Dozens hurt as Thai airliner hits turbulence

[noitom]

I have only flown once into Chek Lap Kok and it was the most scariest landing I have ever experienced, I was seated near the rear on a 747 and on touchdown it just started to tail slap.

Yet done many uneventful landings at Kia Tak.

Hope all recover soon.

Kai Tak was great.

[PMZ]

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.

What nonsense. Air pockets are almost impossibel to detect.

[PMZ]

Where were the seatbelts?

I suspect that the seatbelts were where they always are, but the foolish passengers simply were not wearing them!

[Basil B]

I have only flown once into Chek Lap Kok and it was the most scariest landing I have ever experienced, I was seated near the rear on a 747 and on touchdown it just started to tail slap.

Yet done many uneventful landings at Kia Tak.

Hope all recover soon.

Kai Tak was great.

Great watching those Cathy Boys sliding in sideways...

wonder if the the aiming board is still there, (a red & white checkerboard painted on a cliff face)

[Rob180]

Thank God it wasn't Etihad - there'd have been a lot more injured, because they fly THROUGH storms and won't use extra fuel to fly over them.

What evidence do you have to back that statement up? I suspect that is not true!

[DogNo1]

I flew from LAX to NRT on AA 169 (Boeing 777-200) this past Monday. The seatbelt sign was on for most of the time. I didn't fasten my seatbelt when I flattened out my seat for a 2-3 hour nap. After reading about this incident, I won't make that mistake again!

[Satcommlee]

If airlines didn't simply put the seat belt lights on for convenience of the cabin crew and their movement (productivity) up and down the aisle, then maybe people would actually heed the seatbelt warnings.

I always keep the seat belt loosely fastened, but haven't we all sat there with the seat belt lights on for no reason, sometimes for an hour?

When you travel often enough you tend to ignore the seat belt sign, even getting up to use the toilet and the cabin crew don't care.

It's this complacency that led to the injuries on this flight.

I would prefer a siren to go off, to indicate that there is a real need to put the seatbelt on.

Not just because the cabin crew need to move a trolley down the aisle.

[hawker9000]

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.

What instruments are you referring to?

CAT is usually associated with the jet stream at high altitudes. It can be, but is usually difficult to detect, especially by anything currently onboard aircraft. LIDAR is such a system, but is still in testing I think. Details missing and can't rule it out, but if the aircraft was actually on approach, I'm not inclined to think clear air turbulence was the reason for this. Conditions in and around storms, on the other hand, can change rapidly, and an area of significant turbulence could exist where there was less of it just a few minutes before - this doesn't sound so impossible to me, nor am I particularly suspicious of the flight crew not doing something they should've been, unless they were ignoring warnings or PIREPS relayed to them by ATC. Other causes of turbulence at lower altitudes (right down to wake turbulence on landing) besides storms are possible, too. I'd be interested to hear what other pilots on the same approach earlier were reporting.

[fabianfred]

I lived in Hong Kong for three years and kai tak was still in use then. The hk Chinese were always rushing about.... Worried about that extra dollar.... They were notorious for getting out of their seats and getting their luggage before the plane had stopped... or even landed.

Sent from my GT-N8000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[shaurene]

I flew with my family BK-HK on the 28th of July , we were flying Thai ( it was crap as there was no tele on the headrests) . Due to the stormy weather we had to circle for 20 minutes or so and we had to abort one attempt at landing and pull up out of the storm . The plane was shaking due to the turbulence . It was very scarry but we eventually approached and landed from the east . There was a sigh relief all round and some passengers applauded the flight staff when the plane landed.

I can never understand why they do not have fresh underpants in the first aid box.

[wayned]

I have only flown once into Chek Lap Kok and it was the most scariest landing I have ever experienced, I was seated near the rear on a 747 and on touchdown it just started to tail slap.

Yet done many uneventful landings at Kia Tak.

Hope all recover soon.

Kai Tak was great.

Especially the inland approach where you came in very steep and could wave to the people doing their laundry on the balconies of their apartments on either side of the aircraft. What fun!

The terrain where the new airport is located makes the approaches to the airport very susceptible to wind shear and turbulence. Even if you are strapped into your seat if the bins pop open, that 30 kg bag that you managed to put up there suddenly becomes a missile.

