Singapore turbulent flight: Aussie survivor’s desperate plea

[MangoKorat]

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. 

[Georgealbert]

4 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.

You do know the plane was going to Singapore, it was not starting to make a descend into Bangkok. It hit turbulence, that lasted about 10 seconds, so easy to see why other flights never experienced the same problem, there is a lot of sky up there.

 

After the turbulence event, the pilots made a controlled descend of 6000 feet, either to find better weather or on the instruction of ATC after declaring the emergency and asking to divert to BKK.
 

This is nothing like the 737 Max 8 incidents, as that was a flight control system, which has never been fitted on the 777.

 

I suggest avoid alternative truth websites, that start such conspiracy nonsense like this. Post a credible link to you theory.

[MangoKorat]

4 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.

That is only a recommendation.  Not wearing your seatbelt when its not mandated wouldn't let the airline off the hook.

[KannikaP]

20 minutes ago, dddave said:

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.

WHAT are you on about. The flight was not due to descend to Bangkok, it was going to Singapore. And it was NOT a 737, on which the two fatal flights happened on take off.

 

Sorry George, I wrote this before I saw your corroborating post. 

Edited May 24 by KannikaP

[theblether]

All these conspiracy theorists - tell us how many aircraft used the same flight path within say, an hour, before this incident. And an hour is a long time. 

[CG1 Blue]

58 minutes 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.

You say '"strapped to a chair" like it's some form of torture. You just keep the belt loosely fastened while seated. You don't even notice the belt. 

 

And as for spending most of the flight standing or wandering around the cabin, that's up to you. You want to increase the risk of being flung to the ceiling, go for it.

Personally I find those people a bit annoying on flights. 

[NoshowJones]

2 hours ago, PJ71 said:

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. 

Comfort?

[Georgealbert]

2 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

That is only a recommendation.  Not wearing your seatbelt when its not mandated wouldn't let the airline off the hook.

Yes agree, I posted this in the other thread, but worth posting again here.

 

Following this incident, Singapore Airlines have now issued a revised policy for cabin crews routines/services.

“The first change is that cabin crew must now be seated and belted in whenever the seatbelt sign goes on, as opposed to previously where they would only suspend hot drinks service, but continue with all other activities unless the pilot deemed the turbulence severe enough for the crew to be seated as well.

 

The second change  is that the second meal is served at the mid-point, instead of the usual 2.5 hours before landing. The idea behind this is that the weather closer to Singapore can be more unpredictable, and because of the requirement that cabin crew are seated whenever the seatbelt sign goes on, there may not be sufficient time to complete the service otherwise“

 

https://milelion.com/2024/05/23/singapore-airlines-modifies-cabin-service-routines-following-turbulence-incident/

 

The airline said it’s taking a “more cautious approach” to managing turbulence, but the policy revision stops short of requiring all passengers to wear seatbelts throughout the flight.

[jerrymahoney]

What I sometimes remember during the many long flights Asia to USofA:

 

 

Lee S. Kreindler, who is considered the founder of air disaster law, and whose law firm, Kreindler & Kreindler, represented plaintiffs in almost every major aircraft disaster in the last half-century, died yesterday at New York University Hospital in Manhattan. He was 78.

 

Mr. Kreindler flew a great deal, and it bothered him not at all.

 

''I'm a very relaxed passenger,'' he said. ''It's extremely safe. An accident only happens when there is an extraordinary coincidence of a number of things going wrong.'' C/o NYTimes FEB 19, 2003

[scubascuba3]

10 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

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. 

Did you read what the aussie said? i.e. there had been an issue hence the article 

[BE88]

11 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

You do know the plane was going to Singapore, it was not starting to make a descend into Bangkok. It hit turbulence, that lasted about 10 seconds, so easy to see why other flights never experienced the same problem, there is a lot of sky up there.

 

After the turbulence event, the pilots made a controlled descend of 6000 feet, either to find better weather or on the instruction of ATC after declaring the emergency and asking to divert to BKK.
 

This is nothing like the 737 Max 8 incidents, as that was a flight control system, which has never been fitted on the 777.

 

I suggest avoid alternative truth websites, that start such conspiracy nonsense like this. Post a credible link to you theory.

 

Where is the link to your statements?

 

[MangoKorat]

Just now, scubascuba3 said:

Did you read what the aussie said? i.e. there had been an issue hence the article 

Let the dust settle.

[KannikaP]

3 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

Comfort?

Yes, those loose fitting seat belts are SO uncomfortable..........but can save your life.

[Georgealbert]

7 minutes ago, BE88 said:

 

Where is the link to your statements?

 

Try this aviation accident site first.

 

https://avherald.com/h?article=518e5d47&opt=0
 
Then maybe look at the details on this thread, but don’t let the real facts get in the way on a total false, in every detail, conspiracy! i notice you never posted a link the false claim.

 

 

Edited May 24 by Georgealbert

[CG1 Blue]

12 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

Comfort?

What's uncomfortable about a piece of fabric laying across your lap? 

Sounds like that story, The Princess and the Pea

[johng]

7 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You say '"strapped to a chair" like it's some form of torture.

Maybe you are in the first class cabin ?

but for me in the normal "passenger" (cattle class ) cabin siting in the seat with or without belt for more than an hour or 2 is indeed quite torturous.. getting up and walking around  is recommended on long haul flights..

