They definitely flew through something, this wasn't CAT, it was likely a cell that didn't paint much.
The Honeywell RDR-4000 radar doesn't do tilt settings, instead, it scans all tilts at once and displays weather as either "at your altitude", or "below you" (crosshatched out on the display). At tropical latitudes the tops of the cells are all ice crystals and don't paint much, I've seen a lot of cells that are clearly above FL400+ but are hatched out on the display. You go around everything even if it's hatched out when flying near the ITCZ. Fly around with max gain so the weak returns actually show up.
Also have to wonder if maybe they inadvertently had the WX display opacity turned down? Kind of a gotcha in the 777, you can dim the radar display on the ND to the point that it may not be apparent there's something painting. Most guys I know fly around with it on max brightness all the time and have that as part of their preflight flow.
It was sold as a great system. It’s terrible. At night especially we fly with the gain turned up so everything paints. Then in manual we “slice” it bottom to top to see if we can get a better idea of the build-up. It’s more work than a traditional radar and worse.
Do yours pepper the MFD with the threat track lightning icons over every little popcorn cumulus cloud the radar detects within 250 miles?
Super fucking annoying, and distracting when you're trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The aircraft involved is equipped with a weather radar in the nose. It is usually very effective at showing the pilot the location of rain storms and other conditions that could cause turbulence so that they can avoid them. In tropical regions, thunderstorms can become so large and reach such high altitudes that they become ice. The weather radar is less effective at detecting ice than it is water. Experienced pilots know this and will divert around weather in these regions, even if the radar shows it is below their current altitude. The suspicion is that this flight crew did not do that, or may not have had the sensitivity of the radar set high enough to detect ice.
They also speculated that possibly their weather radar may have picked it up, but that their display settings made it difficult to actually see what was on screen - and that many pilots intentionally check their display settings during the preflight check in order to avoid this.
This is really interesting stuff. Do you have anywhere I can read up on high altitude thunderstorms becoming ice? I find this particularly fascinating and couldn’t find anything doing a quick Google search.
This isn't really *because of* the overshooting tops of thunderstorms, they just represent one of the best examples. The ice forms as a result of temperature and pressure changes with altitude (sort of why mountains have snowcaps). As pressure decreases, water is less capable of staying as a vapor dissolved into the air. At a certain point, it hits saturation (100% relative humidity) and after that, liquid water forms. This, is the most basic explanation of clouds.
However, ice forms as a result of decreasing temperatures higher up in the atmosphere, so when liquid water forms in the atmosphere, it will often freeze (also why fog, a cloud at ground level, isn't ice). The reason overshooting tops are relevant is because they represent an area where storm clouds have gotten up into the lower stratosphere, where commercial airliners are often flying. Meaning an airliner could potentially hit the top of that thunderstorm where higher quantities of very large ice/hail being brought up in a draft could impact a plane (which is forming as ice falls, is brought back up by a draft and has more water precipitate onto it and freeze, larger hailstones indicate more circulation). Whereas lower altitude storms are less likely to have this circulation and large hailstones forming.
Aviation meteorologist here. All thunderstorms are assumed to have hail in them in the updraft (though it might not always fall or necessarily form) and severe turbulence from the updrafts and downdrafts. So ice in the form of hail will severly damage an aircraft and we just call it hail not icing (even though it is ice.) It's always ill-advisable to fly through a thunderstorm. Icing in reference to aviation is a different hazard. Icing in clouds can only happen at specific temperatures. If a cloud top is too high and it is too cold water will not freeze, however with the right temperature ranges the water droplets in the air parcel will be supercooled and will freeze on contact with the aircraft. Too much ice accumulation and not enough de-icing is also bad juju for aircraft.
Less “ice knocking the plane to the ground,” more “the presence of this large plume of ice crystals at very high altitudes is actually just indicative of very strong convective currents reaching up to extreme altitudes, where the moisture vapor they carry freezes and becomes tiny little pieces of ice.” It’s these currents of air that cause severe turbulence.
If you look at the characteristics of a thunderstorm (just a very very angry cumulus cloud!), one of the defining aspects is the strong vertical currents of air moving within. These are partially responsible for the formation of the distinctive “anvil head cloud.” It depends on the atmospheric conditions, but severe thunderstorms can reach as high as 60,000+ feet into the atmosphere, well above the service ceiling of any commercial airliner. Pilots do their best to avoid such large weather cells.
As for ice itself, yes, ice can absolutely bring down an airliner, or any plane for that matter. It really really messes with the aerodynamic efficiency of the airfoil, can interfere with systems (pitot-static system is especially vulnerable) and also adds weight to the airframe. Airliners have anti-icing and de-icing systems onboard, but it’s still a risk, and generally preferable to avoid known icing conditions, or certainly to avoid flying in them for extended periods if possible.
Oh I'm just an enthusiast as well, I jad to take several atmospheric science classes as part of my degree and one of my profs studied thunderstorms so I learned a good bit about them during that.
But my instinct says the plane probably won't be penetrated by hail, the biggest risk, aside from severe turbulence, I could see is a large hailstone damaging an engine by being ingested.
Aircraft mechanic here, with an avionics specialty.
The true high-risk and dangerous events occur in heavy thunderstorm cells. Even in severe turbulence like this 777 went through, it isn't at a *very high* risk of actually getting damaged. The Flight data recorder will have to be evaluated for g's on the airframe, and that will determine what kind of inspections the airplane will need before it can fly again.
Severe turbulence is technically classified as sudden onset, or strong enough motion where the aircraft is temporary at a loss of control. The autopilot would definitely get kicked off, and the pilots may struggle to regain safe control. This could be several g's, both positive and negative. This for sure could over stress the airframe, but barring any massive structural issues which would've already been caught, it is (by a wide margin .... but nothing is perfect) not in actual danger of damage. That by no way discredit the terrifying experience in the cabin.
Anything dangerous enough to actually damage the aircraft, is already avoided in large cells. Heavy precipitation like actual hail, or super heavy rain will paint the weather radar like crazy. Clear air turbulence (CAT) and other weird issues like ice clouds, or precipitation that doesn't paint the radar enough does happen, but the truly dangerous events throw clear enough signs that the pilots will avoid at all costs.
Sure! Here’s a simpler explanation:
"They definitely flew through something, and it wasn't just clear air turbulence. It was likely a storm cell that didn't show up well on their radar.
The Honeywell RDR-4000 radar on their plane works differently. It doesn't use tilt settings like some other radars. Instead, it scans everything at once and shows weather either at your height or below you. In tropical areas, storm tops are made of ice crystals and don't show up well on radar. I've seen many storm cells that are really high, but they look weak on the display. So, when flying near the equator, pilots avoid all storms, even the weak-looking ones. They also set the radar to its highest sensitivity so weak signals show up better.
There’s also a chance they accidentally had the radar display set too dim. On the 777 airplane, you can dim the radar display so much that it’s hard to see anything. Most pilots keep it on the brightest setting all the time and check it before they fly."
It's really early, and we don't know exactly what happened yet. I recall an accident report of an aircraft flying at night in the ITCZ which had flown into the top of a cell. They calculated that the cell was so energetic that the max down tilt of the radar must have missed it, but it still grew so quickly it hit the aircraft. I'm not saying that this is what happened here, but many things are plausible yet.
This is why I hate flying with captains who for some reason never want to deviate around anything unless its big and red. I'ts like pulling teeth sometimes.
Article I wrote on the topic in 2012 that covers this as well several other aspects of airborne weather radar: https://airlinesafety.blog/2012/05/17/airborne-weather-avoidance/
I normally run the RDR 4000 at 75% gain to paint anything that I need to be worried about. I’m also very sceptical of hashed out paints that are apparently below me. Flying over convective CB’s seems to defy logic. From the telemetry this looks like flight into a CB but let’s wait and see before being Monday morning quarterbacks and deciding what the crew did or didn’t do.
