Widow sues Singapore Airlines over Bangkok turbulence death

NB The flight had 18 crew and 211 passengers with 79 injuries 20 with ICU injuries per Wikipedia

Edited August 30Aug 30 by JerryM

3 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

The airline will probably settle quietly out of court.

Not knowing UK law but I will guess the airline has already tried to settle and the terms were rejected by the now plaintiff. So they maybe will hold tight on the suit.

Edited August 30Aug 30 by JerryM

Wonder if this is the start of something ?

Climate change?

If so we are fewked !

45 minutes ago, Jim Blue said:

Wonder if this is the start of something ?

Climate change?

If so we are fewked !

These cases of unexpected sudden turbulence have happened since quite some time already. That's why there is always an announcement to keep seatbelts fastened whenever seated. But yes, overall cases of turbulence have increased during the past years.

39 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not really. This event occurred coincident with the early arrival of the eastern arm of the SW Monsoon over Myanmar in 2024. That means major changes in regional wind speeds, directions and air temperatures, pressures other variables, over a broad area. This weather would have been difficult to avoid and it's hard to forecast the severity of it. Very unlucky timing and location that day but I would imagine that the seat belt sign was on and that the pilot had announced warnings over the PA. I don't think that SQ are likely to be particularly to blame here.

Not talking to myself but adding this after reading some reports:

The weather radar may not have been identifying potential turbulence effectively (under detection) but I can't find a conclusion.

Seat belt sign was activated at first turbulence but that was only 17s before the main event - pilots did not announce this as they were immediately busy trying to control the 777.

So, I've changed my mind a bit in that SQ may have to take on more responsibility. I guess we'll have to see comes out of court.

That said, it sees that the pilots did a good job, overall. It could have been much worse.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/sq321-report-findings-investigation-radar-turbulence-6129846

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

So, I've changed my mind a bit in that SQ may have to take on more responsibility. I guess we'll have to see comes out of court.

If this case finds against the airline, stand by for yet more increases in air fares to cover future legal costs.

I wonder if the sudden - / + G loading also did some structural damage to the aircraft. Negative is particularly tough on airframes.

Wow, that was some serious turbulence. Did the news state if the seatbelt light was on?

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Not really. This event occurred coincident with the early arrival of the eastern arm of the SW Monsoon over Myanmar in 2024. That means major changes in regional wind speeds, directions and air temperatures, pressures other variables, over a broad area. This weather would have been difficult to avoid and it's hard to forecast the severity of it. Very unlucky timing and location that day but I would imagine that the seat belt sign was on and that the pilot had announced warnings over the PA. I don't think that SQ are likely to be particularly to blame here.

Did it say if the light was on? I agree, if it was on, and had been on when the turbulence, the airline's liability might not be as much. But for this person that lost their husband, she should get a generous out of court settlement.

2 minutes ago, NedR69 said:

Wow, that was some serious turbulence. Did the news state if the seatbelt light was on?

That's irrelevant. You should always have your seatbelt on when seated. The light is only to indicate you can't get up to go to the bathroom etc.

No case here. Xhe should lose.

27 minutes ago, gargamon said:

That's irrelevant. You should always have your seatbelt on when seated. The light is only to indicate you can't get up to go to the bathroom etc.

No case here. Xhe should lose.

The seatbelt "SHOULD BE" fastened, however.

That is is not "mandatory" cabin crew direction, as in "shall comply".

She will win if the light was not on. Words like suggested, recommended, SHOULD won't hold up in court. Must comply with crew directions, and MUST means it is MANDATORY.

3 minutes ago, NedR69 said:

She will win if the light was not on. Words like suggested, recommended, SHOULD won't hold up in court. Must comply with crew directions, and MUST means it is MANDATORY.

If that's the standard, get ready for flights where the light never goes off. You'll still be allowed to use the restroom because they don't want you to ruin the seat and stink up the cabin. At your own risk. They'll be absolved.

Is there an Act Of God clause to absolve the airlines liabilty ?

Full sympathy for her. But I don't think she has much chance. If clear air turbulence can be proven scientifically in court - and SQ has deep pockets - then I think she will lose. The airline would also prove it did all it could, including a diversion to Bangkok to attend the casualties of passengers and staff.

The airline had in 2024 sent out offers of compensation to passengers on board the flight, with those who suffered minor injuries being offered US$10,000 (S$13,500). An advance payment of US$25,000 was offered for passengers who suffered serious injuries that require long-term medical care and were requesting financial help.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/wife-of-british-man-who-died-on-turbulence-hit-sia-flight-sq321-sues-airline

I hope she loses because if the woman wins everyone will lose. Seat prices will increase to cover the extra insurances they will all have to get, wearing a seatbelt will be mandatory (except to toilet and doing so will be at your own risk), and anyone over the age of 70 will be uninsured (at your own risk). As usual, the ones that always win will be lawyers and insurance companies.

