One dead, 30 injured in Singapore Airlines emergency landing

[Parker2100]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

A heart attack is different to cardiac arrest. A heart attack is a myocardial infarction which is caused by a blockage to the heart so oxygenated blood can't get to the heart and a cardiac arrest is more of an electronic failing leading to the heart muscles failing to beat properly or stop beating altogether.

But the journalist who reported what you say they reported could not know why the reason why the heart stopped.  So the kind of Cardiac Arrest could not be dermined in the amount of time since the accident and your post.

 

And technically.  Cardiac means Heart and Arrest means stop.   So...

 

In any case, the person is dead because of the accident.  Perhaps if they knew they had a bad heart, they know how to control their condition.  The accident takes control away from them.

[Jai Dee]

Press release from Suvarnabhumi Airport regarding the emergency landing by a Singapore Airlines flight: 

 

[Parker2100]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Why post something you obviously don't understand at all.  As pointed out already, they are not the same.

 

Cardiac means what?  Heart, right?  Arrest means what?  To stop, right?

 

In the amount of time since the accident and the post I responded too, that would be all the information a journalist would know to report.  If it were a blockage or something else, they would have to cut the body open and do a full report to determine that.

 

All we can possibly know is their heart stopped and they are dead.

[John Drake]

5 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Yep. Meals on long haul flights do not always align with what some consider to be a particular time or there abouts for a particular meal. SQ321 departed Heathrow at 22.10 GMT. Plane landed BKK 08:45GMT/15:45 Thai time. Meal served was breakfast. Breakfast: Break the fast. The flight would have had a dinner meal sometime after takeoff after reaching cruising altitude and speed. For most people this will be very easy to understand.

 

Jeezus! How long are you people going to argue over the damn menu? What a trivial waste of time.

[dinsdale]

16 minutes ago, Parker2100 said:

But the journalist who reported what you say they reported could not know why the reason why the heart stopped.  So the kind of Cardiac Arrest could not be dermined in the amount of time since the accident and your post.

 

And technically.  Cardiac means Heart and Arrest means stop.   So...

 

In any case, the person is dead because of the accident.  Perhaps if they knew they had a bad heart, they know how to control their condition.  The accident takes control away from them.

The actual cause of death has not been released so if it was his heart then it could've been heart failure, a cardiac arrest or a myocardial infarction (heart attack). Three seperate conditions.

[nrasmussen]

22 minutes ago, impulse said:

If the seatbelt sign is on for 13 hours, you never know when it's safe to hit the head and avoid soiling the seat.

 

Yes, I find that annoying too. Of course, whenever you hear "Cabin crew take your seats!" you know when you should definitely not go to the lavatory.

[Parker2100]

2 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Sorry but not sure what reports you are reading, but every news site reports that he is suspected to have had a “myocardial infarction”.

 

This incident did not occur on landing, the aircraft was a full flight height and hit some form of turbulence. Passengers not wearing seat belts were thrown around the cabin.

 

The pilot declared an emergency and diverted to Bangkok so the passengers could receive medical attention.

 

 

 

It is extremely unlikely that they would have had a heart attack had the accident not occurred.  Therefore, the death is caused by the accident.  Right?

[Parker2100]

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The actual cause of death has not been released so if it was his heart then it could've been heart failure, a cardiac arrest or a myocardial infarction (heart attack). Three seperate conditions.

Heart Attack is a general term that does not indicate any specific form of Cardiac Arrest.

[dinsdale]

1 minute ago, Parker2100 said:

 

It is extremely unlikely that they would have had a heart attack had the accident not occurred.  Therefore, the death is caused by the accident.  Right?

Conjecture but likely. This is what autopsies are for. Expert analysis on cause of death.

[Georgealbert]

5 minutes ago, Parker2100 said:

 

Cardiac means what?  Heart, right?  Arrest means what?  To stop, right?

 

In the amount of time since the accident and the post I responded too, that would be all the information a journalist would know to report.  If it were a blockage or something else, they would have to cut the body open and do a full report to determine that.

 

All we can possibly know is their heart stopped and they are dead.

The cause of death will not be fully determined until a post mortem has been completed.

 

It is not clear if the post mortem will be done in Thailand or the UK, as technically this was not a death in Thailand. It could also be done by both countries.