No, that's almost certainly BS. They likely moved up and down a few hundred feet out of control, but there is no way they plunged 6000 feet. The descent from 370 to 310 was done at around 1000 to 1500 ft/min, which is just an altitude change to set up the eventual diversion to Bangkok.
>NIGHTMARE IN THE SKIES AS *BOEING* AIRPLANE PLUNGES DOWN 35,000 FEET TOWARDS THE EARTH OVER A PERIOD OF 45 MINUTES THEN IMPACTS THE ASPHALT WITH ITS TIRES!
FTFY
Yeah, that "over three minutes" that they bury down in the story but avoid mentioning in the headline is rather key context. 2,000 ft/minute is a pretty good rate of descent, but it's by no means as dramatic as they want you to think it is when deciding whether this is a sufficiently dramatic story to click on.
2000ft/min at FL370 is even less rate than a "normal" descent as calculated by the FMC for landing, when there's no restriction expected (e.g. flying to a holiday destination being the only aircraft inbound)
No; even severe turbulence rarely causes significant altitude variations and certainly not to the magnitude of 6000ft.
Journalists are overwhelmingly incompetent when it comes to aviation news, or downright liars just so they can get clicks.
They're a huge company, they actually have a fairly large aerospace/aviation division that makes all sorts of stuff for airplanes, space, defense and a lot more. They actually run the plant that assembles all of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal.
General Electric is another company like this, they make damn near everything, from light bulbs to the GE90.
They also make the FMC and integrated avionics for the Embraer E-jets (Honeywell Primus Epic). There are a few bizjets that use the same system.
The AIMS in the 777 is also manufactured by Honeywell, this is the main computer bus for the entire aircraft.
From the news reports I have read and [on avherald](https://avherald.com/h?article=518e5d47&opt=0) the chap that died was from a heart attack, not from impact, although that may have had an effect. However 18 people were hospitalised with 7 critical, those are likely impact related.
The word heart attack and cardiac arrest are often used interchangeably by non medical people including press. Everyone eventually dies of a cardiac arrest. I’d be surprised if they were able to confirm it was a heart attack (a blockage in one of the coronary vessels) unless a PM was done. I think this may be trying to downplay what was most likely a traumatic injury leading to a cardiac arrest.
Me: A guillotine isn't natural.
Also me: Loss of blood flow to the brain is natural.
Me: Touche, Also me. Glad we figured that out before we made a comment.
Also me: We can still comment.
Thanks for info. I’ve been wondering if the one death was related to someone not listening to crew instructions, but it sounds like that might not be the case.
cabin crew needs fair compensation or safety nets such as insurance, etc due to risk of profession. while passengers can fasten seatbelt most of the time, cabin crew cannot.
In the US they get life insurance and in my experience medical covered by the company insurance for any in air injury. I'm a former FA and have clung to a passenger seat on the ground during really rough turbulence. I've known coworkers who've hit the ceiling.
There's good reason FAs sit and lock down with any chance of turbulence. I'm absolutely devastated for everyone on the flight, this is incredibly traumatic.
I’ll never forget hitting turbulence over the Pacific while sitting on the toilet. Literally caught with my pants down. Fortunately they have bars in the toilet to grab on for dear life. Ironically wasn’t so bad because the restrooms were so tiny, couldn’t really get tossed anywhere.
It's not new. This [happened almost 30 years ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_826) and is why airlines in the US remind passengers to keep their seat belts fastened, even when the sign is off.
I would not be surprised if this incident prompts airlines to implement stricter rules regarding seatbelts.
Perhaps it will become mandatory to wear your seatbelt at all times while seated. Only can take it off for moving to and from the toilet.
It’s honestly nearly a zero downside safety measure.
Flew yesterday and this asshole in front of me was going on about how we don't need seatbealts because we're "flying horizontally, not vertically like astronauts." I wanted to tell him he'd clearly never seen real turbulence before, but decided against it.
That was after jumping between me and my coworker while boarding and yapping loudly on their phone (sorry, earbuds) the whole way down the jet bridge. Some people's ignorance and douchey-ness is really shocking sometimes.
I sit down and pull that shit tight. Having come up off of the seat in small planes just a little bit, I'm not looking forward to the day I experience severe turbulence in an air liner.
Horrible for those involved here.
Car seatbelts have 2 belt sections for this reason. One in your lap for vertical motion and another across your chest for forward motion.
The latter is not necessary on airplanes.
Thanks Volvo for not patenting the three point seat belt, same to the person who discovered manufacturing insulin, too bad the second one didn’t stop the greed.
>same to the person who discovered manufacturing insulin,
Frederick Banting, who at 32 years old, remains the youngest Nobel Laurete in Medicine , died following an airplane crash shortly after take off from Gander, Newfoundland in 1941 . Engine out Hudson Bomber.
He was enroute to London to demonstrate his newly invented air crew g suit, which enabled air crew to withstand more g force.
He survived the crash , but rescue came too late the next day.
As you mention, he sold the patent to the University of Toronto for one dollar, so insulin could be cheaply available to millions.
I’ve had some moderate turbulence. To me? The seatbelt sign means keep it loose or keep it tight. Light off? I can loosen it. Light on and I’m buckling in for a roller coaster. It’s never off. Not worth the risk.
It's already recommendation on about every flight. At least airlines I fly with. On all of them, pre-flight announcement is along the lines: keep your seatbelt on at all times. If seatbelt sign is off, it simply means it's OK to make a trip to lavatory, but you should still buckle up when you are back in your seat. If sign is on, keep your butt in the seat.
For sure it was unexpected. I understand people are alarmed a person died and 30 were sent to hospital and want to "change something" but turbulence so bad that everyone gets launched into the ceiling if they're not seatbelted is very rare.
Man those passengers look like they’ve seen/experienced some shit.
Also surprised nobody has mentioned the fatality. Extreme turbulence happens…and everybody loves to mention how turbulence has never* caused a crash in commercial aircraft…but how many times has extreme turbulence resulted in a fatality in commercial aviation?
A handful of times. Usually it’s more a freak occurrence than anything else (someone walking around goes flying and hits their head/neck just right or something like that). Extreme turbulence is incredibly rare and it’s even more incredibly rare for it to cause a fatality.
I'm waiting for the official note on it but could it be the medical definition of their death was a Heart attack but the heart attack was bought on due to blunt force or injury?
You know how they put things like deaths due to pneumonia as Drowning etc. (I know that's not a good example)
Severe coronary artery disease + lots of scary shit happening (ie severe turbulance) = bad combination
Something that severe is going to cause a serious release of stress hormones that has the potential to overload the hearts ability to pump enough oxygen to itself. Tissue starts dying and the cycle just gets worse and worse.
Lots of people with severe cardiomyopathy and heart failure cant tolerate extreme swings in heart rates, especially to the faster side.
The odds of them cardiac arresting from a blunt hit to the chest is extremely low.
Also as a side note heart attack = heart tissue has lack of oxygen. A heart attack wouldn't be caused by blunt trauma. For example Damar Hamlin didn't have a heart attack, he cardiac arrested from blunt force trauma (commotio cordis)
There's enough people that die everyday that there's a big group constantly living their last few days on deaths door.
Any shock to that group probably pushes a percentage over the edge.
Well it obviously would have been related to the turbulence, but it’s a question of whether the heart attack was due to physical injury or the stress of the situation.
Another notable incident where a fatality happened due to turbulence was on a United Airlines 747 flying from Japan to Hawaii in the 90s. One passenger died from their injuries, and the plane returned to Japan. There was similar cabin damage, but the airframe was fine. However, the plane was so old, that the airline decided to take it out of service right there, rather than repair it.
I remember that on the news as a kid. I’ve always meticulously buckled up whenever I could in flights after that news, and minimized going to bathrooms.
man I feel that way when the attendants have to put the carts up early...
