3 hours ago, smedly said:

 

I'd have told them to politely ###  ##

 

They just pushed him away in his wheelchair .

 

 

While wearing masks , not to be recognized ...?

Welcome to Thaiiand .

58 minutes ago, johng said:

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.

 

How does the captain put on the seatbelt sign before clear air turbulence? It's for that very reason they suggest you wear your belt even when the sign is off. No all turbulence can be seen / predicted and CAT can be extreme.

6 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

 ??? ... Dr Adinun Kittiratanapaibool explaining that staff acted with good intentions to protect patient welfare...

Not being allowed to talk to the press is helping the patient's welfare in what way ?

Sounds like a blatant lie .

Most probably the hospital was trying to avoid any criticism and was worried about it's reputation ...

I think with over 200 passengers and crew involved and about 3 days since the incident, if the situation at the hospital could be described as controlled chaos,  that would be generally acceptable for crisis management.

4 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.

You are missing the most important fact, bob. He has admitted he was not wearing the seat belt at the time of this incident. The airline could refuse any compensation under the circumstances.

2 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

How does the captain put on the seatbelt sign before clear air turbulence?

Crystal ball ? 

What I'm saying is that "passengers"  should be able to walk around during the flight

not only to go to the toilet  but the galley,  talk to friends and for the exercise  especially important on long flights...anyone who wants to sit strapped into a chair for 12 hours is free to do so.

1 minute ago, johng said:

Crystal ball ? 

What I'm saying is that "passengers"  should be able to walk around during the flight

not only to go to the toilet  but the galley,  talk to friends and for the exercise  especially important on long flights...anyone who wants to sit strapped into a chair for 12 hours is free to do so.

With all the flights conducted during monsoon season over this particular air route over Myanmar-Burma, this seems an extremely rare occurrence.

2 hours ago, KannikaP said:

Air turbulence has been here since God created the Heavens and the Earth.

So Act of God = no insurance payout. 

I don't know? They could all try suing God!

5 minutes ago, johng said:

What I'm saying is that "passengers"  should be able to walk around during the flight

not only to go to the toilet  but the galley,  talk to friends and for the exercise  especially important on long flights...anyone who wants to sit strapped into a chair for 12 hours is free to do so.

 

I agree with you, but those with any common sense would keep it to an absolute minimum. Keeping your seatbelt off just because you can isn't the smartest thing to do. The almost funny thing is that, even after incidents such as this, people will continue to do it.

 

2 hours ago, Naroge 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.”]

 

From other reports it was stated that the "No Seatbelt" sign was turned on. What I have not seen however is any mentioning of for how long it was turned on before the major turbulence. Was it a few seconds or a minute? That makes quite a difference.

 

What the hell iis a no seatbelt sign?

32 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

We shall see how SIA deals with this.  A sizeable payout with full coverage for medical treatment could be the way to go.

They would likely have insurance coverage for this.

 

What is passenger liability insurance?
Passenger liability insurance is aviation insurance that specifically covers any passengers who are on board your aircraft. This type of insurance protects your passengers and ensures that you’re covered in an accident in which you’re liable that injures or kills a passenger.

 

https://avioninsurance.com/passenger-liability-insurance/

 

 

 

4 hours ago, bob smith said:

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

Looking for a hand out? 

Why should any substantial compensation be coming. If it breaks the airline’s  bank, we will all be signing waivers as we buy our tickets from now on. If you buy a house from a builder and the next day a tornado hits your house is the builder responsible? Mother Nature is in play here. Unless there was some kind of pilot error or unless some safety rules were broken by the airline’s flight plan, the passengers should be on their knees thanking the pilots for getting them on the ground in one piece  after a freak of nature event. And the stupid passengers who did not comply with the airline suggestion to keep your seat belt on should be banned from flying as when something like this happens it makes the airline look bad when it was the stupid actions of the passengers which is a large contributor to the injuries.

19 minutes ago, Surasak said:

You are missing the most important fact, bob. He has admitted he was not wearing the seat belt at the time of this incident. The airline could refuse any compensation under the circumstances.

Did he admit that? I can't see that in the OP or the linked article.

2 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Did he admit that? I can't see that in the OP or the linked article.

Seen his statement in more than one international news outlet. He clearly admitted he was not wearing his seat belt.

10 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

They would likely have insurance coverage for this.

 

What is passenger liability insurance?
Passenger liability insurance is aviation insurance that specifically covers any passengers who are on board your aircraft. This type of insurance protects your passengers and ensures that you’re covered in an accident in which you’re liable that injures or kills a passenger.

 

https://avioninsurance.com/passenger-liability-insurance/

 

 

 

The key word is "liable".  Is SIA liable for passenger injuries caused during tubulence?  If all the passengers had been injured then SIA's liability could be huge but many walked away and flew on the next flight to Changi.  I'm certain many lawyers are arleady on the case. 

5 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

The key word is "liable".  Is SIA liable for passenger injuries caused during tubulence?  If all the passengers had been injured then SIA's liability could be huge but many walked away and flew on the next flight to Changi.  I'm certain many lawyers are arleady on the case. 

Yes I am aware of that. I don't know. That would just depend how the policy is worded, You could then maybe say that any accident-caused medical cost that wasn't negligence could not be covered

 

So when the hospital says to one of the treated parties You are ready to be discharged but we will not do so until you settle your bill, then you will know.

2 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Singapore Airlines has been one of the best airlines in the world for many years, same as its airport, they have a reputation to uphold.I would be very surprised if they did not pay for all the hospital bills of the injured.

