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

[jb747]

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.

Whilst an interesting image, I think you'll find that it's satellite thermal data, and not horizontally generated radar imaging. The red is very cold, and so high, and gives an indication of buildups, but also shows high level cloud that has little underneath it. The upshot is a radar image from one of the aircraft (say the ones that flew right through) may well show something entirely different. Plus even within extensive cloud areas, there are always places that are worse than others, and manipulation of the radar (i.e. not automatic) can show those areas. Something else to remember, that some pilots forget, is that the roughest part will be along an interface...so never aim for the edge of the cloud's radar return.

 

[Quickstatus]

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

Minor in the sense that while not having a seat belt on contributed to all the injuries, it was not necessarily the root cause. The report will opine on that.
While 60 min says other aircraft avoid the cells that SQ traversed through giving the impression that SQ should not have been where they were, 60min didn't say is all except one traversed similar storm cells and one even a red cell likely because that diminishes their argument.

I don't think a reasonable person would say that it is the passenger's fault for not returning to their seats and securing seat belts within the "8 seconds" (according to 60min) it took for SB sign to mayhem.

I think you'll find that it's satellite thermal data

Agree, my point was that 60min was using that as the "smoking gun"- that SQ should not have been where they were, rather than the actual radar returns the pilots saw. As usual shows like 60min are laced with attempts to present an alternative version of the "truth", rather than just the truth.
It is also likely that the radar returns in the other aircraft would be different in each aircraft as their flight path and headings are all different. So I find it difficult to agree with the premise that the other aircraft "saw" the same information as SQ

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't think a reasonable person would say that it is the passenger's fault for not returning to their seats and securing seat belts within the "8 seconds" (according to 60min) it took for SB sign to mayhem.

No, but injuries sustained by passengers sitting in their seats, if the instruction is that you should have your seatbelt fastened at all times while seated.

The argument would be that your injuries would have been prevented if you’d followed the instruction/advice. The question could turn on which of those it actually is.

 

[Quickstatus]

you should have your seatbelt fastened at all times while seated.

You should - the direction is often repeated more than once on a flight.
I think passengers not wearing seat belt while seated should carry some liability

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You should - the direction is often repeated more than once on a flight.
I think passengers not wearing seat belt while seated should carry some liability

Is it a direction? My flight on swiss a few weeks ago simply said ‘we recommend you keep your seatbelt fastened while seated’. Not an instruction. It depends on the wording of the SQ message *and* how often it is repeated. A non-frequent flyer could easily forget something like that, For frequent flyers it’s probably become a routine thing to do.

 

[jb747]

The g loadings that were reported were quite extraordinary. The better part of -2g, is something that you'd normally struggle to achieve. So, that screams 'cell' to me. Also, I'll be very interested to hear just what happened with the autopilot.

 

[Quickstatus]

My flight on swiss a few weeks ago simply said ‘we recommend you keep your seatbelt fastened while seated’.

Understand your point
It's the same on SQ as far as the inflight safety video is concerned.
However I dont recall hearing "recommend". Rather I recall hearing "always keep your seatbelt fastened while seated"

Ill have to take another Sq flight to check
Maybe someone with recency as a SQ passenger can shed some light.

 

[Quickstatus]

I'll be very interested to hear just what happened with the autopilot.

As per the TSIB preliminary report
3(a) I wish they would stop using "G-force" and just use vertical acceleration which it did in subsequent paragraphs....G is not a force.
3(f) "The rapid changes in G over the 4.6 sec duration resulted in an altitude drop of 178 ft, from 37,362 ft to 37,184 ft" Should it not be the other way round?

3(g) suggests that during the 4.6 seconds (from 07:49:40 to 07:49;44.6) of rapid change in Vertical acceleration where the aircraft lost 178 feet, the pilots initiated manual inputs disengaging the AP in the process. When exactly in the 4.6 seconds is unknown.

Is the pitch up at 07:49:41 an autopilot, pilot, or weather event?. Im guessing not pilot or autopilot because that would require a very quick reaction time

 

[RooFlyer]

However I dont recall hearing "recommend". Rather I recall hearing "always keep your seatbelt fastened while seated"

Ill have to take another Sq flight to check
Maybe someone with recency as a SQ passenger can shed some light.

I think there was some discussion on what’s being heard, at the early stages of this thread.

And of course, if you hear "always keep your seatbelt fastened while seated" it can be preceeded by "we suggest you" or"please" or "we recommend you".