Singapore turbulent flight: Aussie survivor’s desperate plea

[PJ71]

3 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

It shouldn't be too difficult. Every car I know for that last 10 years has had a warning sound if someone is sitting in a seat without seatbelt. So lets say a green light over each seat to say all is OK, which turns RED if undone, especially when taxi-ing after landing. You always hear click click undo undo immediately after the announcement has said keep belts on until standstill.

But have you seen the fools in cars engage the seat belt and then put it behind their backs and continue not to wear, the mind boggles.

[Chivas]

7 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Rather dramatic Mr Chivas. But come on, all who flew this route this year, tell us all how lucky/grateful/happy you are that it arrived safely.

And all those since last week.

 

Indeed lol

To be honest I didnt take much notice of it initially until it got mentioned it had landed around 3.45pm in Bangkok and suddenly it dawned on me

 

No one can blame Singapore for this either. Clear air pockets that cant be picked up on radar have been known of for years.

 

I keep my seatbelt on every flight (as most do) but if anything good comes out of this it will be those warnings from flight deck to get those belts on loosely at all times for the future

 

Singapore by far the best airline I've ever been on

 

 

[Bangkok Barry]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Keith Davis, previously blocked from speaking to the media

 

The usual Thai reaction to anything negative. Never happened, nothing to see here. At least he received an apology. Blocked him speaking with the media to protect payient welfare, my ar*s.

 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Davis lamented the fact that he and his wife had not worn their seatbelt throughout the flight as advised by the flight crew of lack of communication from Singapore Airlines.

 

There. Fixed it

[BritScot]

2 hours ago, bob smith said:

sounds like hell.

 

I hope all those who were injured on board are fully compensated by the airline.

 

Flying in 2024 isn't as safe as it used to be!

 

bob.

Really? It was very dodgy flying in 1939~1945. This was a bizzar occurance.  The moral of the story is keep your seat belt on.  I feel for the passengers especially Mrs Davies and hope her back orts itself out. Cuts and bruise heal.

[cnx101]

2 hours ago, PJ71 said:

I'd be surprised if there's compensation, it's recommended on each flight to keep your seatbelt on once seat, it's mentioned in the PA.

 

Harsh as this may sound, they 'chose' not to.

 

It appears people that did have their seatbelts on received much less minor injuries.

They were on a 12 hour flight of course they have to stand up sometimes, I get a sore ass on a two hour flight

[AAArdvark]

Unless it can be shown that the airline did something  wrong, there should be no compensation. Anyone who was seated and did not have their seatbelt on, should compensate the airline for damages

[jerrymahoney]

20 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

As you say the passengers that were 'belted up' all seems OK physically at least, maybe scared but not damaged, the un belted ones were the ones that had severe injuries.

To be fair it's one thing to be seated in your seat for an extended period on a long flight without a fastened seat belt -- it's something else for those who just happened to be up&about for whatever reason for a short time during a long flight.

[johng]

There is no way you can keep "passengers"  strapped to their seats for a 12 hour flight  the incidence of DVT would sky rocket and cause much more death and injury than a bit of freak turbulence.

[sherwood]

17 minutes ago, PJ71 said:

But have you seen the fools in cars engage the seat belt and then put it behind their backs and continue not to wear, the mind boggles.

Yep seen people do that operating mine vehicles even though the cab camera is recording.

Some people just can't help themselves.

As for the Hospital Staff trying to stop an interview, Wtf.

[smew]

In my view, it should be mandatory to have seat belts on while over Bay of Bengal, as  I travel BKK to Europe every month and always some degree of turbulence  while over Bay of Bengal

[sherwood]

3 minutes ago, johng said:

There is no way you can keep "passengers"  strapped to their seats for a 12 hour flight  the incidence of DVT would sky rocket and cause much more death and injury than a bit of freak turbulence.

Another idiot statement on the subject of safety devices.

What is that old saying about an ounce of prevention?