Took her 2 years to start the legal process. My guess would be, 2 years of being hounded by lawyers who want to make money.

1 hour ago, NedR69 said:

The seatbelt "SHOULD BE" fastened, however.

That is is not "mandatory" cabin crew direction, as in "shall comply".

She will win if the light was not on. Words like suggested, recommended, SHOULD won't hold up in court. Must comply with crew directions, and MUST means it is MANDATORY.

Clear turbulence can however not be predicted, happens every year. I doubt that any airline can be sued because of that except there was a serious oversight by the crew.

I am wondering what the outcome will be.. Turbulence is can't be blamed as a shortcoming of the airlines, In all my flights it is always announced to keep your seatbelts on during the flight... This is a tragic coincidence. Heart problems, known or unknown can occur everywhere and always, and maybe the turbulence triggered the dead of this man, but maybe not too.. I don't know if even specialists can answer that question. So I am very curious what the verdict will be in the end.

The airline noted that it has a comprehensive insurance policy in place covering incidents such as that involving SQ321.

Updated Jun 12, 2024, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/sia-offers-compensation-to-sq321-passengers-us10k-for-those-with-minor-injuries?ref=inline-article

There is a good reason why you are recommended to always keep your seatbelt (loosely) fastened during a flight — hard for me to agree in that the accident is a fault by the airline or the crew — however, passengers are fully covered under the Montreal Convention 1999, which includes Singapore Airlines. Furthermore, a travel insurance would normally also covers accidents caused by turbulence during a flight. Even that there is a financial limit in the Montreal Convention, passengers with serious injuries and loss are still covered exceeding this amount, unless the airline can prove that the accident was not due to their negligence at all.

The final accident report from the Singapore Airlines Accident Investigation Board (TSIB) concluded that the turbulence occurred in storm clouds that the plane's built-in weather radar did not pick up in time. Safety signs were illuminated, but just 17 seconds later, severe turbulence hit, meaning the crew did not have time to warn the cabin over the loudspeakers. (Source: CNA, and The Straits Times.)

6 hours ago, msbkk said:

These cases of unexpected sudden turbulence have happened since quite some time already. That's why there is always an announcement to keep seatbelts fastened whenever seated. But yes, overall cases of turbulence have increased during the past years.

NO, advanced radar & doppler have allowed pilots to avoid turbulence.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

NO, advanced radar & doppler have allowed pilots to avoid turbulence.

Clear turbulence cannot be detected so far.

Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) | SKYbrary Aviation Safety

Edited August 31Aug 31 by msbkk

9 minutes ago, msbkk said:

Clear turbulence cannot be detected so far.

Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) | SKYbrary Aviation Safety

Working for NWA, have to say, they had some of the smoothest flights, and were way ahead of others.

5 minutes ago, msbkk said:

Clear turbulence cannot be detected so far.

Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) | SKYbrary Aviation Safety

Well, it seems that the air might not have been so clear after all but the question mark over the performance of the weather radar remains, even after the final report was issued in May this year. The timing of this release may explain why the question of legal action has recently arisen.

A large, powerful and rapidly moving weather system, with heavy and turbulent high cloud build and erratic air movement is exactly what happens at the onset of the monsoon. I can't get the full final report but this Straits Times report (below) is quite good.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/flight-sq321-radar-failed-to-detect-weather-that-likely-caused-severe-turbulence-probe-finds

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Well, it seems that the air might not have been so clear after all but the question mark over the performance of the weather radar remains, even after the final report was issued in May this year. The timing of this release may explain why the question of legal action has recently arisen.

A large, powerful and rapidly moving weather system, with heavy and turbulent high cloud build and erratic air movement is exactly what happens at the onset of the monsoon. I can't get the full final report but this Straits Times report (below) is quite good.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/flight-sq321-radar-failed-to-detect-weather-that-likely-caused-severe-turbulence-probe-finds

Ok. Pilots can try to largely avoid turbulences by changing routes and altitude. This does not mean however that you can completely avoid flying through bad weather zones. To sue an airline because of that might not be possible except of pilot error or flight instrument error.

The detailed posts above about how and why there can be turbulence is largely irrelevant. Why the injury occurred is what counts. She says there had been a lot of turbulence, and if that was the case the airline would have told passengers to wear their seatbelt. They always advise it anyway in case of unexpected turbulence. That is routine. It might not be comfortable, especially on a long flight, but it's not as if it is an over-the-shoulder thing like in a car. It's simply around the waist. If her husband refused to act on their safety advice then the airline can claim the injury was caused by her husband's refusal to heed their warning.

Edited August 31Aug 31 by Bangkok Barry

According to many industry professionals and passengers, the compensation plan offered by the airline is generous and there are provisions for major injuries that require sustained treatment.

Obviously Ms. Kitchen and her attorneys and about 10 other passengers think it isn't.