You'd have thought for an incident on this scale the Bangkok hospitals would waive their usual fees and pass on only the costs.

The hospital staff have been rightly praised for dealing with the injured passengers so well.

Would be a PR nightmare if subsequently there's a high profile battle for payment of extortionate bills. 

2 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Flying in 2024 is as safe if not safer than it has ever been... not sure how you come to that conclusion?

this event was/is unpredictable even with modern tech in the aircraft.

Bad weather, can be detected ahead using onboard radar and reports from ATC and other aircraft, however air-pockets remain invisible.

 

It's Bob, innit it?

16 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

With all the flights conducted during monsoon season over this particular air route over Myanmar-Burma, this seems an extremely rare occurrence.

 

SQ321 was unlucky to have entered the eastern Bay of Bengal on the same day that the SW Monsoon arrived there (much earlier than average).

 

The contrast in local conditions from those over previous months would have been significant. A rare combination of weather phenomena - these could have affected any commercial flight, maybe even more severely.  

 

 

 

Above from: https://mausam.imd.gov.in/responsive/monsooninformation.php

2 hours ago, KannikaP said:

There is not a NO SEATBELT sign to turn on. Only a SEATBELT sign to turn on. It should be on all flight in my opinion.

And as for the bogs, put a belt on that seat also. 

Yes, of course you are right. My typo.

2 hours ago, KannikaP said:

There is not a NO SEATBELT sign to turn on. Only a SEATBELT sign to turn on. It should be on all flight in my opinion.

And as for the bogs, put a belt on that seat also. 

Yes, of course you are right. My typo.

2 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Flying in 2024 is as safe if not safer than it has ever been... not sure how you come to that conclusion?

this event was/is unpredictable even with modern tech in the aircraft.

Bad weather, can be detected ahead using onboard radar and reports from ATC and other aircraft, however air-pockets remain invisible.

 

Clear air turbulence may not be detected by weather radar.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

In a bizarre twist, Davis faced a media blackout enforced by hospital staff. In a public cafe within the hospital, staff, joined by security, prevented him from speaking to the ABC’s Bill Birtles.

Sounds like political prison, not a hospital. 

29 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

What the hell iis a no seatbelt sign?

Sorry. My Typo.

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

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.

Isn't it all about reducing the odds though? 

 

If you keep your belt on for a 13 hour flight, apart from say 25 minutes of toilet breaks etc, your odds are much better than the other bloke who keeps his belt off for the entire flight. 

4 hours ago, DaLa said:

I may have used a completely different phrase personally.  I presume Singapore Airline will give all the assistance , monetary and physically as they have a reputation to uphold. I can't give an opinion on the cause of the incident although generally turbulence is a given in air transport so mostly unavoidable and I would be surprised if there was any negligence by the crew.

There is a lot of skepticism among pilots and some experts about the "Turbulence" cause.  Flight Radar 24 and some similar sites have noted that is a very popular airway and no other flights reported anything more than the routine bumps the flight had 15 minutes before the incident.

What they have noted is that there was not the least bumpiness prior to the plunge and no radar indication.   It's emerging that the plunge started just as the pilots, using autopilot, started descent for Bangkok.  This is awfully close to the profile of the other 737 incidents that grounded the entire fleet for 2 years and caused at least two flights to crash.   I imaging Boeing officials are doing everything they can to contain this speculation.   Wouldn't be surprised if they try to take control of all of the flight data like they did in Kenya.

Many accidents have happened recently with Boeing and even in this case with the plane falling 1800 meters in flight it is not very logical for so-called turbulence as I would instead call it a free fall of the plane as if the engines had stopped and that the pilots then managed to send them back, don't let the passengers talk, there's something very serious going on

 

Here they want to hide the real reasons

1 hour ago, VBF said:

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!

 

Equally, you'll be asked to sit and wear a seatbelt in the Emirates A380 bar if turbulence is anticipated. If severe turbulence is expected you'll be instructed to return to your seat. In my case I do wear the seatbelt throughout the flight as it makes no difference to my comfort and stops the cabin crew from harassing me if I fall asleep. However, the A380 bar is a highpoint of travel so unexpected turbulence won't stop me from enjoying Emirates hospitality at 43,000 feet.  

Whatever the cause I hope things settle down for those still hospitalized over the next few days.

 

They are all just lucky this all happened close to Bangkok and not somewhere over the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

5 minutes ago, dddave said:

There is a lot of skepticism among pilots and some experts about the "Turbulence" cause.  Flight Radar 24 and some similar sites have noted that is a very popular airway and no other flights reported anything more than the routine bumps the flight had 15 minutes before the incident.

What they have noted is that there was not the least bumpiness prior to the plunge and no radar indication.   It's emerging that the plunge started just as the pilots, using autopilot, started descent for Bangkok.  This is awfully close to the profile of the other 737 incidents that grounded the entire fleet for 2 years and caused at least two flights to crash.   I imaging Boeing officials are doing everything they can to contain this speculation.   Wouldn't be surprised if they try to take control of all of the flight data like they did in Kenya.

 

Please look at my two recent posts. 

 

The approach to BKK was only instigated after the incident.

 

The 737 incidents were where? And what models/versions were they?

 

Don't let you imagination run too wild.

4 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

You can see what is happening, lot's of ducking going on to not pay for medical expenses by airline, people and insurance companies no doubt

We'll see but I think you're wrong. Singapore are a good outfit and won't risk ruining their reputation - they will also be insured.  There may not have been any negligence but they are responsible for passenger's safety from the moment they board the plane.