[onionluke]

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1300675/turbulence-hits-two-hong-kong-bound-planes-injuring-30

An article from the SCMP this morning .

[FNQ]

This airbus incident, there were 500 on board so these must be the Thais that cancelled the Europe trips and diverted to Asian destinations. UNLESS it was taking all those High end tourists back to China. Maybe some were early getting their overhead luggage down as the trend now is to start to get your bags on decent.

Yes what is it with the urgency of getting your gear down and standing around for ages, this is why i never book an aisle seat.

Pisses me off!

[geriatrickid]

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1300675/turbulence-hits-two-hong-kong-bound-planes-injuring-30

An article from the SCMP this morning .

Too funny;

She was angry that the airline staff had not taken better care of them after they were admitted to hospital. "At least they should move us to a private hospital," she said. "In Bangkok we never went to government hospitals."Most of the injured were taken to Princess Margaret Hospital in Kwai Chung, while some went to Yan Chai Hospital in Tsuen Wan, Caritas Medical Centre in Lai Chi Kok and Kwong Wah Hospital in Yau Ma Tei.

Dumb, ignorant woman. Princes Margaret is as good as any private hospital in BKK. In a crisis you go wherever you can go.

[airconsult]

This airbus incident, there were 500 on board so these must be the Thais that cancelled the Europe trips and diverted to Asian destinations. UNLESS it was taking all those High end tourists back to China. Maybe some were early getting their overhead luggage down as the trend now is to start to get your bags on decent.

This is a very busy route and plenty of budget flers use it too, about 80% of seats on the Emirates A380 are economy.

As for Thai Air it is 82%:

The seats are arranged in three classes: 12 in Royal First Class, 60 in Royal Silk (Executive Class), and 435 in Economy.

http://www.thaiairways.co.uk/news/2013/06/a380-joins-thai-airways-london-bangkok-fleet/#.UiBuv9Jwq7g

When you are flying the A380 full it is very economical especially compared with the fuel guzzling 747s & 777s

On a long haul flight certainly.....but not on these short hops. The A380 is very thirsty until it gets to cruising altitude. And stays there for a very long time.

/pedantic mode on

Agree - bit of a blanket fuel statement - all depends on the profile of the flight. Probably a 773 or a 333 would have the best efficiency for that route.

But even then - to be pedantic - are we talking 744 or 748 vs 380? At ideal profiles for each the 744 is about 3.1l per Passenger 100KM, the 748 is 2.8 and the A380 is 2.9.

If we just stick to Thai, A330-300 I think would be their best fit - their 772's are really for longer range runs - I assume the 380 was chosen right now as it's fairly new and they're still finding it's "best return" in their route planning. You have to remember that all fuel efficiency figures do depend on each airlines seat config/loading profile and even paint configuration.

/pedant off

[Noistar]

no A380s have been grounded due to the wing rib bracket cracks and as far as I'm aware, not for any other reason.

Don't know why you keep denying it. The below from a site dedicated to aviation news and not a rag.

Qantas grounds A380 after finding 36 cracks on wings

A Qantas Airways Airbus A380 has been grounded after 36 cracks were found on its wings on 5 February.

The aircraft, which bears the registration VH-OQF, had its airframe built in 2010 and has clocked 399 flight cycles totalling 2,454 flight hours, according to Flightglobal's ACAS database.

The aircraft was first grounded when Airbus requested a second phase of precautionary checks on its wings after it went through severe turbulence in January, said Qantas. Airbus made the request after reviewing data of the turbulent flight.

"During these inspections, minor cracking was found on some wing rib brackets. This cracking is not related to the turbulence, or specific to Qantas, but is traced back to a manufacturing issue in this specific wing area of the aircraft," said a Qantas spokesman.

He added that the cracks found are different from the "type two" cracking recently found on other A380s, which are now the subject of a European airworthiness directive.

Flightglobal

I don't think the mods would like this to turn into an A380 wing safety thread. You have merely confirmed Airbus' over-cautious approach to ensure when it was first identified, that there was no safety issue.