 

Singapore Airline will be arranging the repatriation of the body, but timing will depend on the condition of his wife and if and when she is able to fly.

 

The family with be talking to the Singapore response team, British Embassy and Thai officials on how to proceed.

[Georgealbert]

6 minutes ago, Parker2100 said:

 

It is extremely unlikely that they would have had a heart attack had the accident not occurred.  Therefore, the death is caused by the accident.  Right?

That is best left to medical and legal experts to determine, as compensation will follow.

[dinsdale]

3 minutes ago, Parker2100 said:

Heart Attack is a general term that does not indicate any specific form of Cardiac Arrest.

Ok you are right and the following info is obviously wrong. Please pay close attention to point 1 in the 5 differences.

Myocardial infarction (MI), colloquially known as "heart attack," is caused by decreased or complete cessation of blood flow to a portion of the myocardium.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537076/#:~:text=Myocardial infarction (MI)%2C colloquially,hemodynamic deterioration and sudden death.

 

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/medical/heart-attack-and-cardiac-arrest

5 differences between a heart attack and a cardiac arrest: (Remember a heart attack is technically known as a myocardial infarction)

1. A heart attack is not the same as a cardiac arrest.
2. A heart attack is when one of the coronary arteries becomes blocked. The heart muscle is robbed of its vital blood supply and, if left untreated, will begin to die because it is not getting enough oxygen.
3. A cardiac arrest is when a person’s heart stops pumping blood around their body and they stop breathing normally.
4. Many cardiac arrests in adults happen because of a heart attack. This is because a person who is having a heart attack may develop a dangerous heart rhythm, which can cause a cardiac arrest.
5. A heart attack and a cardiac arrest are both emergency situations. Call 999 straight away.

[smew]

Bay of Bengal-tigers will get you every time... continuous turbulence flying through that area and never take off my seat belt  

[josephbloggs]

Only on AN can a news article on turbulence result in pages and pages of people arguing about the definition of a heart attack and arguing about what time breakfast is served on planes.

Some people have way too much time on their hands.

[Jai Dee]

Andrew Davies, from Lewisham, south London, wrote on social media that he was on the flight and that passengers received “very little warning” to put on their seat belts.

“The seatbelt sign came on, I put on my seat belt straightaway then the plane just dropped,” he said.

“My heart goes out to the gentleman who lost his life and his poor wife. Awful experience.

“Lots of people injured – including the air stewards who were stoic and did everything they could.”

Mr Davies said passengers with medical training jumped in to help the man who suffered the cardiac arrest on board, performing CPR.

 

Source: inews.co.uk

[Georgealbert]

Singapore Airlines update 6.

 

 

[Parker2100]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Conjecture but likely. This is what autopsies are for. Expert analysis on cause of death.

 

Extremely unlikely at that time.  We agree on that, right?

 

[snoop1130]

Singapore Airlines passengers share their experiences of mid-air turmoil at 37,000 feet

 

 

As of this morning, 79 passengers and six crew members are still in Bangkok, Thailand, receiving treatment for injuries they suffered during severe turbulence on a Singapore Airlines flight.

 

The incident occurred on May 21 during flight SQ321, en route from London to Singapore. The plane encountered the drastic turbulence about ten hours into the journey, while flying over the northern Andaman Sea near Myanmar's coast.

 

The turbulence resulted in an unexpected drop of approximately 6,000 feet in three minutes, causing disarray within the plane. Passengers and items were tossed around, resulting in numerous injuries and damage to the plane's structure. At the time of the incident, breakfast was being served onboard.

 

Dzafran Azmir, a 28-year-old passenger, described seeing fellow passengers being thrown against the ceiling before landing unevenly, some even crashing onto the floor. He noted that several individuals suffered serious head injuries and concussions.

 

An Australian passenger, Teandra Tukhunen, recounted being flung against the cabin's roof and subsequently onto the floor, causing her injuries. She stated that the turbulence hit shortly after the 'fasten seat belts' sign was illuminated, giving passengers little time to protect themselves.

 

The sudden air disturbance reportedly resulted in the death of a 73-year-old British man named Geoffrey Kitchen, who was a retired insurance professional and musical theatre director. He and his wife were on a six-week trip, intending to visit multiple countries. Due to the accident, the flight was forced to divert to Bangkok.

