Dozens hurt as Thai airliner hits turbulence

[theblether]

Remarkably, and for me, shockingly, I was on a China Eastern flight BKK-Shanghai and not only were people swapping seats to get a better view at 8,000 feet descent, some were out of their seats getting their bags. I also witnessed an altercation between a passenger and stewardess when he decided to eat the in flight meal during descent.

By fluke luck, I was in the company of a stewardess a few days later and recounted the story. She said that the vast majority of Chinese passengers are very inexperienced travelers and in the habit of ignoring instructions. Well I saw that with my own eyes. Refusing to comply with instructions should be more severely punished, including if necessary no fly orders.

It might sound draconian, but it wouldn't be if some clown landed on your head at 43,000 feet.

Turbulence is unpredictable, I've been on flights when the pilot has he has heard from other flights that we are approaching a turbulence area. That seems to be the best warning system. Equally I've been on flights where it hits without warning.

To me though, it should be easy enough for the airline companies to include sensors on the seat belt receptors. If your seat belt is not fastened when instructed a message should be automatically sent to your TV screen, which can't be removed until fastened. If you then require a steward visit to tell you to put the belt on, you have put them in jeopardy and that should result in a warning. We have no right to jeopardize the flight staff's safety.

We certainly have no right to jeopardize fellow passengers safety by flying out of our seats at 500mph.

[marstons]

They were preparing to land and

people did not have their seat

belts on? I guess the same ones

who ride around on their motor

bikes with no helmet on!

Exactly, and perhaps excepting the air hostess I have only one comment "som nam naa"

And whilst not known as yet severe weather conditions can be picked up on the radar. Or perhaps the guy who should have been looking was asleep.

Normally any chop would get passed along the line by the flights in front just having been through it, also Air traffic should have warned them on an approach , but then then again that would all have been in English and of course should have been relayed in Thai for the chosen ones. Still not got into their heads A380's are long haul jet, but Thai using on short hops. No wonder making huge losses.

[rascalman]

I have been flying over 40 years. I was in USAF, never take seat belt off, unless bath room stop. Good luck!

[dickyknee]

They were preparing to land and

people did not have their seat

belts on? I guess the same ones

who ride around on their motor

bikes with no helmet on!

Exactly, and perhaps excepting the air hostess I have only one comment "som nam naa"

And whilst not known as yet severe weather conditions can be picked up on the radar. Or perhaps the guy who should have been looking was asleep.

Normally any chop would get passed along the line by the flights in front just having been through it, also Air traffic should have warned them on an approach , but then then again that would all have been in English and of course should have been relayed in Thai for the chosen ones. Still not got into their heads A380's are long haul jet, but Thai using on short hops. No wonder making huge losses.

what do you call a deer with no eye?

[denby45]

This is almost an impossible scenario. The instruments on modern aircraft detect turbulence, whether it be CAT or not, and the aircraft has plenty of time to avoid it.

What we should ask is what the air crew was doing that the aircraft was prevented from detecting the danger.

alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> It's almost impossible to be more wrong. What instruments would those be Johnnie?

Its called a turbulator transmogrifier of course.

Den

[hawker9000]

i wear my seatbelt for the full flight and make sure my family dos as well since one one flight we hit a pocket of turbulence and i found myself a good 30-40 cm airborne before my seat came back up at me. once was enough.

Good advice.

Did you watch the vid posted last week of the Lufthansa 380 landing at SFO? The captain wasn't wearing his until almost on final approach.

That's permissible with the shoulder harness, but if he didn't have the lap belt fastened, he was committing an offence.

It would be an offence for a U.S. FAA-certificated pilot to not have his lapbelt fastened, but what about a Lufthansa pilot? (Though I suspect the same rule applies to German pilots.)

[jackr]

To me though, it should be easy enough for the airline companies to include sensors on the seat belt receptors. If your seat belt is not fastened when instructed a message should be automatically sent to your TV screen, which can't be removed until fastened. If you then require a steward visit to tell you to put the belt on, you have put them in jeopardy and that should result in a warning. We have no right to jeopardize the flight staff's safety.