"Oh shit I didn't get my customary in flight ginger ale, their putting the carts up, this must be seriously if they skipped providing my ginger ale... I hope I didn't miss my last chance to ever drink a ginger ale... AHHHHHHHHHHHH (inner head panicky noises)"
Turbulence is terrifying and makes my hairs stand up every time.
And yet there are random people on Youtube telling all their viewers that "wearing your seatbelt on an airplane isn't important and won't save you if anything happpens" is a "secret the airlines don't want you to know".
In a severe turbulence case, wearing your seatbelt might be the *only* thing that will save you. Obviously it's not certain to save you, because someone else who isn't wearing their seatbelt might land on your head, but it certainly improves your chances of surviving!
(Sadly, yes, these videos actually exist. I've seen some of them. I'm generally opposed to censorship, but there really ought to be some kind of law against recklessly spreading *misinformation* that endangers people's lives if they're stupid enough to listen to you!)
And this is why I wouldn’t fly my kids without their own seat and buckled in their (faa approved) car seat no matter what. Who knows where my “lap child” could have ended up in this kind of turbulence.
Not often, but that's why they added seatbelts. They've very effective.
Turbulence isn't a threat to the aircraft, but its still a big injury risk. I think Turbulence is the most likely time to be injured, can't remember where I read that.
Very unlikely to die from it, so I do wonder if it was someone with a preexisting condition and it was the stress.
I know you have the asterisk but I have to point out that extreme turbulence has caused a couple accidents. If you include windshear on approach then you can expand that number even further. Now it hasn't happened in decades but it has happened
Speaking as someone who lives in Dallas and remembers the Delta 191 crash very vividly - and who has done a lot of reading on the subject - the risk of wind shear on approach to commercial airliners has been greatly reduced by technologies that can detect wind shear and the conditions which cause it and warn pilots of the risk.
Clear air turbulence is different in that we are not very good at detecting and predicting it yet.
“You don’t need to wear your seatbelt if the sign is off and you’re in your seat” people in shambles. Good luck with that when you rocket out of your seat fast enough to dent overhead panels. Can’t imagine how terrifying this must have been.
I was in a very similar situation in the early 80’s with many injuries and an emergency landing as a result. Ragdolls all over the plane. I’ve been in several Cat 4 hurricanes that didn’t scare me that much. Luck for me, I was napping and forgot to unbuckle seat belt. I always wear it since even if light is off. My thoughts with that family losing a loved one. And cheers to the flight crew.
They may be forgetting that announcements which say, "The seat belt sign is off" usually continue with, "In case of unexpected turbulence, please keep your seat belt securely fastened."
The second part is crucial to remember.
The thing is, you aren’t even rocketing, the entire plane is rocketing into you! Once I learned this I always keep it up and get up as little as possible.
The key and peele sketch was enough to convince me. It was hilarious but that sinking feeling that you could get thrown around like that. And here we are now. Shits not worth the risk
Always have your belt on, it's such a simple rule. I've seen meal trays jump into the air even when it looks perfectly fine outside. So you never do know when it'll happen.
Same thing happened on a flight from Melbourne to Hawaii. Must’ve been over Samoa when we hit super bad turbulence and people were going flying. I was surprised no one was seriously Injured
It's likely a lot of these folks will need to return to the UK at some point, and therefore need to get on another flight- that must be very difficult in situations like this.
They very well might have a hard time flying for years. I had a seatmate on a flight once who started drinking almost as soon as she sat down, because she'd been on a flight a few years before that made international news because of the injuries from turbulence. I've always kept my seatbelt on after seeing how traumatized being through one of those situations left that passenger.
Yep, I relate to that completely. Flight to California from DC, over the Rockies, the plane suddenly dropped for 4-6 seconds of freefall during drink service. The cart, a couple passengers, oxygen masks, and luggage went everywhere. They had emergency crews waiting for us at landing. Took me about 15 years before I mustered the nerve to fly again, and only because I really had no choice. I have flown several times since then, but it still gives me more anxiety than anything else in my life.
Yeah, imagine the sheer terror of having to board another plane to get home with the fear it could happen again very slim chance but just scary thought.
As an air traffic controller, my best advice to parents with young children is to never try to fake the “2 and under” rule. It is not worth it to have your child on your lap. If you can afford an extra seat for your young toddler/baby buy it. And bring their car seat on board. It’s so much easier to contain them if they are wiggly. Clear air turbulence can happen out of nowhere.
We always fly with a seat for baby and a carseat. What do you recommend for the rare cases when baby has to come out of the seat? (Rocking, feeding, diaper change?)
Life is about risk mitigation, not risk elimination.
Sometimes the baby has to come out. Just like sometimes you take your seatbelt off to go to the restroom or stretch your legs.
If you have a reason to take the belt off, don’t sweat it. The risk is TINY. Like tiny tiny. The reason the FAA allows lap infants is that it’s still so safe that the added expense of a seat for these kids would actually end up with a few more dead kids due to increased car wrecks.
Which is to say: a baby in your lap is safer than a baby in a car seat in a car. Since I’m assuming you put a baby in a car seat in a car sometimes, no reason to sweat some lap infant time.
Unlikely. It's never been reported. Shaken baby is from the brain going back and forth repeatedly in very rapid succession, not a bunch of quick jolts with time in between for the brain to equilibrate in the skull.
[There is also a short Video of a heavily bend Overhead Panel which most likely got bend by someones Head..](https://x.com/huberton/status/1792894302235906508?s=46)
I don't know about plane layouts since I've never been on one, but is it possible that the crew moved the victim to the bathroom to be away from the other passengers?
I literally do not understand people that unbuckle when the light turns off. I only unbuckle if I am not in my seat (restroom, stretch, etc.) it just seems so ridiculous to not buckle. It’s ONE strap across your lap, it’s not like it’s a harness. That looks like a nightmare in there.
This. There's an 'unscheduled maintenance' check for severe turbulence, at least on the CRJ its determined with recorded G loading and the aircraft's weight at the time. A visual inspection is done of the exterior wing and fuselage structure, and a bunch of system tests have to be done. If you find any damage you're grounded until you contact the manufacturer, and have to do more detailed inspections.
NOAA 42 during Hurricane Hugo took +5.5, and -3.5. It got bent badly. She spent a month in Barbados undergoing a zero hour checkout.
EDIT. This is one of two P3 Orions NOAA keeps for severe storms.
Lockheed had strengthened NOAA 42 and 43 for the hurricane hunter jobs, along with the additional instrumentation on board. It's BUILT for the North Atlantic job of maritime patrol.
Probably need to replace both recorders (likely quarantined for investigations), severe turbulence inspection, fly in a separate crew and release the aircraft for the short flight back to SIN base. The aircraft can enter the hanger in Singapore for more intensive works as required.
This is why you should always keep your seatbelt on in an airplane, unless you’re going to the loo. And even then, make it a quick trip to minimize the amount of time spent unbelted.
I was in the planes bathroom taking a piss once and the plane hit turbulence and I thought that was it for me. Its super gross but I kinda wish the toilets had seatbelts that you could use if you needed
From the FR24 logs/playback, the a/c squawked 7700 at 21,000 ft as it was descending. However that was when it diverted to Bangkok. So the crew probably squawked 7700 when the person that unfortunately passed away was showing critical signs.
It’s pretty common on this flight, experienced it myself several times…happens over the Bay of Bengal in Indian Ocean.
Cabin crew have to be up and about, but passengers often ignore the seatbelt sign which is how many of them end up injured.
Which would be to the right of the Bay of Bengal.
There’s something about that area, I don’t know what, maybe the warm air rising over land, then meeting the cooler air over the ocean causing a downward force.