 

In Bangkok, technicians examined the plane after an emergency landing, finding that the 15-year-old Boeing 777-300 appeared unscathed despite the chaos inside.

 

Later, a relief flight carried 131 passengers and 12 crew members to Singapore, arriving at Changi Airport at 5am today. There, family members were waiting to greet the shaken passengers.

 

Currently, the aforementioned 79 passengers and six crew members remain in Bangkok to receive medical treatment for their injuries.

 

This rare air travel incident has negatively affected many passengers, with one saying he has no immediate plans to fly again.

 

File photo for reference only. Courtesy of Google

 

-- 2024-05-22

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[Eaglekott]

Why does so many new media exaggerate?

 

"Plane fell almost 2,000 meter in a few minutes"

Apparently it didn't fell, the captain took it down after the turbulent incident and the "fall" is not worse than what they decline before landing. The captain most certainly did this on purpose to be able to fly much slower than in an air space (FIR) dedicated for traffic on high altitudes. He can fly slower to prevent injured passengers to get more injuries if he fly closer to the ground.

 

"The plane was forced to do an emergency landing in Bangkok" 

I would say No, the emergency landing was a choice of the captain. Im sure no one forced him. He landed on the closest airport he believe can treat the injured people as soon as possible.

 

"The turbulence killed one person"

They believe he died from a heart attack, not caused by trauma, but the autopsy has to verify that, that probably would mean he had some heart conditions and he might not even be aware of them, Hypertension? The incident is most certain why caused the bowl of water to overflow with the last drop.

 

"2 people died from the Turbulence"

So far I have not seen any reliable source mention a second fatality. Only one that some media seams to refer to. They might be wrong, and I hope they are, one dead in one to many already.

 

and the most crazy one:

"One died of emergency landing from not wearing seat belt"

Why state this?

 

Im sure there is many more examples. Many media seams for example to focus on the oxygen masks that fall down on hight altitude if the cabin pressure disappear, in this case they probably can down when a passenger without seat belt hit the panel with their head.

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

20 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Today's Sherlock Holmes!

Solves all mysteries without ever being at the (crime) scene!

Pure conjecture on your part!

Not pure conjecture at all. It's exactly what was described by the eye witnesses, one of whom was already quoted in this thread, by @Stocky.

 

Quote

Dzafran Azmir, 28, told Reuters:

[...]

Some people hit their heads on the baggage cabins overhead and dented it, they hit the places where lights and masks are and broke straight through it.

 

 

[Sheryl]

12 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

.... Again I think a cardiac arrest is the most likely cause for this person's death.

 

Cardiac arrest simply means the heart suddenly stops beating.

 

Occurs in all sudden deaths. Not a cause of death as such.

 

 

[geisha]

22 hours ago, Dmaxdan said:

It would appear that the plane was close to falling apart. I know that the oxygen masks are supposed to deploy in an emergency but should the air vents be falling down and injuring passengers? The turbulence must have been off the scale!

Falling apart ? Rubbish.

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, nrasmussen said:

 

Yes, I find that annoying too. Of course, whenever you hear "Cabin crew take your seats!" you know when you should definitely not go to the lavatory.

 

Some reports I have seen say that it was so sudden the cabin crew were not able to sit first. And every one quoted stressed how very sudden and without warning this event was. There was even someone in the lavatory as well as people enroute to it.

 

The suddenness and lack of prior warning (and hence, people in the lavatories, people in the aisles, people not seat-belted in) would explain the large number of injuries and their seriousness (6 of the hospitalized are listed as critical last I heard).

 

Apparently there are rare types of turbulence that would not show in advance on the plane's weather screen?? Anyway will take time to find out the details of what caused this and why not forseen in time to make a seat belt announcement etc.

 

The incident does certainly well illustrate why seat belt / remain setaed notifications should be taken seriously.

 

 

[Jai Dee]

Several off-topic, argumentative, and petty bickering posts and replies have been removed as they were in violation of our Community Standards.

 

Should the protagonists continue... your posting rights may be removed... be warned.

[Georgealbert]

This analysis of the flight data says this may have been a very short, sudden event that occurred quickly.