I propose automatic ejection for those dolts that do not comply.

But, yes, make it disable the seat screen. They should perhaps make more a point of the importance of keeping seat-belts fastened when doing their bit during taxi. Always cringe on hearing all the clicks when the light goes out and as soon as the thing touches down.

As an aside, out of a couple hundred or so flights all over the planet, the roughest turbulence was on a BA Paris-Birmingham routing. Must've been murder for the Luftwaffe.

[Basil B]

Just some trivia from commercial pilots.

Some FAA rules don’t make sense to us either.

Like the fact that when we’re at 39,000 feet going 400 miles an hour, in a plane that could hit turbulence at any minute, (flight attendants) can walk around and serve hot coffee and Chateaubriand. But when we’re on the ground on a flat piece of asphalt going five to ten miles an hour, they’ve got to be buckled in like they’re at NASCAR.—Jack Stephan, US Airways captain based in Annapolis, Maryland, who has been flying since 1984

It's updrafts, not turbulence, we really worry about.

A plane flies into a massive updraft, which you can’t see on the radar at night, and it’s like hitting a giant speed bump at 500 miles an hour. It throws everything up in the air and then down very violently. That’s not the same as turbulence, which bounces everyone around for a while. —John Nance, aviation safety analyst and retired airline captain, Seattle

Pilots find it perplexing that so many people are afraid of turbulence. It’s all but impossible for turbulence to cause a crash. We avoid turbulence not because we’re afraid the wing is going to fall off but because it’s
 annoying. —Patrick Smith

There’s no such thing as a water landing.

It’s called crashing into the ocean. —Pilot, South Carolina

It’s one thing if the pilot puts the seat belt sign on for the passengers...

But if he tells the flight attendants to sit down, you’d better listen. That means there’s some serious turbulence ahead. —John Greaves

Remember: Bad weather exists BETWEEN cities, too

This happens all the time: We’ll be in Pittsburgh going to Philly, and there will be a weather delay. The weather in Pittsburgh is beautiful. Then I’ll hear passengers saying, ‘You know, I just called my friend in Philly, and it’s beautiful there too,’ like there’s some kind of conspiracy or something. But in the airspace between Pittsburgh and Philly there’s a huge thunderstorm. —Jack Stephan

Passengers: PLEASE be more mindful of yourself and others.

Most of you wouldn’t consider going down the highway at 60 miles an hour without your seat belt fastened. But when we’re hurtling through the air at 500 miles an hour and we turn off the seat belt sign, half of you take your seat belts off. But if we hit a little air pocket, your head will be on the ceiling. —Captain at a major airline

13 Things Your Pilot won't Tell You

There’s no such thing as a water landing.

It’s called crashing into the ocean. —Pilot, South Carolina

I do not think Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger would describe the Hudson River as the Ocean.

Most of you wouldn’t consider going down the highway at 60 miles an hour without your seat belt fastened.

Motor Bikes do not have seat belts and only where the law dictates (and enforced) that crash helmets must be worn do most riders use them...

[Basil B]

Also to note there was another incident on decent to Chep Lap Kok on the same day Both flights are morning arrivals (about 90 minutes apart if on schedule).

A Hong Kong Airlines Airbus A320-200, registration B-LPC performing flight HX-762 from Phuket (Thailand) to Hong Kong (China) with 110 passengers and 7 crew, was descending towards Hong Kong when the aircraft encountered severe turbulence causing injuries to 3 cabin crew and 3 passengers. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on Hong Kong's runway 25L. The injured were taken to local hospitals.

http://avherald.com/h?article=467ab575&opt=0

[transam]

Wonder how many were injured cos they were unbuckled to be first off on landing. These folk should not receive a penny in compensation, but alas there is no way of knowing who.

[scorecard]

They were preparing to land and

people did not have their seat

belts on? I guess the same ones

who ride around on their motor

bikes with no helmet on!