[johng]

1 minute ago, smew said:

while over Bay of Bengal

Ohh bloody blimey sir !!  must be all that curry 😋

[scubascuba3]

42 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

If this were an occurence involving some so-called budget carrier, there might be more concern. I think not so much with Singapore.

Per the article lack of communication whether Singapore airlines is covering medical costs, i.e. avoiding it

[PJ71]

12 minutes ago, johng said:

There is no way you can keep "passengers"  strapped to their seats for a 12 hour flight  the incidence of DVT would sky rocket and cause much more death and injury than a bit of freak turbulence.

yes i agree, but i doubt everyone unbelted were on route to toilets.

 

many people like to sit without their belts on, i'm sure they have their own reasons why. 

[Caldera]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

“It was absolute carnage. There was no warning. We just fell into a freefall zone, and before we knew it, we were on the ceiling and then bang, on the ground.”

 

Sounds like he and his wife didn't keep their seat belts fastened despite being advised to do so while seated (to mitigate this very scenario, unexpected turbulence).

 

If I had been on that flight and either he or his wife or some other negligent idiot had landed on me, I would have been pretty angry. 

[Smokey and the Bandit]

14 minutes ago, johng said:

There is no way you can keep "passengers"  strapped to their seats for a 12 hour flight  the incidence of DVT would sky rocket and cause much more death and injury than a bit of freak turbulence.

I don't think 'strapped to their seats' is a fair description.

On every flight I have been on, the pilot always says please keep your seatbelt fastened loosely unless you need to go to the bathroom or get something from the overhead bin. It makes perfect sense.

[johng]

1 minute ago, sherwood said:

Another idiot statement on the subject of safety devices.

What is that old saying about an ounce of prevention?

 

You are of course free to sit strapped into a chair for 12 hours and risk deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

 

If there is turbulence the captain will put the fasten safety belts sign on and everyone should comply

(including take off and landing) other than that "passengers" should be free to walk about especially on very long flights.

[John Drake]

1 hour ago, KannikaP said:

Rather dramatic Mr Chivas. But come on, all who flew this route this year, tell us all how lucky/grateful/happy you are that it arrived safely.

And all those since last week.

 

Not so dramatic. Just close enough to send a chill down your spine. And a passing comment made on an AsianNow topic that should allow people to feel free to make associations about the flight in a conversational manner.

[sherwood]

3 minutes ago, johng said:

 

You are of course free to sit strapped into a chair for 12 hours and risk deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

 

If there is turbulence the captain will put the fasten safety belts sign on and everyone should comply

(including take off and landing) other than that "passengers" should be free to walk about especially on very long flights.

Being strapped in whilst seated will not induce DVT.

And if by chance turbulence happens while you are taking a stroll, then what.

" Oh the fasten seat belt sign wasn't on when I stood up"

Up to you. 

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

20 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Per the article lack of communication whether Singapore airlines is covering medical costs, i.e. avoiding it

You mean this ?

 

Davis lamented the lack of communication from Singapore Airlines.

 

I think right now the medical treatment required of all those injured especially those in ICU is their main concern now roughly 72 hours from the touch-down BKK

Edited May 24 by jerrymahoney

[Sticky Rice Balls]

i took SIN air coming back to LOS for covid return from LAX...got a bad feeling about them from the get go...never again

 

also there is reporting they took a flight path that is notorious for bad weather.....sounds like a class action lawsuit coming..

 

chok dee SIn Air..never again for me.....just a bad exp with them on a normal flight .......

[scubascuba3]

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

You mean this ?

 

Davis lamented the lack of communication from Singapore Airlines.

 

I think right now the medical treatment required of all those injured especially those in ICU is their main concern now roughly 72 hours from the touch-down BKK

No, this

 

Davis lamented the lack of communication from Singapore Airlines.

 

“I need to know, ‘Am I going through my insurance?’ I’ve got no idea.”

