Dozens hurt as Thai airliner hits turbulence

[transam]

I do frown at folk who have weighed in their luggage and then come on board with 3 cases , nothing is said by the staff.

[Noistar]

I do frown at folk who have weighed in their luggage and then come on board with 3 cases , nothing is said by the staff.

I think you're mistaken, the Flight Attendants say "May I help you with those bags Sir?"

[Treborz]

There was a thunderstorm warning up most of the day and the weather was pretty hideos so not surprised.

There was reports of a second flight from Thailand (Dragonair) also suffering badly earlier in the day.

[ginjag]

I do frown at folk who have weighed in their luggage and then come on board with 3 cases , nothing is said by the staff.

Also I am 69 kilos, and have 8 kilos of hand luggage. (1 kilo over) so it will have to go into the hold.

Then a the biggest fat guy weighing in at 120 kilos has 7 kilos, pass right through sir have a good flight.

This can be the same as your 20 kilos main luggage- if I am 1 kilo over I have to pay 1000 bht per kilo extra. the HULK has no excess baggage...to me why have an average, you and your bags should have a combined weight. above that then DIET Fatso.

On Topic, a suggestion of electronically operated overheads would not work as you have the numbskulls who are up and down like yo-yos taking out putting back never stop during the whole flight, thus making the attendants work overtime unlocking the electronic devises.

[transam]

I do frown at folk who have weighed in their luggage and then come on board with 3 cases , nothing is said by the staff.

Also I am 69 kilos, and have 8 kilos of hand luggage. (1 kilo over) so it will have to go into the hold.

Then a the biggest fat guy weighing in at 120 kilos has 7 kilos, pass right through sir have a good flight.

This can be the same as your 20 kilos main luggage- if I am 1 kilo over I have to pay 1000 bht per kilo extra. the HULK has no excess baggage...to me why have an average, you and your bags should have a combined weight. above that then DIET Fatso.

On Topic, a suggestion of electronically operated overheads would not work as you have the numbskulls who are up and down like yo-yos taking out putting back never stop during the whole flight, thus making the attendants work overtime unlocking the electronic devises.

I watched a Poirot ''who done it'' last night, think it was set in 1935. Folk got to the airport to check in, ''they'' were weighed, then their luggage for a total weight . Not sure if it was for the Captains knowledge or for load payment but it should be done now cos really the modern day Captain really doesn't have a clue of his actual load.

[hawker9000]

I do frown at folk who have weighed in their luggage and then come on board with 3 cases , nothing is said by the staff.

Also I am 69 kilos, and have 8 kilos of hand luggage. (1 kilo over) so it will have to go into the hold.

Then a the biggest fat guy weighing in at 120 kilos has 7 kilos, pass right through sir have a good flight.

This can be the same as your 20 kilos main luggage- if I am 1 kilo over I have to pay 1000 bht per kilo extra. the HULK has no excess baggage...to me why have an average, you and your bags should have a combined weight. above that then DIET Fatso.

On Topic, a suggestion of electronically operated overheads would not work as you have the numbskulls who are up and down like yo-yos taking out putting back never stop during the whole flight, thus making the attendants work overtime unlocking the electronic devises.

I watched a Poirot ''who done it'' last night, think it was set in 1935. Folk got to the airport to check in, ''they'' were weighed, then their luggage for a total weight . Not sure if it was for the Captains knowledge or for load payment but it should be done now cos really the modern day Captain really doesn't have a clue of his actual load.

I think back in '35 the airliners were operating with much less margin for error when it came to GW & CG. Much larger airliners today with much larger passenger capacities can no doubt afford to assume a certain statistical average when it comes to the passengers themselves (but not their baggage, esp. baggage being checked and placed into the hold). So, not really accurate at all to assert that the Captain doesn't "have a clue". In fact, I expect that if you DID weigh everyone, the results would consistently show the airline actually overestimating in this regard, and the difference between actual & estimated never enough to materially affect the CG calculation or pitch trim setting, or approach takeoff weight limitations. I expect the cargo liners are actually far far more meticulous about such things.