I say again, the A380 fleet has never been grounded - the wing safety issue had nothing to do with normal turbulence, so your comment is I'll-informed.

Anyway, the mods will pull our exchange - 'happy landings'!

[stoli]

This airbus incident, there were 500 on board so these must be the Thais that cancelled the Europe trips and diverted to Asian destinations. UNLESS it was taking all those High end tourists back to China. Maybe some were early getting their overhead luggage down as the trend now is to start to get your bags on decent.

Can you tell me which airline allows you to get your bags on descent?

[stoli]

If airlines didn't simply put the seat belt lights on for convenience of the cabin crew and their movement (productivity) up and down the aisle, then maybe people would actually heed the seatbelt warnings.

I always keep the seat belt loosely fastened, but haven't we all sat there with the seat belt lights on for no reason, sometimes for an hour?

When you travel often enough you tend to ignore the seat belt sign, even getting up to use the toilet and the cabin crew don't care.

It's this complacency that led to the injuries on this flight.

I would prefer a siren to go off, to indicate that there is a real need to put the seatbelt on.

Not just because the cabin crew need to move a trolley down the aisle.

You have trouble following their procedures, so now you want sirens. It is their plane, just follow their rules. What is so hard about having a loose seatbelt around you during a flight just in case? Too hard, Really?

[F4UCorsair]

Thank God it wasn't Etihad - there'd have been a lot more injured, because they fly THROUGH storms and won't use extra fuel to fly over them.

Nothing wrong with that. I makes for a more interesting flight. Keep your seatbelt fastened and you shouldn't have a problem. The ones injured are usually those that think the safety rules don't apply to them.

There's a lot wrong with that, and no pilots I know willingly or knowingly fly into severe turbulence. It's just too risky, and there are a number of cases where aircraft have broken up in severe turbulence. OK, I know there will be those asking me to quote cases, and the only one I know of off hand is the British 707 that was torn apart in the lee of Mt Fuji in the 60's, but there have been others since.

I have personal knowledge of an encounter with unforecast Clear Air Turbulence and the damage was well over $10 million.

An airline just can't risk asking pilots to fly through turbulence rather than avoid it.

I agree with the comment on seat belts. Keep them loosely fastened right through the flight, except when the 'seat belt' light is off and you need a stroll. Most airlines have that rule as part of their policy, and is included in the first post take off in flight announcement. It's nuts to do otherwise. Clear Air Turbulence is frequently not present even when the forecast indicates it may be, but when it is, it can shake the fillings out of your teeth, and frightens the hell out of even pilots who have been flying for an entire career.

[hawker9000]

Thank God it wasn't Etihad - there'd have been a lot more injured, because they fly THROUGH storms and won't use extra fuel to fly over them.

Nothing wrong with that. I makes for a more interesting flight. Keep your seatbelt fastened and you shouldn't have a problem. The ones injured are usually those that think the safety rules don't apply to them.

There's a lot wrong with that, and no pilots I know willingly or knowingly fly into severe turbulence. It's just too risky, and there are a number of cases where aircraft have broken up in severe turbulence. OK, I know there will be those asking me to quote cases, and the only one I know of off hand is the British 707 that was torn apart in the lee of Mt Fuji in the 60's, but there have been others since.

I have personal knowledge of an encounter with unforecast Clear Air Turbulence and the damage was well over $10 million.

An airline just can't risk asking pilots to fly through turbulence rather than avoid it.

He (Fixit) said "fly THROUGH storms", not "fly through turbulence". Anyway, "storm" is vague. To some people it's something as little as a single rain cloud. Airliners certainly don't avoid instrument conditions, but will avoid heavy convective activity in most cases, and usually have onboard weather radar - other systems available these days to datalink the info as well - that can help warn of that as well as ATC weather warnings and pilot reports from other aircraft who've flown through the area. Correct about not flying into known severe turbulence. Not all turbulence is created equal however, and is specifically categorized as "light", "moderate", "severe", and "extreme". Airlines DO routinely fly through areas of turbulence categorized as light or moderate, if there's no information to indicate a deteriorating trend. Light to moderate turbulence can be widespread, and pilots can hardly avoid it in many cases. You'll know the pilot is hearing "moderate" (or worse) if food service is suspended. OTH, as "severe" is defined as turbulence that can result in temporary loss of control (with large airspeed, attitude and altitude excursions), and "extreme" is defined as making the aircraft potentially "impossible to control" and can cause structural damage, airliners (and most all other pilots as well) obviously aren't going to knowingly fly through that. But there's always the unexpected = unforecast/unreported, which this incident almost certainly was.

