A B737 (BG388) , B777 (LX181), A359 (AY131) flew through much the same weather possible worse if you believe the red cells

View attachment 408863

In settlements both parties can be liable and liability can also be mitigated by various factors. It also can't be assumed that settlements mean one party has admitted 100% liability. They can agree or disagree on liability and agree or disagree on the amount of damages - under whatever legal theory both sides agree to use.

Any well-drafted Deed of Settlement will not admit liability by any party; therefore, it covers the finality of the matter - the settlement is final - no further bites of the cherry are allowed with confidentiality clauses on the agreed terms and sometimes (mutual) non-disparagement clauses.
It's a document that wraps up an agreement, payment is made, and we all head off into the sunset.

 

[jpp42]

ll wait for the acccident report though I think SIA does carry significant liability.

The accident report will not help assign liability, as discussed above - that is entirely not the point of ICAO Annex 13 reports.

Even if we accept that SIA has responsibility for the accident occurring, my comment about proportionate liability was in reference to those who were not wearing their seatbelt, despite being seated and otherwise having no logical reason not to be. It could be argued that SIA's liability for medical expenses should be less in this case, since it is made very clear both in the safety briefing, safety cards, and sometimes even printed on the seats that one should "Fasten Seatbelt While Seated" (regardless of status of the seat belt light). The passengers not wearing their seatbelt failed to mitigate their damages by making reasonable efforts - a common-law doctrine that should apply in Singapore (not that I am licensed there!).

For those pointing out that the current discussions are about settlements out of court, you're of course correct, but that doesn't mean the discussion of what would happen in court are moot. The whole point is for both parties to make educated guesses about what might happen in court, and the risks of things not going their way, and therefore choosing the middle ground of a settlement.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The accident report will not help assign liability, as discussed above - that is entirely not the point of ICAO Annex 13 reports.

Even if we accept that SIA has responsibility for the accident occurring, my comment about proportionate liability was in reference to those who were not wearing their seatbelt, despite being seated and otherwise having no logical reason not to be. It could be argued that SIA's liability for medical expenses should be less in this case, since it is made very clear both in the safety briefing, safety cards, and sometimes even printed on the seats that one should "Fasten Seatbelt While Seated" (regardless of status of the seat belt light). The passengers not wearing their seatbelt failed to mitigate their damages by making reasonable efforts - a common-law doctrine that should apply in Singapore (not that I am licensed there!).

For those pointing out that the current discussions are about settlements out of court, you're of course correct, but that doesn't mean the discussion of what would happen in court are moot. The whole point is for both parties to make educated guesses about what might happen in court, and the risks of things not going their way, and therefore choosing the middle ground of a settlement.

The issue of proportionate liability is interesting.

I have had a bit of a think about it and can see two sides.

Firstly, on the wording of the advice to keep seatbelts fastened while seated.

As recently as a month ago, some european airlines were still saying ‘we recommend’ [you keep your seatbelt fastened]. To me that doesn’t indicate a clear crew member instruction.

Even if Singapore airlines issue it as an instruction (not sure if the language SQ uses), it is reasonable for passengers to remember that at all times? What reminders were given? Will the occasional flyer be as aware as a frequent flyer? How prominent is the reminder to keep seatbelts fastened at all times while seated? Is it on a placard at every seat?

I think the bigger issue is the flight path and the timing of the seatbelt sign. Not being strapped in is potentially very minor?

 

[Quickstatus]

The accident report will not help assign liability

Yes I understand that, but it will inform both parties of the relative strength of their position. Do we really think that plaintiff lawyers will not use the report if the report points to pilot error?