Singapore turbulent flight: Aussie survivor’s desperate plea

[KannikaP]

11 minutes ago, johng said:

You where born with a silver spoon in your mouth

Far from it. A Grammar School education which taught me to spell properly and a Fender Bass on my shoulder for 40 years caused my physical problems.

Edited May 24 by KannikaP

[johng]

7 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

a Fender Bass on my shoulder for 40 years

go on give us a tune...where you in a famous band ?

[KannikaP]

7 minutes ago, johng said:

go on give us a tune...where you in a famous band ?

It's WERE? And yes.

I flew all over the World, and ALWAYS wore my seatbelt. Back on topic.

Edited May 24 by KannikaP

[theblether]

55 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

You mean like calling me a troll?

 

You'd need to be a troll to spout this "And I know hundreds who have survived long haul flights"

 

Or maybe just dumb.

 

Hobson's choice. 

 

Oh, dear. 

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour 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. 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Every 2-3 hours, that's fine. I was talking about people who spend almost the entire flight wandering around, getting in the way, and sticking their backside in seated people's faces. 

 

Wait, you know seven people who have died from stokes and DVTs because of long haul flights, some after months in a coma? How is it possible that you know so many people who died this way? 

[Bungditin]

4 hours 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, it’s not as if the flight is going through a war zone. This could have happened on any flight, anywhere. 

[KannikaP]

9 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

You'd need to be a troll to spout this "And I know hundreds who have survived long haul flights"

 

Or maybe just dumb.

 

Hobson's choice. 

 

Oh, dear. 

A valid reply to a silly post, maybe a bit sarcastic. 

I am certainly not dumb.

Who is Hobson?

[KannikaP]

4 hours ago, BigStar said:

Well, I'd like to have more info about the stewardesses. Hope those lovely ladies are all OK.

They're not all Ladies these days. 

[johng]

37 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

It's WERE? And yes.

I flew all over the World, and ALWAYS wore my seatbelt. Back on topic.

 

Hello Chris  (never mind the spelling/grammar police)  go on give us a tune.

 

Yes are an English progressive rock band formed in London in 1968 by lead singer Jon Anderson, bassist Chris Squire, guitarist Peter Banks, keyboardist Tony Kaye, and drummer Bill Bruford.

[Merrill]

7 hours ago, nakhonandy said:

 

Very strange how these issues suddenly arise, I have been flying since 1965 many many times and guess what first time on the way to BKK last year suddenly Massive turbulence was scary,  the first time in all these years. Just when they are putting prices up and discouraging people from flying, Now if I were a conspiracy theorist I might have an idea, but nah they would never do that silly me. Just saying. Oh wait could be Global Warming you know the man-made ones.

[theblether]

7 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Every 2-3 hours, that's fine. I was talking about people who spend almost the entire flight wandering around, getting in the way, and sticking their backside in seated people's faces. 

 

Wait, you know seven people who have died from stokes and DVTs because of long haul flights, some after months in a coma? How is it possible that you know so many people who died this way? 

 

37 year old - DVT, after returning from a Florida flight. 

 

Maggies dad - Canadian - devastating stroke rendering him vegetative then dying after his retirement flight 

 

Big Davie - DVT then stroke after returning from Thailand in 2022, died in the December after a lengthy coma. 

 

P - CM legend - six months in BKK hospital after a devastating stroke, retirement flight from the USA, lived with horrendous realities that I won't name, no dead. 

 

J Small - collapsed and died on the runway - stroke. 

 

LR - stroke, rendered comatose, dead six weeks later ( Heathrow )

 

JT - stroke, Nigeria, oil and gas worker relocating from Brazil

 

Let me add, I diagnosed and prevented J Small from dying from a heart attack way before his stroke. People that know me from CM know exactly who I am talking about re Big Davie, P, and Maggies dad. I couldn't believe I was looking at my thirty-seven year olds friend in his open coffin. 