[Trip Hop]

21 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/

 

 

 

 

10 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. 

 

Correct as this could be deemed as an "Act of God", which is the mother of all exclusions and get out of jail card when it comes to liability and insurance payouts.

 

Due to air travel being subject to so many unforeseen risks, with regards to liability it is totally different to say travelling on a bus or train.  With the exception of minimum levels of compensation for say death etc caused by a crash or compensation for delays or cancellations, the Montreal Convention and any airline's conditions of carriage are written so that unless you can undoubtedly prove negligence by the carrier, it is very hard to make a successful claim against them.  This is why successful claims are very few and far between (even when to the layman they would appear reasonably just) with the last successful one I recall being a passenger who sued for being scalded by hot coffee accidentally tipped into their lap by a stewardess.  Apparently this was awarded not on the basis that the stewardess had an accident (as this could occasionally be expected due to human error and/or possible sudden movements of the plane) but on the basis that the airline should have foreseen the possibility and therefore not served the coffee at such a high temperature as to cause injury,

 

Basically when you get on a plane, the airline promises to get you from A to B and will try their utmost not for you to get injured in the process.  However they don't guarantee it and if you are injured, it is up to you to prove their negligence. Their conditions of carriage and the Montreal Convention don't even guarantee you a proper seat, i.e. you could end up in a jump seat for the flight and they will just pay you a fixed level of compensation after. However strange this may seem, it's the truth. 

[markus]

3 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 is that supposed to be - a "No Seatbelt" sign ???

I've never seen anything like that ...

[jerrymahoney]

In the United States, there aren’t any federal or state laws that require you to have passenger liability insurance or any other type of aviation insurance, you’ll still need it. This is not only to protect yourself should an accident occur. Without insurance, you would be liable for the full costs of replacing passenger property and for medical bills and more should someone sustain an injury or worse while on board your aircraft.

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

 

[theblether]

23 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You say '"strapped to a chair" like it's some form of torture. You just keep the belt loosely fastened while seated. You don't even notice the belt. 

 

And as for spending most of the flight standing or wandering around the cabin, that's up to you. You want to increase the risk of being flung to the ceiling, go for it.

Personally I find those people a bit annoying on flights. 

 

This is just stupid talk. I know seven people who have died as a result of stroke or DVT's after long haul flights, some after months in a coma. 

 

https://www.samitivejhospitals.com/article/detail/health-risks-of-long-haul-flights-what-you-can-do 

 

• The WHO recommends that passengers on board airplanes get up and walk around the cabin or visit the bathroom every 2–3 hours during long-haul flights to reduce the likelihood of DVT. They also advise against passengers placing baggage at their feet as this may restrict movement, which is necessary to keep blood circulated to the feet and legs.

 

 

 

 

[PJ71]

31 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

That is only a recommendation.  Not wearing your seatbelt when its not mandated wouldn't let the airline off the hook.

Let's see, but i don't expect to see any stories mentioning compo for the passengers that we injured due to not wearing seatbelts.

[PJ71]

29 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

Comfort?

ugh?

[KannikaP]

12 minutes ago, johng said:

Maybe you are in the first class cabin ?

but for me in the normal "passenger" (cattle class ) cabin siting in the seat with or without belt for more than an hour or 2 is indeed quite torturous.. getting up and walking around  is recommended on long haul flights..

Piles playing up then? I got a memory foam cushion from Lazada for Bht 265. Made the trip to Dubai a dream, with the help of Emirates excellent Merlot.

[KannikaP]

7 minutes ago, theblether said:

This is just stupid talk. I know seven people who have died as a result of stroke or DVT's after long haul flights, some after months in a coma. 

And I know hundreds who have survived long haul flights regularly for many many years, myself included.

Underlying conditions could be an explanation.

[johng]

1 minute ago, KannikaP said:

Piles playing up then?

Nope back pain from hard labour to earn a crust.

In any case it is best to get up and walk around on a long haul flight as often as you can.

[soalbundy]

3 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. 

eloquently put.

[KannikaP]

11 minutes ago, johng said:

Nope back pain from hard labour to earn a crust.

In any case it is best to get up and walk around on a long haul flight as often as you can.

Awwww, you worked for a living. 

If everyone walked around, it could destabilise the aeroplane, and make it difficult to get to the bogs, or the staff to serve meals. 

 

And after reading the link, I am surprised that there are any passengers flying.

Edited May 24 by KannikaP

[KannikaP]

3 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Read the link. 

 

By the way, the art of trolling requires intelligence. Try not to post the first thing that comes into your mind. 

You mean like calling me a troll?

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, Surasak said:

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

The guardian angels shirking again, how like them. God will have a get out clause, he was being mysterious.

[johng]

5 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Awwww, you worked for a living.

 

You where born with a silver spoon in your mouth

?

 

6 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

if everyone walked around, it could destabilise the aeroplane

Possibly, hopefully the pilot/captain cabin crew would be fully qualified to deal with and mitigate that scenario.

 

9 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

make it difficult to get to the bogs, or the staff to serve meals. 

when they are serving meals it's impossible to get anywhere anyway  talking about cattle class having never been in the "front end"

In any case it is best to get up and walk around on a long haul flight as often as you can.