[mikemac]

Can you tell me which airline allows you to get your bags on descent?

I have flown countless air miles in China, India, Vietnam, Thailand etc (all countries renowned for queue jumping) and have NEVER seen a passenger pulling baggage from overhead locker on descent. Some people have vivid imaginations !

[mikemac]

I would prefer a siren to go off, to indicate that there is a real need to put the seatbelt on.

I am glad you are not the Minister for Goofy Airline Procedures.

The last thing I want to hear when I am 11,000 mtrs high is a bloody siren going off. And if I did hear one I would tighten my belt until it choked me and assume crash position !

[TimTang]

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.

being airborne yourself was not anough, seat had to do the same?????????

Actually...what he said makes perfect sense. When the plane dropped he didn't and gravity may actually bring you down but plane may rise again bringing the seat with it. Either way, there may be more than one variable that ultimately reunites you with your seat. It's happened to me before and it's pretty hairy when it happens. I've started wearing my seat-belt for entire flights because if the plane had dropped any further the suitcases in the overhead storage probably would have been my last vision before I died.

[TimTang]

I would prefer a siren to go off, to indicate that there is a real need to put the seatbelt on.

I am glad you are not the Minister for Goofy Airline Procedures.

The last thing I want to hear when I am 11,000 mtrs high is a bloody siren going off. And if I did hear one I would tighten my belt until it choked me and assume crash position !

Or stick your head firmly between your legs and kiss your a$$ goodbye.

[peterbkk9]

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1300675/turbulence-hits-two-hong-kong-bound-planes-injuring-30

An article from the SCMP this morning .

Too funny;

She was angry that the airline staff had not taken better care of them after they were admitted to hospital. "At least they should move us to a private hospital," she said. "In Bangkok we never went to government hospitals."Most of the injured were taken to Princess Margaret Hospital in Kwai Chung, while some went to Yan Chai Hospital in Tsuen Wan, Caritas Medical Centre in Lai Chi Kok and Kwong Wah Hospital in Yau Ma Tei.

Dumb, ignorant woman. Princes Margaret is as good as any private hospital in BKK. In a crisis you go wherever you can go.

Indeed. And if she had her seat belt on this would not have happened in the first place

[TimTang]

I have only flown once into Chek Lap Kok and it was the most scariest landing I have ever experienced, I was seated near the rear on a 747 and on touchdown it just started to tail slap.

Yet done many uneventful landings at Kia Tak.

Hope all recover soon.

Kai Tak was great.

I found Kai Tak a little spooky. The distance between the wing tips and the surrounding high-rises didn't leave much room for error. But to be fair I never experience any landings that were frightful.

[metisdead]

A post using all caps has been removed as well as a number of inflammatory replies to that post. Grammar police posts have been removed as well.

[ginjag]

This airbus incident, there were 500 on board so these must be the Thais that cancelled the Europe trips and diverted to Asian destinations. UNLESS it was taking all those High end tourists back to China. Maybe some were early getting their overhead luggage down as the trend now is to start to get your bags on decent.

Can you tell me which airline allows you to get your bags on descent?

Don't think I mentioned that the airline allows it, I said some stupid people do this, then big time after landing before the aircraft reaches the gate.

O.K. unless airlines do something about it more injuries could happen, some airlines are very strict, others may have less numbers of staff to stop the trend.

[GeorgeO]

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.

"use the heads"...?

[ginjag]

Can you tell me which airline allows you to get your bags on descent?

I have flown countless air miles in China, India, Vietnam, Thailand etc (all countries renowned for queue jumping) and have NEVER seen a passenger pulling baggage from overhead locker on descent. Some people have vivid imaginations !

Sorry to say it happens--NOT on a mass scale , but you DO get stupid people that do this, then loads after landing and approach to gate,