I flew an average of at least 3 flights a week out of Bkk (mostly return same day) for 10+ years.

Fly this regularly and you will see:

- Passengers who refuse to use seats belts

- Passengers who stand up / walk around just at the take off / just as the aircraft is landing

- Passengers who let their young children run up and down the main aisle when the aircraft is just taking off / just landing

- Passengers who are caught smoking in the toilet

- Passengers who refuse to stop using their mobile phones at take off / landing

- Passengers who absolutely insist on their luggage being parked in the mail aisle

And more...

[F4UCorsair]

They were preparing to land and

people did not have their seat

belts on? I guess the same ones

who ride around on their motor

bikes with no helmet on!

Exactly, and perhaps excepting the air hostess I have only one comment "som nam naa"

And whilst not known as yet severe weather conditions can be picked up on the radar. Or perhaps the guy who should have been looking was asleep.

Normally any chop would get passed along the line by the flights in front just having been through it, also Air traffic should have warned them on an approach , but then then again that would all have been in English and of course should have been relayed in Thai for the chosen ones. Still not got into their heads A380's are long haul jet, but Thai using on short hops. No wonder making huge losses.

Using the aircraft on short flights is normal for a new type, regardless of whether it a long haul type or not. Singapore Airlines didn't take their 380's out of Asia for months after they were introduced. Part of that is for pilot training, the more sectors the better for that purpose, and also they are close to home base if there is a maintenance issue as is often the case with a new type.

What many people don't realize is that the first time a pilot flys the 'real' aircraft is with passengers. Firstly they do 40-60 hours in the simulator, after completing a 'ground school' in which the technical aspects of the new aircraft are learned. This typically takes 3-4 weeks in a classroom using computer based methods.

After simulator training is completed, the pilot graduates to the real aircraft with a training pilot, and completes 100+ hours of training. It's better to fly 60-70 sectors at 90 minutes each than 10 sectors at 10 hours each, during which the trainee pilot can learn how the aircraft handles, and he gets 60-70 takeoffs and landings rather than 10. For long haul, it can be a lot more than 100 hours, e.g., Qantas doesn't operate 380'd domestically, so every flight is 6 or more hours, and most a lot more, so to complete the required number of sectors, it could conceivably run to 200+ hours in the aircraft before being signed off and let loose without supervision.

[F4UCorsair]

marstons said, "Still not got into their heads A380's are long haul jet, but Thai using on short hops. No wonder making huge losses.

"

The 747-400 is a long haul jet too, but in Japan they operate on 30 minute sectors, even some less than 30 mins, with 620 pax!! The fare structure is such that they make money.

The Japanese airlines have special order aircraft for domestic ops with less than the full installation of fuel tanks. There's no point in having tanks that can carry 150+ tons of fuel if they never need more than 50 tons, and even then that's an overkill. They're almost unsellable because of the cost to upgrade for a purchaser, so they're flogged to death and scrapped. Just a few years ago, early 2000's, JAL was still operating some 747-100 series, the very first 747's produced more than 40 years ago.

Edited September 2, 2013 by F4UCorsair

[Estrada]

They were preparing to land and

people did not have their seat

belts on? I guess the same ones

who ride around on their motor

bikes with no helmet on!

Exactly, and perhaps excepting the air hostess I have only one comment "som nam naa"

And whilst not known as yet severe weather conditions can be picked up on the radar. Or perhaps the guy who should have been looking was asleep.

The problem is technically known as "clear air turbulence" or air pocket for the general public. Actually it should be called a "no-air" pocket since it is a pocket of very low density air. The aeroplane relies on the air being of sufficient density to provide "lift". You cannot see air, so you cannot see an air-pocket, nor can radar pick it up. However you can expect clear air turbulence when you are flying over the sea and then cross over the land. For instance, when you reach India or Myanmar when flying to and from the Middle East. Since Hong Kong Airport is approached over the sea, turbulence can occur. You should observe the fasten seat belt signs and for safety it is recommended that you keep you seat belt fastened at all times, precisely because of the possibility of clear air turbulence.