 

“So there was a rollercoaster event for two or three seconds, which caused the carnage we have all seen, but then they have subsequently descended to get the aircraft to a safe spot.”

Quote from Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) Vice President and Qantas pilot Mark Hofmeyer.

 

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/aipa-vp-and-qantas-pilot-mark-hofmeyer-talks-singapore-airlines-flight-sq321/news-story/c693b0b0cc5ad2edf535623464fd88eb

[Georgealbert]

The planes registration status now shows it parked at BKK, this will be update when it returns to service.

 

 

[how241]

Seat belts should be required to be worn at all times, except for going to the  bathroom.

[dinsdale]

Are defribillators and oxygen bags (manual resuscitators) onboard passenger planes with cabin crew trained in their use along with CPR? If not this may be something that needs to happen. If this poor bloke did have a cardiac arrest maybe trained staff could have got his heart beating again.

[dinsdale]

20 minutes ago, how241 said:

Seat belts should be required to be worn at all times, except for going to the  bathroom.

I've seen this a lot on this thread and I agree to a point but as has been pointed out by myself and others on long haul flights getting up and having a bit of a walk around to get the circulation going is medically recommended for the avoidance of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). If it happens that the plane hits some clear air turbulance not detected then that's bad luck for sure but in reality the chances are very slim. If you're in your seat you should be strapped in. I always am.

[sqwakvfr]

20 hours ago, Paris333 said:

Accident: Singapore B773 near Bangkok on May 21st 2024, severe turbulence kills one and injures 37

 

A Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300, registration 9V-SWM performing flight SQ-321 from London Heathrow,EN (UK) to Singapore (Singapore) with 211 passengers and 18 crew, was enroute at FL370 about 210nm westnorthwest of Bangkok (Thailand) when the aircraft suffered severe turbulence causing injuries to a number of passengers. The crew descended the aircraft to FL310 and decided to divert to Bangkok where the aircraft landed on runway 19R about 30 minutes later. One passenger was pronounced dead upon arrival, 30 passengers and 7 crew were taken to hospitals.  The airline confirmed there had been severe turbulence causing one fatality and injuries on board of flight SQ-321. The airline later reported: "As of 1950hrs Singapore time on 21 May 2024, 18 individuals have been hospitalised. Another 12 are being treated in hospitals."  Authorities in Bangkok reported a British citizen (73) on board died as result of a heart attack. Seven people are in critical conditions. 23 other passengers and 7 crew received injuries of varying degrees.  According to ADS-B data the speed over ground of the aircraft dropped rapidly by about 20 knots prior to starting the (controlled) descent from FL370 to FL310. The data also reveal the aircraft had experienced an altitude deviation of -100/+300 feet about 350nm westnorthwest of Bangkok while enroute at FL370 over Myanmar about 15 minutes earlier.

Source:

https://avherald.com/h?article=518e5d47&opt=6144

 

 

British man killed by turbulence on London to Singapore flight

 

 

When the aircraft has high speed and falls into an air gap the Captain reduces the speed of the aircraft in order to reduce the turbulence.
The Captain of the aircraft considered whether to increase the speed of the aircraft in order to leave the air gaps quickly while alternatively maintaining the existing flight speed and all of these happens between the Gulf of Thailand and Myanmar region.

Another point to take account is that the plane fell 6m/second while landing is 4m/second........and it took 5 minutes to descend around 1800 meters. 

Incidentally, most injuries occure to those not wearing seatbelt during sudden downward movements of the plane do not occur when they hit the ceiling of the cabin, but rather when they subsequently "land" on armrests and backrests, other passengers or trolleys (serving carts).

My inquiry is that:

Why don't I have to fasten my seatbelt on the train?

 

 

  All aircraft have a speed known as Va(Manuevering speed, this airspeed is the max speed when full flight control can be used without exceeding structural load limits).  All pilots are trained to reduce to Va when turbulence is encountered.  So I can't see why the Captain would have considered increasing speed when turbulence was encountered?  Also, the most reliable way to forecast turblulence is from PIREP's(Pilot Reports).  Often pilots who are asked  on the airwasys are aske  "how is the ride"? The best answers would be "Smooth" or "light chop".  In this case I doubt a PIREP of turbulence was reported.