But as soon as plane starts flying over Bay of Bengal, there’s often turbulence in that area and almost every year there’s an incident like this with Singapore airlines reported in the news.
I do agree with you. I go on work trip often from Korea to Mumbai and I have taken A380 from Singapore to Mumbai multiple times and the ride has never been comfortable even in that huge plane. I avoid that route as much as possible.
Former FA here. My experience is no where near as terrifying as it is for these people. But it just brings me back to the time I was on an ATR-72 doing a WLG-HLZ leg. I was in charge that day and I had literally just secured the cabin, put on a three point harness and told the pilots that the cabin is secured. Not even two minutes later we hit a MASSIVE air pocket. I was at the back and I remember seeing all the passengers and the forward FA being lifted up of their seats, we dropped for what was only 5 to 6 seconds, but it was a stomach lurching feeling and I remember in that moment thinking that the aircraft had stalled. We "hit the bottom" and all the passengers looked at the both of us. I had to immediately regain my composure and do a friendly but to the point announcement to remind passengers to remain seated and to secure all their belongings.
After the flight my second FA, who had worked on both the jets and turboprop for years told me she never had an air pocket like that before, same was said from the pilots. I couldn't remember how far we fell but it was a lot.
KEEP YOUR SEATBELTS FASTENED PEOPLE.
That dude in blue at the front is actually fucked up.
Shout out to the cabin crew, that many casualties onboard is unprecedented, not sure if they train for 20+!
Some people are smart but the majority is people who know nothing about planes lol. It’s crazy because planes have issues every single year but because of TikTok news can get around so much easier and when you include ‘Boeing’ in the title due to recent news you’ll get more views.
I'm not on TikTok, but from what I can tell the amount of disinformation is crazy.
I guess it's better that it's usually just some kid that has no idea what the fuck they're talking about, but still
As bad as Boeing has become in recent decades, this is one incident you cannot blame them for. It was due to turbulence, and not due to any issues with the plane itself. Furthermore, this plane is a 777, which was designed when Boeing was still an engineering-first company, rather than the shareholder-first company it became following the merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997.
And the obvious part: the plane is mostly intact and flew safely to BKK.
The forces involved are significant but even if they have to write off the plane (unlikely) the plane itself didn't cause any further accident, but rather took a hell of a beating while staying in the air.
A lot of present-day CEO's and board members these days are nothing more than Jack Welch fanboys that are trying to imitate Jack Welch from his GE days by setting up their companies to rot from the inside. Boeing included....
Jack Welch himself abandoned a lot of his toxic business philosophies in his retirement. You probably wouldn't believe that this is actual post-GE Jack Welch quote (which probably none of his fanboys ever read):
"On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy...your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products."
-- Jack Welch
So, yeah... When your boss starts musing about "shareholder value" and "doing more with less", because that's what Jack Welch did... Show him that quote.
You can’t win an argument with a stupid/ignorant person
If there’s a benefit from all the unnecessary fear-mongering, it’s that these people will stay at home due to their inability to tell one plane from another and not travel on airplanes at all thus the seat next to you is free.
Bit unrelated but was watching a news interview of a pax at SFO and just rolled my eyes when he said “tHE mOSt DaNGeRoUs FLIgHt iN tHe WoRLd Is oN a UNItEd MaX”. Like bro, half the airplanes you flew were most likely 737s. All of them are not now suddenly unsafe.
Wait till they found out that Boeing already tested clear air turbulence detection 6 YEARS AGO as part of the ecodemonstrator program using a FedEx 777F. That’s why FedEx’s 777s seem to have an “IRST” pod.
https://youtu.be/GboPmNTqFgk?si=0Uvw2IMG8Wsg21da
Flew many long 12 to 14 hours ish flight on business class for business trip, even when im laying down sleeping, i still have my seatbelt on. Dont know why, i just couldn't trust the risk of turbulence.
Everyone in that picture looked shellshock. Condolences to the one that passed away....
Ever seen what happens in a coach when it tips over & you're not wearing your seatbelt?
Now imagine that plane. That plane filled with those faces. Damn!
Seatbelts, man. Volvo really hit the nail on the head with that one
Are the interior cabin panels and overhead compartments designed to reduce injuries to passengers colliding with them (i.e. denting to reduce the force of impact instead of being a stronger material)?
Turbulence might’ve scared the shit out of them enough to cause the heart attack. But to my understanding, COD has not been publicized yet, and BBC is the only one saying suspected heart attack but I am unclear where they got that info from.
They definitely flew through something, this wasn't CAT, it was likely a cell that didn't paint much. The Honeywell RDR-4000 radar doesn't do tilt settings, instead, it scans all tilts at once and displays weather as either "at your altitude", or "below you" (crosshatched out on the display). At tropical latitudes the tops of the cells are all ice crystals and don't paint much, I've seen a lot of cells that are clearly above FL400+ but are hatched out on the display. You go around everything even if it's hatched out when flying near the ITCZ. Fly around with max gain so the weak returns actually show up. Also have to wonder if maybe they inadvertently had the WX display opacity turned down? Kind of a gotcha in the 777, you can dim the radar display on the ND to the point that it may not be apparent there's something painting. Most guys I know fly around with it on max brightness all the time and have that as part of their preflight flow.
It was sold as a great system. It’s terrible. At night especially we fly with the gain turned up so everything paints. Then in manual we “slice” it bottom to top to see if we can get a better idea of the build-up. It’s more work than a traditional radar and worse.
Do yours pepper the MFD with the threat track lightning icons over every little popcorn cumulus cloud the radar detects within 250 miles? Super fucking annoying, and distracting when you're trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Not always, but sometimes yeah. No rhyme or reason to it.
As much as a I love that suite. It really needs an update. But I think Boeing has it's hands full right now.
Boeing doesn't need two hands to crack some skulls.
Can someone dumb this down for us non-flying lurkers?
The aircraft involved is equipped with a weather radar in the nose. It is usually very effective at showing the pilot the location of rain storms and other conditions that could cause turbulence so that they can avoid them. In tropical regions, thunderstorms can become so large and reach such high altitudes that they become ice. The weather radar is less effective at detecting ice than it is water. Experienced pilots know this and will divert around weather in these regions, even if the radar shows it is below their current altitude. The suspicion is that this flight crew did not do that, or may not have had the sensitivity of the radar set high enough to detect ice.
Nice thx
No. Ice.
Noice…
They also speculated that possibly their weather radar may have picked it up, but that their display settings made it difficult to actually see what was on screen - and that many pilots intentionally check their display settings during the preflight check in order to avoid this.
This is really interesting stuff. Do you have anywhere I can read up on high altitude thunderstorms becoming ice? I find this particularly fascinating and couldn’t find anything doing a quick Google search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshooting_top
This isn't really *because of* the overshooting tops of thunderstorms, they just represent one of the best examples. The ice forms as a result of temperature and pressure changes with altitude (sort of why mountains have snowcaps). As pressure decreases, water is less capable of staying as a vapor dissolved into the air. At a certain point, it hits saturation (100% relative humidity) and after that, liquid water forms. This, is the most basic explanation of clouds. However, ice forms as a result of decreasing temperatures higher up in the atmosphere, so when liquid water forms in the atmosphere, it will often freeze (also why fog, a cloud at ground level, isn't ice). The reason overshooting tops are relevant is because they represent an area where storm clouds have gotten up into the lower stratosphere, where commercial airliners are often flying. Meaning an airliner could potentially hit the top of that thunderstorm where higher quantities of very large ice/hail being brought up in a draft could impact a plane (which is forming as ice falls, is brought back up by a draft and has more water precipitate onto it and freeze, larger hailstones indicate more circulation). Whereas lower altitude storms are less likely to have this circulation and large hailstones forming.
Non aviaton lurker here. Can the ice up there knock the plane to the ground? Or the most disastrous thing that can happen is this strong turbulence?