[F4UCorsair]

They were preparing to land and

people did not have their seat

belts on? I guess the same ones

who ride around on their motor

bikes with no helmet on!

Exactly, and perhaps excepting the air hostess I have only one comment "som nam naa"

And whilst not known as yet severe weather conditions can be picked up on the radar. Or perhaps the guy who should have been looking was asleep.

The problem is technically known as "clear air turbulence" or air pocket for the general public. Actually it should be called a "no-air" pocket since it is a pocket of very low density air. The aeroplane relies on the air being of sufficient density to provide "lift". You cannot see air, so you cannot see an air-pocket, nor can radar pick it up. However you can expect clear air turbulence when you are flying over the sea and then cross over the land. For instance, when you reach India or Myanmar when flying to and from the Middle East. Since Hong Kong Airport is approached over the sea, turbulence can occur. You should observe the fasten seat belt signs and for safety it is recommended that you keep you seat belt fastened at all times, precisely because of the possibility of clear air turbulence.

There are a few points that require clearing up on this thread, and sorry if it's long winded.

If the aircraft was close to landing, or even below about 15,000 feet, it wasn't clear air turbulence, but mechanical turbulence, caused by the wind over ground features, e.g., mountains, and lower down, buildings. That can happen at considerable altitude, and a long way from the feature causing it, e.g., Mt Fuji is more than 100 Kms west of Haneda airport in Tokyo, but with more than about 50 knots from the west, the turbulence below 10000 feet on approach into Tokyo can be fearsome.

Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) is so named because it's not turbulence encountered in cloud, and it's not caused by a 'pocket of low density air' but by winds of varying velocity. An aircraft relies on speed of air over the wing for lift, and if that 'wind', created by the speed of the aircraft through the atmosphere, changes, so does the lift. If the wind drops suddenly, even by as little as 5 knots, there will be a bump as the aircraft drops a little, and conversely if it increases, the aircraft will jump a little. The greater the variation, the greater the turbulence, and hence the uncomfortable ride.

It's not CAT that you experience as you fly from over the ocean to over land. That's Thermal Turbulence. The land heats (and cools) more quickly than the sea, and flying from over the cooler (relatively) sea to over land, there will be thermal activity, updrafts, and they affect the path of the aircraft. The difference in heating rates is why winds are onshore (cooler, denser air from the sea blowing to warmer, thinner air) during the day, and offshore during the night.

I've experienced upper level winds of 250 knots (400 Kms/hr), and provided the wind isn't varying, the ride is smooth. It's only when it's a varying wind that turbulence is encountered. It's not that there is a wind blowing on the aircraft, but a moving body of air in which the aircraft is flying, and if it's flying into wind, the ground speed of the aircraft is reduced by the velocity of the 'head wind'. If the wind is behind the aircraft, the ground speed is increased by the velocity of the the 'tail wind'. That's why there is a difference between flying to and from cities. Winds tend westerly at altitude, so flying east is normally of shorter duration than flying west. North-south is not so dramatic, because the winds tend to be mostly cross winds, and whilst there is a headwind or tailwind component in those winds, it's never the full velocity of the wind. Often the times between cities north to south is close to the same.

Imagine a 150 knot wind, blowing west to east, and an aircraft flying west to east at an air speed of 480 knots. The actual ground speed is 630 knots, about 1200 Kms/hr, but flying from east to west, the ground speed is only 330 knots, 630 Kms/hr, not much over half. Then imagine the route being 3000 miles long, and the time west to east is 4.75 hours, but east to west is 9.1 hours!! Fortunately, the high velocity winds that cause CAT (jetstreams) are only present at higher altitudes, so aircraft fly high west to east, but low east to west. The penalty in fuel burn down low is onerous, and makes the company accountant's eyes water, but at least a schedule can be maintained, and the difference is built into the schedules.