 

Despite the airline’s heavy presence at Bangkok’s Samitivej Srinakarin Hospital, Davis and his wife received no information initially.

[jerrymahoney]

18 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

No, this

 

Davis lamented the lack of communication from Singapore Airlines.

 

“I need to know, ‘Am I going through my insurance?’ I’ve got no idea.”

 

Despite the airline’s heavy presence at Bangkok’s Samitivej Srinakarin Hospital, Davis and his wife received no information initially.

That is just one guy talking. Maybe most of the other injured would say the opposite.

 

(CNN) Of the 211 passengers and 18 crew on board the original flight, 143 were transported via a relief flight to Singapore, where they landed early Wednesday morning, according to Singapore Airlines CEO Goh Choon Phong in a video message released on Facebook.

 

Or maybe getting the "i.e. avoiding it" is just your claim-denied! fix for the day.

Edited May 24 by jerrymahoney

[Trip Hop]

I was on a flight about 30 years ago that hit clear air turbulence (or cloud drop as someone called it then) although nothing near to this extent.  At the time it was enough to lift me out of my seat although I avoided smashing my head on the overheads.  Since then I have always flown with my seatbelt loosely fastened and even on rare occasions when I have been lucky enough to have 3 seats to myself and stretched out a bit, I've always put the middle belt around me just in case.  Not only is it good practice, if sleeping it saves the flight attendants waking you up to put your belt on whenever the seatbelt sign comes on.

 

Whilst the airline or its insurers will most probably cover the medical bills out of courtesy, there will be no big payouts for any claims for minor injuries or possible stress caused as it looks like it was totally unforeseeable.  Additionally if you read the law/full terms of carriage for any flight, you'd be shocked at how little you are actually covered for?  

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

7 minutes ago, Trip Hop said:

Additionally if you read the law/full terms of carriage for any flight, you'd be shocked at how little you are actually covered for?  

 

Montreal Convention (2002) successor to (1929) Warsaw Convention.

Edited May 24 by jerrymahoney

[VBF]

54 minutes ago, johng said:

There is no way you can keep "passengers"  strapped to their seats for a 12 hour flight  the incidence of DVT would sky rocket and cause much more death and injury than a bit of freak turbulence.

And on some flights, one is encouraged to get up and go to the bar. This is one of the attractions of Emirates A380 business class for me.

It's therefore possible to encounter CAT whist standing with a drink, or even a hot drink.

Having said that, incidents like this are thankfully very rare and there's an element of risk in anything you do.

 

I for one won't take such a blasé attitude to the "Fasten seat belts" signs and announcements in future!

[scubascuba3]

15 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

That is just one guy talking. Maybe most of the other injured would say the opposite.

 

I'm quoting the article which is what this thread about, you've gone off at a tangent

[sqwakvfr]

2 hours ago, connda said:

The hospital later apologised, with Dr Adinun Kittiratanapaibool explaining that staff acted with good intentions to protect patient welfare hospital's and airline's reputations.

There! Fixed it! 

Why would a hospital in LOS care about Singapore Airlines? SIA has a good reputation but some in hospitals in LOS?

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

I'm quoting the article which is what this thread about, you've gone off at a tangent

One guy out of almost 80 still in hospital who has to let loose.

[sqwakvfr]

9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Montreal Convention (2002) successor to (1929) Warsaw Convention.

AKA one has to die to get a decent payout.  The family of the Brit who died could get a sizeable payout unless SIA wants to play hardball and claim he died of cardiac arrest?  We shall see how SIA deals with this.  A sizeable payout with full coverage for medical treatment could be the way to go. But in the end it will be a business decision.  Because turbulence is weather related which are often classified under the "Act of of God" category airlines rarely payout large sums.  In the end the crew and the aircraft performed like the way they were trained and designed for.  They landed safely in BKK.  Unfortunately many were seriously injured and one died.  I'm pretty sure Boeing is off the hook for any liability because the B777-300 is an old model and landed safely in one piece.