 

My first stint as an ex pat was in 1970. Nine people died associated with the iron or mine my father worked on in the first year. International travel and expatriate lifestyles are dangerous way beyond the norm. Too many people take far too much for granted. 

[KannikaP]

10 minutes ago, johng said:

 

Hello Chris  (never mind the spelling/grammar police)  go on give us a tune.

 

Yes are an English progressive rock band formed in London in 1968 by lead singer Jon Anderson, bassist Chris Squire, guitarist Peter Banks, keyboardist Tony Kaye, and drummer Bill Bruford.

Sorry to tell you that I died June 27 2015 in Phoenix  Arizona, so you got the wrong bassist.

[schultzlivgthai]

Damn this stuff happens, there’s always percentage of people up and moving about, it’s a risk flying, yeah it’s bad but be happy it doesn’t happen often. 
when I’m in my chair, the belt is on, don’t care what the little light shows!

[dirtybirty]

6 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

What might happen as an outcome of this event, is that all passengers will be forced to keep their seatbelts on at all times - unless using the toilet. I always wondered why they allow people to undo their belts - at the very least it should be on - maybe not so tight as takeoff/landing - and thus stop you hitting the baggage racks above you and from being flung across the ailse if the plane hits turbulance.  Many people take them off and lay down across other seats - that should be banned too.   

Always if I can in cattle class I will lie across seats and sleep but ALWAYS have the middle seat belt around me outside blanket so visible to cabin crew 

[johng]

2 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

so you got the wrong bassist.

ohh well I suppose we'll  never hear a tune from you anyway..what a shame.

[KannikaP]

3 minutes ago, johng said:

ohh well I suppose we'll  never hear a tune from you anyway..what a shame.

PM me.

 

[Liverpool Lou]

7 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

So far there has been no indication of that at all...unless you have some evidence of it.

[paulikens]

1 hour 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.

Well according to that passenger there was no warning and I would say at the very least 50% of passengers take their seatbelts off once the light goes off because they always warn you when they about to hit turbulence and to fasten your seatbelts again.  But I must admit i find it a bit dubious that there was no warning at all but who knows.   Either way whether people had belts on or not it must have been terrifying.   

[willr]

5 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

What might happen as an outcome of this event, is that all passengers will be forced to keep their seatbelts on at all times - unless using the toilet. I always wondered why they allow people to undo their belts - at the very least it should be on - maybe not so tight as takeoff/landing - and thus stop you hitting the baggage racks above you and from being flung across the ailse if the plane hits turbulance.  Many people take them off and lay down across other seats - that should be banned too.   

Why should laying down across the seats be banned,I have been flying to and from work and home, international,I purchase extra seats so I can lay down and sleep after nightshift for 6 hour flight,

And I can still have my seat belt on.

[CG1 Blue]

15 minutes ago, paulikens said:

Well according to that passenger there was no warning and I would say at the very least 50% of passengers take their seatbelts off once the light goes off because they always warn you when they about to hit turbulence and to fasten your seatbelts again.  But I must admit i find it a bit dubious that there was no warning at all but who knows.   Either way whether people had belts on or not it must have been terrifying.   

You should read the explanations about Clear Air Turbulence on these threads. Impossible to predict/see, so there is no warning. 

I don't know about your assumption that 50% keep their belts off while seated, but I suspect that will drop to about 10% after this incident. 

 

Edited May 24 by CG1 Blue

[phetpeter]

He was shot down in flames, the airline will cover all hospital charges with their 3rd party insurance, his ploy was to start a fund-me scheme, and got stopped before he could get the newspaper to write it up. Now, wait for others to try a get-rich scheme and want to sue the airline. The lawyers are in the traps waiting to be released. The airline is just waiting to block that for sure. 

[Keeps]

25 minutes ago, phetpeter said:

He was shot down in flames, the airline will cover all hospital charges with their 3rd party insurance, his ploy was to start a fund-me scheme, and got stopped before he could get the newspaper to write it up. Now, wait for others to try a get-rich scheme and want to sue the airline. The lawyers are in the traps waiting to be released. The airline is just waiting to block that for sure. 