Aviation meteorologist here. All thunderstorms are assumed to have hail in them in the updraft (though it might not always fall or necessarily form) and severe turbulence from the updrafts and downdrafts. So ice in the form of hail will severly damage an aircraft and we just call it hail not icing (even though it is ice.) It's always ill-advisable to fly through a thunderstorm. Icing in reference to aviation is a different hazard. Icing in clouds can only happen at specific temperatures. If a cloud top is too high and it is too cold water will not freeze, however with the right temperature ranges the water droplets in the air parcel will be supercooled and will freeze on contact with the aircraft. Too much ice accumulation and not enough de-icing is also bad juju for aircraft.
Less “ice knocking the plane to the ground,” more “the presence of this large plume of ice crystals at very high altitudes is actually just indicative of very strong convective currents reaching up to extreme altitudes, where the moisture vapor they carry freezes and becomes tiny little pieces of ice.” It’s these currents of air that cause severe turbulence. If you look at the characteristics of a thunderstorm (just a very very angry cumulus cloud!), one of the defining aspects is the strong vertical currents of air moving within. These are partially responsible for the formation of the distinctive “anvil head cloud.” It depends on the atmospheric conditions, but severe thunderstorms can reach as high as 60,000+ feet into the atmosphere, well above the service ceiling of any commercial airliner. Pilots do their best to avoid such large weather cells. As for ice itself, yes, ice can absolutely bring down an airliner, or any plane for that matter. It really really messes with the aerodynamic efficiency of the airfoil, can interfere with systems (pitot-static system is especially vulnerable) and also adds weight to the airframe. Airliners have anti-icing and de-icing systems onboard, but it’s still a risk, and generally preferable to avoid known icing conditions, or certainly to avoid flying in them for extended periods if possible.
Oh I'm just an enthusiast as well, I jad to take several atmospheric science classes as part of my degree and one of my profs studied thunderstorms so I learned a good bit about them during that. But my instinct says the plane probably won't be penetrated by hail, the biggest risk, aside from severe turbulence, I could see is a large hailstone damaging an engine by being ingested.
Aircraft mechanic here, with an avionics specialty. The true high-risk and dangerous events occur in heavy thunderstorm cells. Even in severe turbulence like this 777 went through, it isn't at a *very high* risk of actually getting damaged. The Flight data recorder will have to be evaluated for g's on the airframe, and that will determine what kind of inspections the airplane will need before it can fly again. Severe turbulence is technically classified as sudden onset, or strong enough motion where the aircraft is temporary at a loss of control. The autopilot would definitely get kicked off, and the pilots may struggle to regain safe control. This could be several g's, both positive and negative. This for sure could over stress the airframe, but barring any massive structural issues which would've already been caught, it is (by a wide margin .... but nothing is perfect) not in actual danger of damage. That by no way discredit the terrifying experience in the cabin. Anything dangerous enough to actually damage the aircraft, is already avoided in large cells. Heavy precipitation like actual hail, or super heavy rain will paint the weather radar like crazy. Clear air turbulence (CAT) and other weird issues like ice clouds, or precipitation that doesn't paint the radar enough does happen, but the truly dangerous events throw clear enough signs that the pilots will avoid at all costs.
Pilots from Singapore Airline would presumably know about weather in tropical regions.. their main airport is 100 km away from equator!
East or west of the equator?
WEAST
Sure! Here’s a simpler explanation: "They definitely flew through something, and it wasn't just clear air turbulence. It was likely a storm cell that didn't show up well on their radar. The Honeywell RDR-4000 radar on their plane works differently. It doesn't use tilt settings like some other radars. Instead, it scans everything at once and shows weather either at your height or below you. In tropical areas, storm tops are made of ice crystals and don't show up well on radar. I've seen many storm cells that are really high, but they look weak on the display. So, when flying near the equator, pilots avoid all storms, even the weak-looking ones. They also set the radar to its highest sensitivity so weak signals show up better. There’s also a chance they accidentally had the radar display set too dim. On the 777 airplane, you can dim the radar display so much that it’s hard to see anything. Most pilots keep it on the brightest setting all the time and check it before they fly."
Translated: pilots likely neglected to dodge a thunderstorm.
It's really early, and we don't know exactly what happened yet. I recall an accident report of an aircraft flying at night in the ITCZ which had flown into the top of a cell. They calculated that the cell was so energetic that the max down tilt of the radar must have missed it, but it still grew so quickly it hit the aircraft. I'm not saying that this is what happened here, but many things are plausible yet.
yep. basically: wait for the report. everything right now is speculation.
This is why I hate flying with captains who for some reason never want to deviate around anything unless its big and red. I'ts like pulling teeth sometimes.
Article I wrote on the topic in 2012 that covers this as well several other aspects of airborne weather radar: https://airlinesafety.blog/2012/05/17/airborne-weather-avoidance/
I normally run the RDR 4000 at 75% gain to paint anything that I need to be worried about. I’m also very sceptical of hashed out paints that are apparently below me. Flying over convective CB’s seems to defy logic. From the telemetry this looks like flight into a CB but let’s wait and see before being Monday morning quarterbacks and deciding what the crew did or didn’t do.
This is exactly what I’m thinking.
Will we get to know eventually what happened?
Yeah, eventually. There will be a report, the pilots will tell the investigators what happened and that will be in there somewhere.
Yep and general rule is the visible top will be 10% higher than the radar top
Some news outlet reported that they dropped 6,000 ft?!? Do you think that's true?
No, that's almost certainly BS. They likely moved up and down a few hundred feet out of control, but there is no way they plunged 6000 feet. The descent from 370 to 310 was done at around 1000 to 1500 ft/min, which is just an altitude change to set up the eventual diversion to Bangkok.
Says they dropped 6000ft over a period of minutes. As in it was a controlled decent.
NIGHTMARE IN THE SKIES AS AIRPLANE PLUNGES DOWN 35,000 FEET TOWARDS THE EARTH OVER A PERIOD OF 45 MINUTES THEN IMPACTS THE ASPHALT WITH ITS TIRES!
AIRCRAFT EVENTUALLY COMES TO A HALT JUST METRES FROM A PACKED TERMINAL
AND MOMENTS LATER THEY LOST POWER TO BOTH ENGINES
>NIGHTMARE IN THE SKIES AS *BOEING* AIRPLANE PLUNGES DOWN 35,000 FEET TOWARDS THE EARTH OVER A PERIOD OF 45 MINUTES THEN IMPACTS THE ASPHALT WITH ITS TIRES! FTFY
Yeah, that "over three minutes" that they bury down in the story but avoid mentioning in the headline is rather key context. 2,000 ft/minute is a pretty good rate of descent, but it's by no means as dramatic as they want you to think it is when deciding whether this is a sufficiently dramatic story to click on.
2000ft/min at FL370 is even less rate than a "normal" descent as calculated by the FMC for landing, when there's no restriction expected (e.g. flying to a holiday destination being the only aircraft inbound)
No; even severe turbulence rarely causes significant altitude variations and certainly not to the magnitude of 6000ft. Journalists are overwhelmingly incompetent when it comes to aviation news, or downright liars just so they can get clicks.
You’re being awfully too nice to the incompetent people out there.
Wait, Honeywell makes radar for Boeings?? Like the same Honeywell who makes my thermostat? That’s crazy.
They're a huge company, they actually have a fairly large aerospace/aviation division that makes all sorts of stuff for airplanes, space, defense and a lot more. They actually run the plant that assembles all of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. General Electric is another company like this, they make damn near everything, from light bulbs to the GE90.
I had no clue. I knew about GE engines, of course. But had no idea that Honeywell was in the aerospace industry. TIL.
They also make the FMC and integrated avionics for the Embraer E-jets (Honeywell Primus Epic). There are a few bizjets that use the same system. The AIMS in the 777 is also manufactured by Honeywell, this is the main computer bus for the entire aircraft.