Back to the subject. It's not often the pilot's fault if an aircraft hits CAT. They don't like it either, but forecast conditions can change quickly, and unless the information is passed by another crew on the same, or nearby, route, they have no way of knowing it's there.

ALWAYS keep you seat belt fastened except when the seat belt sign is off AND you NEED to move about the cabin. Passengers have been killed in CAT encounters. Encounters with mechanical/thermal turbulence are much lower altitudes, and the seat belt sign is usually on by then anyway.

[Pattaya28]

Air turbulence happens all the time.

Why were there so many injuries I wonder.

[hawker9000]

I reacted to the air pocket thing, too, but just KNEW this response would be better left in your capable hands! I would've probably just mentioned wind shear instead of low pressure pockets, but your explanation is better.

This time of year - I wouldn't think the jet stream had yet dropped down far enough over the Pacific to affect ground speed as much as it does in the wintertime. But looking at today's 300mb charts, I was a bit surprised.

[RogueLeader]

A knowledgeable, interesting and considered post on TV by someone who clearly knows what they're talking about. We should have it framed.

[transam]

Air turbulence happens all the time.

Why were there so many injuries I wonder.

Seat belts not on.......................................

My idea............................every seat belt, like some cars, should have a warning when not buckled, sooooooooooooo, on planes a loud speaker should be put overhead of each seat for each seat belt saying........................

" Oui dip stick in seat number _________, do your <deleted> seat belt up AGAIN and don't be a bloody nuisance for the staff and others''

It might work, and if me, I would not like a 100 people staring at me.......

[ginjag]

Air turbulence happens all the time.

Why were there so many injuries I wonder.

Seat belts not on.......................................

My idea............................every seat belt, like some cars, should have a warning when not buckled, sooooooooooooo, on planes a loud speaker should be put overhead of each seat for each seat belt saying........................

" Oui dip stick in seat number _________, do your <deleted> seat belt up AGAIN and don't be a bloody nuisance for the staff and others''

It might work, and if me, I would not like a 100 people staring at me.......

Bleeding good Idea but maybe for school bus. ( It would work though) but could lose customers to another airline.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

It is not appropriate fo a comment at this time. We do not have enough information. Turbulence from storm activity, wake turbulence or wind sheer. Let us await more details before we even consider blame.

There will be no additional details, ever, from any source.

This is it.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Still not got into their heads A380's are long haul jet, but Thai using on short hops. No wonder making huge losses.

That's because they don't have enough yet to make it a regular long haul service. But with just two you can do BKK-HKG and back twice a day.

[RogueLeader]

Air turbulence happens all the time.

Why were there so many injuries I wonder.

Seat belts not on.......................................

My idea............................every seat belt, like some cars, should have a warning when not buckled, sooooooooooooo, on planes a loud speaker should be put overhead of each seat for each seat belt saying........................

" Oui dip stick in seat number _________, do your <deleted> seat belt up AGAIN and don't be a bloody nuisance for the staff and others''

It might work, and if me, I would not like a 100 people staring at me.......

You should definitely be Prime Minister of the world. I'm stunned that your problem-solving talent hasn't been discovered. It's a travesty.

[transam]

Air turbulence happens all the time.

Why were there so many injuries I wonder.

Seat belts not on.......................................

My idea............................every seat belt, like some cars, should have a warning when not buckled, sooooooooooooo, on planes a loud speaker should be put overhead of each seat for each seat belt saying........................

" Oui dip stick in seat number _________, do your <deleted> seat belt up AGAIN and don't be a bloody nuisance for the staff and others''

It might work, and if me, I would not like a 100 people staring at me.......

You should definitely be Prime Minister of the world. I'm stunned that your problem-solving talent hasn't been discovered. It's a travesty.

I know. ............

[yoshiwara]

I have taken the Thai A380 from BKK to HKG. The legroom in economy is very poor so in the event of sudden jolts from turbulence it wouldn't surprise me for a lot of banged knees to have happened.