Why would the airlines 3rd party insurance pick up the tab if there was no negligence on the airlines part? I'm sure their Insurers would have something to say about this 'open cheque book' approach. Perhaps, there was some negligence - would certainly need to be proven though. The airline might be suffering some large payouts from their own (deep) pockets at their own discretion.

[MangoKorat]

3 hours ago, Trip Hop said:

 

 

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. 

Well, instead of speculating, let's wait and see.  My bet is that Singapore Airlines and/or their insurers will fully compensate passengers for any and all harm done.  They know very well that refusing to pay will lead to law suits, probably a class action that they will lose hands down because although they may not be to blame, they are responsible.  Then, not only will they have to pay compensation, they will be faced with a hefty legal bill.

 

One thing I am absolutely sure of, it is not up to anyone to 'prove negligence' they are responsible.   A way, way more minor matter but my suitcase came around the carousel one time - smashed to bits with the contents in a plastic bag in a tray.  The airline tried to say I should make a claim against the baggage handing company.  I searched online and found out that they were 'responsible' for my baggage from the moment I handed it over at check in.  I quoted them the rule and they paid up. 

 

If they're respnsible for a bloody suitcase, I'm damned sure they're responsible for passengers. Some airlines might put up a fight, I don't expect that from Singapore Airlines - especially with the publicity this incident has attracted.

 

Your take on the Montreal Convention - quote '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.' appears to be at odds with this:

 

'If a passenger has been injured during air travel by anything that is out of the norm, then the airline is strictly liable. There is no need to prove that the airline has been negligent, making the process of making a compensation claim more straightforward than in many other forms of personal injury claims'

 

Article 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999 specifically covers liability for personal injury and provides that:

“a carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.''

In most personal injury claims it is necessary to prove negligence or a breach of statutory duty on the part of a defendant, but under the Montreal Convention 1999, it is only necessary to prove the following:

• That the accident was an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger
• That the accident was not down to the passenger’s own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft. i.e. deep vein thrombosis
• The accident took place upon the aircraft, whether it is in the air or not, or during the process of embarking or disembarking the aircraft.

https://www.psrsolicitors.co.uk/personal-injury-claim/no-win-no-fee-claims/flight-accident-claims

 

A quite clear statement that you DO NOT have to prove negligence.

Edited May 24 by MangoKorat

[phetpeter]

Maybe not 3rd party insurance, but, they will cover the cost, But the airline is a large famous company, and I am sure will take care of its customers and will not start penny-pinching, unlike US companies who would rather find fault in its passengers, by stating that passengers should be strapped into their seats unless that can prove the seat belt light was on, before the drop.

[scubascuba3]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So far there has been no indication of that at all...unless you have some evidence of it.

I read the article, try it

[Boedog]

9 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.

What a ridiculous comment to make about the phrase he used, personally you have issues you have no idea what you would say, his wife has no feelings below her waist he,s bloodied and bruise. And you can't give an opinion on the cause. Why not you seem to think your on top of it Detective

[theblether]

IMO, Singapore Airlines will cover all medical bills in Bangkok. The potential reputational damage for a few million dollars for not doing so would be too high. IMO, there is zero chance that they will allow any passenger to go to the newspapers saying "I'm stuck in a Thai hospital until I pay a $200,000 bill." 

[richard_smith237]

9 hours ago, bob smith said:

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

 

Verily, if there ever existed a remark that cast a dazzling spotlight upon the sheer paucity of a poster's intellectual prowess, this comment must assuredly be it....   

 

[1sickpuppy]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

An Australian passenger from the ill-fated Singapore Airlines flight 321 has broken his silence from his Bangkok hospital room.

 

Keith Davis, previously blocked from speaking to the media, revealed the harrowing details of the flight’s emergency landing in Thailand that left his wife critically injured.

 

Davis’ wife has been in intensive care since their flight from London to Singapore was diverted after a passenger’s death amid severe turbulence. Speaking with the Today Show, Davis shared the severity of his wife’s condition.