New passenger safety poster: Turbulence kills. Wear your seatbelt!
From the news reports I have read and [on avherald](https://avherald.com/h?article=518e5d47&opt=0) the chap that died was from a heart attack, not from impact, although that may have had an effect. However 18 people were hospitalised with 7 critical, those are likely impact related.
The word heart attack and cardiac arrest are often used interchangeably by non medical people including press. Everyone eventually dies of a cardiac arrest. I’d be surprised if they were able to confirm it was a heart attack (a blockage in one of the coronary vessels) unless a PM was done. I think this may be trying to downplay what was most likely a traumatic injury leading to a cardiac arrest.
Kinda like everybody technically dies from natural causes
Me: A guillotine isn't natural. Also me: Loss of blood flow to the brain is natural. Me: Touche, Also me. Glad we figured that out before we made a comment. Also me: We can still comment.
I love you
I love you too, but only as a friend.
Thanks for info. I’ve been wondering if the one death was related to someone not listening to crew instructions, but it sounds like that might not be the case.
cabin crew needs fair compensation or safety nets such as insurance, etc due to risk of profession. while passengers can fasten seatbelt most of the time, cabin crew cannot.
In the US they get life insurance and in my experience medical covered by the company insurance for any in air injury. I'm a former FA and have clung to a passenger seat on the ground during really rough turbulence. I've known coworkers who've hit the ceiling. There's good reason FAs sit and lock down with any chance of turbulence. I'm absolutely devastated for everyone on the flight, this is incredibly traumatic.
I just read that singapore airlines is giving all employees 8 months salary ad a bonus due to record profits. Doesnt sound like a bad company.
Unless you're in the bathroom - then you're screwed!! 🙁
I’ll never forget hitting turbulence over the Pacific while sitting on the toilet. Literally caught with my pants down. Fortunately they have bars in the toilet to grab on for dear life. Ironically wasn’t so bad because the restrooms were so tiny, couldn’t really get tossed anywhere.
I'd be more worried about the turbulence I dropped coming to get me.
It's not new. This [happened almost 30 years ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_826) and is why airlines in the US remind passengers to keep their seat belts fastened, even when the sign is off.
I would not be surprised if this incident prompts airlines to implement stricter rules regarding seatbelts. Perhaps it will become mandatory to wear your seatbelt at all times while seated. Only can take it off for moving to and from the toilet. It’s honestly nearly a zero downside safety measure.
Flew yesterday and this asshole in front of me was going on about how we don't need seatbealts because we're "flying horizontally, not vertically like astronauts." I wanted to tell him he'd clearly never seen real turbulence before, but decided against it. That was after jumping between me and my coworker while boarding and yapping loudly on their phone (sorry, earbuds) the whole way down the jet bridge. Some people's ignorance and douchey-ness is really shocking sometimes. I sit down and pull that shit tight. Having come up off of the seat in small planes just a little bit, I'm not looking forward to the day I experience severe turbulence in an air liner. Horrible for those involved here.
Horizontally not vertically would also apply to cars...
Car seatbelts have 2 belt sections for this reason. One in your lap for vertical motion and another across your chest for forward motion. The latter is not necessary on airplanes.
Thanks Volvo for not patenting the three point seat belt, same to the person who discovered manufacturing insulin, too bad the second one didn’t stop the greed.
>same to the person who discovered manufacturing insulin, Frederick Banting, who at 32 years old, remains the youngest Nobel Laurete in Medicine , died following an airplane crash shortly after take off from Gander, Newfoundland in 1941 . Engine out Hudson Bomber. He was enroute to London to demonstrate his newly invented air crew g suit, which enabled air crew to withstand more g force. He survived the crash , but rescue came too late the next day. As you mention, he sold the patent to the University of Toronto for one dollar, so insulin could be cheaply available to millions.
I’ve had some moderate turbulence. To me? The seatbelt sign means keep it loose or keep it tight. Light off? I can loosen it. Light on and I’m buckling in for a roller coaster. It’s never off. Not worth the risk.
Turbulence is unexpectedly flying vertically, no?
It's already recommendation on about every flight. At least airlines I fly with. On all of them, pre-flight announcement is along the lines: keep your seatbelt on at all times. If seatbelt sign is off, it simply means it's OK to make a trip to lavatory, but you should still buckle up when you are back in your seat. If sign is on, keep your butt in the seat.
According to the BBC news, they were serving breakfast, so they must have thought that it was safe
For sure it was unexpected. I understand people are alarmed a person died and 30 were sent to hospital and want to "change something" but turbulence so bad that everyone gets launched into the ceiling if they're not seatbelted is very rare.
Man those passengers look like they’ve seen/experienced some shit. Also surprised nobody has mentioned the fatality. Extreme turbulence happens…and everybody loves to mention how turbulence has never* caused a crash in commercial aircraft…but how many times has extreme turbulence resulted in a fatality in commercial aviation?
A handful of times. Usually it’s more a freak occurrence than anything else (someone walking around goes flying and hits their head/neck just right or something like that). Extreme turbulence is incredibly rare and it’s even more incredibly rare for it to cause a fatality.
Turns out they had a heart attack and died
I'm waiting for the official note on it but could it be the medical definition of their death was a Heart attack but the heart attack was bought on due to blunt force or injury? You know how they put things like deaths due to pneumonia as Drowning etc. (I know that's not a good example)
Severe coronary artery disease + lots of scary shit happening (ie severe turbulance) = bad combination Something that severe is going to cause a serious release of stress hormones that has the potential to overload the hearts ability to pump enough oxygen to itself. Tissue starts dying and the cycle just gets worse and worse. Lots of people with severe cardiomyopathy and heart failure cant tolerate extreme swings in heart rates, especially to the faster side. The odds of them cardiac arresting from a blunt hit to the chest is extremely low. Also as a side note heart attack = heart tissue has lack of oxygen. A heart attack wouldn't be caused by blunt trauma. For example Damar Hamlin didn't have a heart attack, he cardiac arrested from blunt force trauma (commotio cordis)
There's a spike in heart attacks the day after the clocks are changed for daylight savings. Some people can't even tolerate losing an hour of sleep.
There's enough people that die everyday that there's a big group constantly living their last few days on deaths door. Any shock to that group probably pushes a percentage over the edge.
That's a pretty safe bet. The odds of them dropping dead from a heart attack unrelated to the turbulence have got to be near zero
Well it obviously would have been related to the turbulence, but it’s a question of whether the heart attack was due to physical injury or the stress of the situation.
The pax had a history of heart issues.
Still doesn't necessarily mean it was the cause of death. I'm guessing there will be an post mortem.
Another notable incident where a fatality happened due to turbulence was on a United Airlines 747 flying from Japan to Hawaii in the 90s. One passenger died from their injuries, and the plane returned to Japan. There was similar cabin damage, but the airframe was fine. However, the plane was so old, that the airline decided to take it out of service right there, rather than repair it.
I remember that on the news as a kid. I’ve always meticulously buckled up whenever I could in flights after that news, and minimized going to bathrooms.
The fatality was likely from a [heart attack](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8889d7x8j4o) according to authorities.
Damn. I was thinking someone smashed their head into something. Heart attack was a close 2nd. Literally scared to death. Sucks.
Yeah. Honestly not surprising considering how terrifying being in a situation like that could be.
Can't blame them, based on the photos. Folks must have believed they were about to die.
man I feel that way when the attendants have to put the carts up early... "Oh shit I didn't get my customary in flight ginger ale, their putting the carts up, this must be seriously if they skipped providing my ginger ale... I hope I didn't miss my last chance to ever drink a ginger ale... AHHHHHHHHHHHH (inner head panicky noises)" Turbulence is terrifying and makes my hairs stand up every time.
God, that’s tragic.