[harrry]

I have taken the Thai A380 from BKK to HKG. The legroom in economy is very poor so in the event of sudden jolts from turbulence it wouldn't surprise me for a lot of banged knees to have happened.

They are making it safe to travel as the seats squeeze the passengers in so they do not need belts.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. This is about a Thai airliner hits turbulence and dozens were hurt because of this, has nothing to do with the off duty habits of pilots.

[cheshiremusicman]

Air turbulence happens all the time.

Why were there so many injuries I wonder.

Arrived back in Bangkok last night on Ethiad flight arriving 1800 ish from AD. We had four of five incidents of the Captain announcing that all seat belts must be put on and one where the Cabin Crew were told to do the same. ALL of these were after leaving Indian air space and over the sea and I think the last one was when we were just over the coast of Myamar. Certainly very bumpy on the one where the CC were told to belt up.

Have to agree about the numpties that jump up as you hit the deck and are on the phone and grabbing their luggage out of the overheads and then stand for ages waiting to get off; I just sit in the seat and wait for them all to get off.

I think the previous posters idea of electrically locked overheads is a great idea;,as is the one where the seat belts are sensor-ed and the personal screen is locked off until the seat belt is registered as locked.

Considering the enormous cost of any aircraft, these mods would cost virtually nothing to implement and certainly add an enormous amount to passengers safety as well as helping the CC with their work load.

[hanno]

It's one thing if people weren't strapped in because it was time to land.

But Asian pilots are infamous for leaving the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign on the whole trip. I've had several cross-Pacific flights lasting 12-14 hours where the pilot never turned the seat belt sign off. They still (obviously) let everyone use the heads, but face was protected for anything that happened because they could tell the press "The seatbelt sign was on".

BKK to HK seems short enough for no pit stops.

The article needs to be more specific about "shortly before landing". That could mean 20 minutes after takeoff, or 5' off the runway on final.

I count quite a few stewardesses among my friends and acquaintances and I have heard it mentioned that they put on the signs so the passengers leave them in peace and quiet; especially on long-haul night flights.

I leave my belt on all the time anyway.....

[F4UCorsair]

Air turbulence happens all the time.

Why were there so many injuries I wonder.

Arrived back in Bangkok last night on Ethiad flight arriving 1800 ish from AD. We had four of five incidents of the Captain announcing that all seat belts must be put on and one where the Cabin Crew were told to do the same. ALL of these were after leaving Indian air space and over the sea and I think the last one was when we were just over the coast of Myamar. Certainly very bumpy on the one where the CC were told to belt up.

Have to agree about the numpties that jump up as you hit the deck and are on the phone and grabbing their luggage out of the overheads and then stand for ages waiting to get off; I just sit in the seat and wait for them all to get off.

I think the previous posters idea of electrically locked overheads is a great idea;,as is the one where the seat belts are sensor-ed and the personal screen is locked off until the seat belt is registered as locked.

Considering the enormous cost of any aircraft, these mods would cost virtually nothing to implement and certainly add an enormous amount to passengers safety as well as helping the CC with their work load.

Pax are seated more often than FA's cheshire because they are more likely to take a tumble even in light turbulence and the airlines don't want claims for compensation from pax. The FA's become accustomed to moving around in light turbulence.

hanno, post # 209, the FA's don't control the seat belt sign, the pilots do. I think it unlikely that pilots would cave in to requests from FA's to put the seat belt sign on just so that they can bludge, but some may. FA's job description requires them to serve pax, although I've come across a lot who think otherwise. The work ethic of other than Asian FA's leaves a lot to be desired in my experience.

I agree that remotely locked overhead lockers, etc., would be a good idea, but I think it would be seen as too controlling, and there are still clowns who would try to open them regardless, so they'd still be up and about. People act differently around airports and aircraft. They are excited about going somewhere, think they're Marco Polo, the first to have ever traveled, and think it their right to act as they choose because they've bought a ticket. Seasoned travelers are very different.

Edited September 3, 2013 by F4UCorsair