 

“She has no sensation from her waist down, it’s pretty radical for us.

“We’ve had a fantastic holiday in the UK, we’re one more flight away, nearly home, and this comes along.”

 

Davis’ wife is undergoing emergency surgery to stabilise her for medical evacuation to their home in Adelaide.

 

“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.”

 

 

 

Davis’ wife fell into the aisle, immobile, as he realised he was bleeding profusely.

 

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.

 

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. Davis, in a wheelchair with visible facial injuries, attempted to converse over a cup of coffee but was rushed away by staff.

 

The hospital later apologised, with Dr Adinun Kittiratanapaibool explaining that staff acted with good intentions to protect patient welfare. Singapore Airlines also apologised, committing to support the Davis family during this difficult time and arranging travel for their relatives, reported The Sydney Morning Herald.

 

Despite these assurances, Davis remains frustrated and hopes for a swift return to Adelaide for further medical treatment.

 

by Puntid Tantivangphaisal

Photo courtesy of AP via The Sydney Morning Herald

 

 

Full story: The Thaiger 2024-05-24

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Tit get over it happens everywhere Australia are far worse

[Trip Hop]

1 hour ago, MangoKorat said:

Well, instead of speculating, let's wait and see.  My bet is that Singapore Airlines and/or their insurers will fully compensate passengers for any and all harm done.  They know very well that refusing to pay will lead to law suits, probably a class action that they will lose hands down because although they may not be to blame, they are responsible.  Then, not only will they have to pay compensation, they will be faced with a hefty legal bill.

 

One thing I am absolutely sure of, it is not up to anyone to 'prove negligence' they are responsible.   A way, way more minor matter but my suitcase came around the carousel one time - smashed to bits with the contents in a plastic bag in a tray.  The airline tried to say I should make a claim against the baggage handing company.  I searched online and found out that they were 'responsible' for my baggage from the moment I handed it over at check in.  I quoted them the rule and they paid up. 

 

If they're respnsible for a bloody suitcase, I'm damned sure they're responsible for passengers. Some airlines might put up a fight, I don't expect that from Singapore Airlines - especially with the publicity this incident has attracted.

 

Your take on the Montreal Convention - quote '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.' appears to be at odds with this:

 

'If a passenger has been injured during air travel by anything that is out of the norm, then the airline is strictly liable. There is no need to prove that the airline has been negligent, making the process of making a compensation claim more straightforward than in many other forms of personal injury claims'

 

Article 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999 specifically covers liability for personal injury and provides that:

“a carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.''

In most personal injury claims it is necessary to prove negligence or a breach of statutory duty on the part of a defendant, but under the Montreal Convention 1999, it is only necessary to prove the following:

• That the accident was an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger
• That the accident was not down to the passenger’s own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft. i.e. deep vein thrombosis
• The accident took place upon the aircraft, whether it is in the air or not, or during the process of embarking or disembarking the aircraft.

https://www.psrsolicitors.co.uk/personal-injury-claim/no-win-no-fee-claims/flight-accident-claims

 

A quite clear statement that you DO NOT have to prove negligence.

 

You can quote all you like from solicitors' websites as they are just touting for business and will take on any case providing someone else is picking up the bill.  The reality is far from this though and if you do not agree, excepting the recent incidents where doors have blown off etc,  simply quote me say 5 incidents in the last 10 years whereby passengers have successfully sued an airline for injuries that have occurred on board.  Now considering the amount of flights worldwide per day, the subsequent probability of accidents and the amount of information that is stored on the web, this should not be too much of a task if everything is as you say?

 

The bottom line contrary to your beliefs is that an airline will fight tooth and nail incurring financial cost far in excess of settling any individual claim quite simply because if it admits liability and precedence is set, it will open the flood gates to future claims and cost them far more in the long run.  Even if someone did win and set precedence, don't be surprised if the airlines as a collective appealed the ruling due to it opening up the possibility of action against all of them,  As previously said, quote me 5 incidents where people have successfully sued?