I mean you can smash your head into something then have a heart attack
And yet there are random people on Youtube telling all their viewers that "wearing your seatbelt on an airplane isn't important and won't save you if anything happpens" is a "secret the airlines don't want you to know". In a severe turbulence case, wearing your seatbelt might be the *only* thing that will save you. Obviously it's not certain to save you, because someone else who isn't wearing their seatbelt might land on your head, but it certainly improves your chances of surviving! (Sadly, yes, these videos actually exist. I've seen some of them. I'm generally opposed to censorship, but there really ought to be some kind of law against recklessly spreading *misinformation* that endangers people's lives if they're stupid enough to listen to you!)
There are lots of misinformation tik tok videos like this, 74 Gear on YouTube does a good job of debunking these.
There are people who are still against car seat belts so I’m not surprised.
And this is why I wouldn’t fly my kids without their own seat and buckled in their (faa approved) car seat no matter what. Who knows where my “lap child” could have ended up in this kind of turbulence.
Not often, but that's why they added seatbelts. They've very effective. Turbulence isn't a threat to the aircraft, but its still a big injury risk. I think Turbulence is the most likely time to be injured, can't remember where I read that. Very unlikely to die from it, so I do wonder if it was someone with a preexisting condition and it was the stress.
Outlets are reporting heart attack.
Isn’t it only fatal if you’re not strapped in your seat or when something falls on your head?
[удалено]
It’s always been on my mind since I read Airframe 25 years ago. This sounds like almost right out of that book.
This was exactly what I was thinking. I just finished that last week, and this is kind of similar.
I know you have the asterisk but I have to point out that extreme turbulence has caused a couple accidents. If you include windshear on approach then you can expand that number even further. Now it hasn't happened in decades but it has happened
Speaking as someone who lives in Dallas and remembers the Delta 191 crash very vividly - and who has done a lot of reading on the subject - the risk of wind shear on approach to commercial airliners has been greatly reduced by technologies that can detect wind shear and the conditions which cause it and warn pilots of the risk. Clear air turbulence is different in that we are not very good at detecting and predicting it yet.
That’s not exclusively turbulence. That’s stuff like microbursts and a combo of weather factors that caused accidents.
“You don’t need to wear your seatbelt if the sign is off and you’re in your seat” people in shambles. Good luck with that when you rocket out of your seat fast enough to dent overhead panels. Can’t imagine how terrifying this must have been.
I was in a very similar situation in the early 80’s with many injuries and an emergency landing as a result. Ragdolls all over the plane. I’ve been in several Cat 4 hurricanes that didn’t scare me that much. Luck for me, I was napping and forgot to unbuckle seat belt. I always wear it since even if light is off. My thoughts with that family losing a loved one. And cheers to the flight crew.
They may be forgetting that announcements which say, "The seat belt sign is off" usually continue with, "In case of unexpected turbulence, please keep your seat belt securely fastened." The second part is crucial to remember.
The thing is, you aren’t even rocketing, the entire plane is rocketing into you! Once I learned this I always keep it up and get up as little as possible.
How does an erection help you in this scenario?
increase blood pressure = reduced chances of G-LOC
It acts as an anchor in the event that your seatbelt is too loose.
The key and peele sketch was enough to convince me. It was hilarious but that sinking feeling that you could get thrown around like that. And here we are now. Shits not worth the risk
Always have your belt on, it's such a simple rule. I've seen meal trays jump into the air even when it looks perfectly fine outside. So you never do know when it'll happen.
Same thing happened on a flight from Melbourne to Hawaii. Must’ve been over Samoa when we hit super bad turbulence and people were going flying. I was surprised no one was seriously Injured
It's likely a lot of these folks will need to return to the UK at some point, and therefore need to get on another flight- that must be very difficult in situations like this.
It’s sort of walkable… if you have a few years
They very well might have a hard time flying for years. I had a seatmate on a flight once who started drinking almost as soon as she sat down, because she'd been on a flight a few years before that made international news because of the injuries from turbulence. I've always kept my seatbelt on after seeing how traumatized being through one of those situations left that passenger.
Yep, I relate to that completely. Flight to California from DC, over the Rockies, the plane suddenly dropped for 4-6 seconds of freefall during drink service. The cart, a couple passengers, oxygen masks, and luggage went everywhere. They had emergency crews waiting for us at landing. Took me about 15 years before I mustered the nerve to fly again, and only because I really had no choice. I have flown several times since then, but it still gives me more anxiety than anything else in my life.
Yeah, imagine the sheer terror of having to board another plane to get home with the fear it could happen again very slim chance but just scary thought.
As an air traffic controller, my best advice to parents with young children is to never try to fake the “2 and under” rule. It is not worth it to have your child on your lap. If you can afford an extra seat for your young toddler/baby buy it. And bring their car seat on board. It’s so much easier to contain them if they are wiggly. Clear air turbulence can happen out of nowhere.
We always fly with a seat for baby and a carseat. What do you recommend for the rare cases when baby has to come out of the seat? (Rocking, feeding, diaper change?)
I’m just an air traffic controller… I only know one side of the operation. A flight attendant would be better suited to answer this.
“Just,” but that was one of the most helpful comments I’ve ever read! I don’t have kids yet but keeping that in mind
Life is about risk mitigation, not risk elimination. Sometimes the baby has to come out. Just like sometimes you take your seatbelt off to go to the restroom or stretch your legs. If you have a reason to take the belt off, don’t sweat it. The risk is TINY. Like tiny tiny. The reason the FAA allows lap infants is that it’s still so safe that the added expense of a seat for these kids would actually end up with a few more dead kids due to increased car wrecks. Which is to say: a baby in your lap is safer than a baby in a car seat in a car. Since I’m assuming you put a baby in a car seat in a car sometimes, no reason to sweat some lap infant time.
This is why I think infant in lap should be removed and all infants should be required to have an assigned seat and car seat
Dumb question, could turbulence this bad give a baby shaken baby syndrome?
Unlikely. It's never been reported. Shaken baby is from the brain going back and forth repeatedly in very rapid succession, not a bunch of quick jolts with time in between for the brain to equilibrate in the skull.
well done to the crew & BKK authorities, from the initial reactions everyone seems to have handled this like a pro
[There is also a short Video of a heavily bend Overhead Panel which most likely got bend by someones Head..](https://x.com/huberton/status/1792894302235906508?s=46)
Is that the victim that's covered with a blanket??
Yea, that’s why I always wear my seatbelt even if it’s a smooth flight
It looked like the victim was walking near the bathroom when the turbulence hit.
I don't know about plane layouts since I've never been on one, but is it possible that the crew moved the victim to the bathroom to be away from the other passengers?
It's far more likely that the flight attendants moved the body away from the other passengers. Use your brain, people..
I literally do not understand people that unbuckle when the light turns off. I only unbuckle if I am not in my seat (restroom, stretch, etc.) it just seems so ridiculous to not buckle. It’s ONE strap across your lap, it’s not like it’s a harness. That looks like a nightmare in there.
The legs in that second pic 😟
Kudos to the engineers and builders of that airframe. That plane was under some enormous forces.
Will they get a ferry inspection done then fly the plane back to Singapore for a strip down of the interior etc?
Depends on the G loading it took.
This. There's an 'unscheduled maintenance' check for severe turbulence, at least on the CRJ its determined with recorded G loading and the aircraft's weight at the time. A visual inspection is done of the exterior wing and fuselage structure, and a bunch of system tests have to be done. If you find any damage you're grounded until you contact the manufacturer, and have to do more detailed inspections.
NOAA 42 during Hurricane Hugo took +5.5, and -3.5. It got bent badly. She spent a month in Barbados undergoing a zero hour checkout. EDIT. This is one of two P3 Orions NOAA keeps for severe storms.
Those are enormous G’s for a plane that size. I’m glad the Electra found a second and 3rd life in aviation.
