Widow sues Singapore Airlines over Bangkok turbulence death

1 hour ago, msbkk said:

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.

Well I think I've already said as much but what is unknown is what may have happened if the wx radar had captured and displayed this significant system? Would the pilots have requested a different local area routing to avoid it? There were two full Captains on the flight deck at the time and I would expect them to have requested a deviation via the clearest option.

Edited August 31Aug 31 by nauseus

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well I think I've already said as much but what is unknown is what may have happened if the wx radar had captured and displayed this significant system? Would the pilots have requested a different local area routing to avoid it? There were two full Captains on the flight deck at the time and I would expect them to have requested a deviation via the clearest option.

Yes, it is unknown what exactly has happened. As I mentioned even if the radar has captured and displayed it and pilots tried to avoid it (which we do not know) it might not have been possible to completely avoid it. Also, pilots have to follow the instructions of air traffic control, there are other people involved. I remember that years ago I was on a quite bumpy flight and the pilot told us that he has to follow the instructions and flight route and height of air traffic control because of other planes in the area.

At 07:49:32 UTC, one of the pilots called out that the fasten seatbelt signs had been turned on. At 07:49:40 UTC the aircraft experienced a drop in vertical acceleration from +1.35G to −1.5G within 0.6 seconds, which likely caused unrestrained passengers to become airborne. At 07:49:41 UTC the vertical acceleration changed from −1.5G to +1.5G in 4 seconds, which would have caused airborne occupants to fall.^[39]

Point eight seconds after the light came on, turbulence hit hard. 0.8 seconds, less than one second after the seatbelt light came on.

^[39]

"Transport Safety Investigation Bureau Preliminary Investigation Findings of Incident Involving SQ321" (Press release). Ministry of Transport of Singapore. 29 May 2024. Archivedfrom the original on 30 May 2024. Retrieved 30 May 2024.

3 hours ago, msbkk said:

Yes, it is unknown what exactly has happened.

Is it? I thought it was well reported at the time that the aircraft encountered 'clear air turbulence'. No? Radar and all the other instruments cannot see that - and you only know once you're in it.

3 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

Is it? I thought it was well reported at the time that the aircraft encountered 'clear air turbulence'. No? Radar and all the other instruments cannot see that - and you only know once you're in it.

It was reported wrong.

Singapore Airlines lawyers will be calling this an "Act of God" and doubt any compensation

will be paid , Singapore Airlines are also been sued by lady because she swallowed a piece

of a satay stick on a flight to USA , she was a singer and claims she cannot sing anymore...

regards worgeordie

.8 seconds after the light came on, less than 1 second.

16 hours ago, NedR69 said:

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

Point eight seconds after the light came on, turbulence hit hard. 0.8 seconds, less than one second after the seatbelt light came on. This will end the question if the light was on when they were injured. Nope, not a factor.

23 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.

As a percentage or purely just numerically. There are a lot more planes in the air in modern times. Is it climatic or other factors?

Per the Montreal Convention, airlines have strict Liability for Accidents

1. Strict Liability for Accidents: The airline is automatically liable for proven physical injuries or death caused by an in-flight "accident" (defined as an unexpected external event like severe turbulence), meaning victims do not need to prove negligence for baseline claims.

2. Investigation Findings: Final safety findings from Singapore’s Transport Safety Investigation Bureau noted that the sudden plunge and G-force shifts occurred when the plane traversed storm cells that went undetected by the aircraft's onboard weather radar, which shapes the evidentiary landscape for ongoing high-value civil claims.

3. Liability Caps & Proof: Under the treaty, the airline cannot contest damages up to a threshold of approximately $175,000 per passenger. For claims exceeding this amount, Singapore Airlines can attempt to limit its liability by proving it took all necessary measures to avoid the weather or that the passenger was at fault (such as ignoring seatbelt signs), though successfully using this defense is rare.

From the Straits Times article linked page 1 this topic:

Anthe Korelidou, a specialist aviation lawyer representing Kitchen, said: “While it’s more than two years since Geoff’s death, Linda and the rest of her family continue to have a number of questions and concerns about what happened and if more could have been done to prevent their injuries.

“All Linda wants is for the most thorough investigations to be conducted."

NB In other words, they are claiming the official investigation was inadequate and did not say that SIA was, in some manner, negligent.

24 minutes ago, JerryM said:

From the Straits Times article linked page 1 this topic:

Anthe Korelidou, a specialist aviation lawyer representing Kitchen, said: “While it’s more than two years since Geoff’s death, Linda and the rest of her family continue to have a number of questions and concerns about what happened and if more could have been done to prevent their injuries.

“All Linda wants is for the most thorough investigations to be conducted."

NB In other words, they are claiming the official investigation was inadequate and did not say that SIA was, in some manner, negligent.

Nice words. They smell money, that's why they're there.