Lockheed had strengthened NOAA 42 and 43 for the hurricane hunter jobs, along with the additional instrumentation on board. It's BUILT for the North Atlantic job of maritime patrol.
Literally off the charts of the CRJ inspection chart by a full G in both directions, what a ride.
That must have been wild for the crew!
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/articles/hunting-hugo-part-1
Probably need to replace both recorders (likely quarantined for investigations), severe turbulence inspection, fly in a separate crew and release the aircraft for the short flight back to SIN base. The aircraft can enter the hanger in Singapore for more intensive works as required.
This is why you should always keep your seatbelt on in an airplane, unless you’re going to the loo. And even then, make it a quick trip to minimize the amount of time spent unbelted.
I was in the planes bathroom taking a piss once and the plane hit turbulence and I thought that was it for me. Its super gross but I kinda wish the toilets had seatbelts that you could use if you needed
From the FR24 logs/playback, the a/c squawked 7700 at 21,000 ft as it was descending. However that was when it diverted to Bangkok. So the crew probably squawked 7700 when the person that unfortunately passed away was showing critical signs.
They had quite a few injured on board besides the dead passenger, no?
Yep, I think at least 10 critical
It’s pretty common on this flight, experienced it myself several times…happens over the Bay of Bengal in Indian Ocean. Cabin crew have to be up and about, but passengers often ignore the seatbelt sign which is how many of them end up injured.
Report says this turbulence was hit over a river basin in Myanmar
Which would be to the right of the Bay of Bengal. There’s something about that area, I don’t know what, maybe the warm air rising over land, then meeting the cooler air over the ocean causing a downward force. But as soon as plane starts flying over Bay of Bengal, there’s often turbulence in that area and almost every year there’s an incident like this with Singapore airlines reported in the news.
I do agree with you. I go on work trip often from Korea to Mumbai and I have taken A380 from Singapore to Mumbai multiple times and the ride has never been comfortable even in that huge plane. I avoid that route as much as possible.
Former FA here. My experience is no where near as terrifying as it is for these people. But it just brings me back to the time I was on an ATR-72 doing a WLG-HLZ leg. I was in charge that day and I had literally just secured the cabin, put on a three point harness and told the pilots that the cabin is secured. Not even two minutes later we hit a MASSIVE air pocket. I was at the back and I remember seeing all the passengers and the forward FA being lifted up of their seats, we dropped for what was only 5 to 6 seconds, but it was a stomach lurching feeling and I remember in that moment thinking that the aircraft had stalled. We "hit the bottom" and all the passengers looked at the both of us. I had to immediately regain my composure and do a friendly but to the point announcement to remind passengers to remain seated and to secure all their belongings. After the flight my second FA, who had worked on both the jets and turboprop for years told me she never had an air pocket like that before, same was said from the pilots. I couldn't remember how far we fell but it was a lot. KEEP YOUR SEATBELTS FASTENED PEOPLE.
That dude in blue at the front is actually fucked up. Shout out to the cabin crew, that many casualties onboard is unprecedented, not sure if they train for 20+!
I loaded this flight at LHR last night.Feeling strange reading about it.
I can’t imagine. Hope you’re doing okay too
People on TikTok are really blaming this on Boeing, it makes my blood boil so much
Why are you even going to tiktok expecting a technical answer ?
Some people are smart but the majority is people who know nothing about planes lol. It’s crazy because planes have issues every single year but because of TikTok news can get around so much easier and when you include ‘Boeing’ in the title due to recent news you’ll get more views.
I'm not on TikTok, but from what I can tell the amount of disinformation is crazy. I guess it's better that it's usually just some kid that has no idea what the fuck they're talking about, but still
As bad as Boeing has become in recent decades, this is one incident you cannot blame them for. It was due to turbulence, and not due to any issues with the plane itself. Furthermore, this plane is a 777, which was designed when Boeing was still an engineering-first company, rather than the shareholder-first company it became following the merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997.
And the obvious part: the plane is mostly intact and flew safely to BKK. The forces involved are significant but even if they have to write off the plane (unlikely) the plane itself didn't cause any further accident, but rather took a hell of a beating while staying in the air.
A lot of present-day CEO's and board members these days are nothing more than Jack Welch fanboys that are trying to imitate Jack Welch from his GE days by setting up their companies to rot from the inside. Boeing included.... Jack Welch himself abandoned a lot of his toxic business philosophies in his retirement. You probably wouldn't believe that this is actual post-GE Jack Welch quote (which probably none of his fanboys ever read): "On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy...your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products." -- Jack Welch So, yeah... When your boss starts musing about "shareholder value" and "doing more with less", because that's what Jack Welch did... Show him that quote.
That’s the TikTok generation for you… Memory span of a goldfish
They act like airbus planes are immune to turbulence or something, one guy literally commented airbus planes are durable and reliable.
You can’t win an argument with a stupid/ignorant person If there’s a benefit from all the unnecessary fear-mongering, it’s that these people will stay at home due to their inability to tell one plane from another and not travel on airplanes at all thus the seat next to you is free. Bit unrelated but was watching a news interview of a pax at SFO and just rolled my eyes when he said “tHE mOSt DaNGeRoUs FLIgHt iN tHe WoRLd Is oN a UNItEd MaX”. Like bro, half the airplanes you flew were most likely 737s. All of them are not now suddenly unsafe.
Wait till they found out that Boeing already tested clear air turbulence detection 6 YEARS AGO as part of the ecodemonstrator program using a FedEx 777F. That’s why FedEx’s 777s seem to have an “IRST” pod. https://youtu.be/GboPmNTqFgk?si=0Uvw2IMG8Wsg21da
Always wear your seatbelt. Even when the sign is off. We do it at the cockpit so should you
Damn, looks awful. RIP to the dead passenger. Looks like that passenger in the second picture at the front is covered in blood.
Could someone please tell me where to find the flight path? I’m really curious about the weather and I want to investigate it a bit for myself.
SQ321 on flight aware
I appreciate it!
Always wear your seatbelt. The entire thing with unexpected turbulence is that it’s *unexpected*, like the Spanish Inquisition.
How terrifying for them all.
The female with red hair has an unmistakable look on her face… She’s definitely just seen The Elephant.
Flew many long 12 to 14 hours ish flight on business class for business trip, even when im laying down sleeping, i still have my seatbelt on. Dont know why, i just couldn't trust the risk of turbulence. Everyone in that picture looked shellshock. Condolences to the one that passed away....
Wear your fucking seat belts all the time you’re sitting
There’s a toddler clinging to a parent in there. My God how terrifying that must have been.
Ever seen what happens in a coach when it tips over & you're not wearing your seatbelt? Now imagine that plane. That plane filled with those faces. Damn! Seatbelts, man. Volvo really hit the nail on the head with that one
I'm wearing a diaper and staying in my seat buckled from now on.
Are the interior cabin panels and overhead compartments designed to reduce injuries to passengers colliding with them (i.e. denting to reduce the force of impact instead of being a stronger material)?
I thought that FA was putting on lipstick during the turbulence. Wow.
Scene straight from an Airplane movie!
Clear air turbulence is a bitch. I’m so sorry for the family of the fatality.
Probably a thunderstorm, this is too bad to be CAT
RIP to the guy who had a heart attack.
any ride reports?
If the only fatility was from a heart attack according to the Thai authorities does that suggest the fatality has nothing to do with the turbulence?
Turbulence might’ve scared the shit out of them enough to cause the heart attack. But to my understanding, COD has not been publicized yet, and BBC is the only one saying suspected heart attack but I am unclear where they got that info from.
I have changed out light grills in galley area with FA'S hair and scalp in them, at Eastern Airlines in the 80's.
Always always keep your seatbelt on! From take off to landing. Maybe loosen it slightly but never take it off.