Edited September 5, 2013 by hawker9000

[Noistar]

I do frown at folk who have weighed in their luggage and then come on board with 3 cases , nothing is said by the staff.

Also I am 69 kilos, and have 8 kilos of hand luggage. (1 kilo over) so it will have to go into the hold.

Then a the biggest fat guy weighing in at 120 kilos has 7 kilos, pass right through sir have a good flight.

This can be the same as your 20 kilos main luggage- if I am 1 kilo over I have to pay 1000 bht per kilo extra. the HULK has no excess baggage...to me why have an average, you and your bags should have a combined weight. above that then DIET Fatso.

On Topic, a suggestion of electronically operated overheads would not work as you have the numbskulls who are up and down like yo-yos taking out putting back never stop during the whole flight, thus making the attendants work overtime unlocking the electronic devises.

I watched a Poirot ''who done it'' last night, think it was set in 1935. Folk got to the airport to check in, ''they'' were weighed, then their luggage for a total weight . Not sure if it was for the Captains knowledge or for load payment but it should be done now cos really the modern day Captain really doesn't have a clue of his actual load.

I think back in '35 the airliners were operating with much less margin for error when it came to GW & CG. Much larger airliners today with much larger passenger capacities can no doubt afford to assume a certain statistical average when it comes to the passengers themselves (but not their baggage, esp. baggage being checked and placed into the hold). So, not really accurate at all to assert that the Captain doesn't "have a clue". In fact, I expect that if you DID weigh everyone, the results would consistently show the airline actually overestimating in this regard, and the difference between actual & estimated never enough to materially affect the CG calculation or pitch trim setting, or approach takeoff weight limitations. I expect the cargo liners are actually far far more meticulous about such things.

Couldn't it be assumed that 300 passengers have their full allowance and just spread the plebs and the important baggage accordingly?

I'd have thought having all the 'big' people in one place would have more effect than a few bits of baggage. If people range from 35kg to 100kg, surely a 300 x 20kg is an easier assumption than 300 x when determining weight distribution?

[hawker9000]

I think back in '35 the airliners were operating with much less margin for error when it came to GW & CG. Much larger airliners today with much larger passenger capacities can no doubt afford to assume a certain statistical average when it comes to the passengers themselves (but not their baggage, esp. baggage being checked and placed into the hold). So, not really accurate at all to assert that the Captain doesn't "have a clue". In fact, I expect that if you DID weigh everyone, the results would consistently show the airline actually overestimating in this regard, and the difference between actual & estimated never enough to materially affect the CG calculation or pitch trim setting, or approach takeoff weight limitations. I expect the cargo liners are actually far far more meticulous about such things.

Couldn't it be assumed that 300 passengers have their full allowance and just spread the plebs and the important baggage accordingly?

I'd have thought having all the 'big' people in one place would have more effect than a few bits of baggage. If people range from 35kg to 100kg, surely a 300 x 20kg is an easier assumption than 300 x when determining weight distribution?

Huh? (And what's a "pleb"?)

[Noistar]

I think back in '35 the airliners were operating with much less margin for error when it came to GW & CG. Much larger airliners today with much larger passenger capacities can no doubt afford to assume a certain statistical average when it comes to the passengers themselves (but not their baggage, esp. baggage being checked and placed into the hold). So, not really accurate at all to assert that the Captain doesn't "have a clue". In fact, I expect that if you DID weigh everyone, the results would consistently show the airline actually overestimating in this regard, and the difference between actual & estimated never enough to materially affect the CG calculation or pitch trim setting, or approach takeoff weight limitations. I expect the cargo liners are actually far far more meticulous about such things.

Couldn't it be assumed that 300 passengers have their full allowance and just spread the plebs and the important baggage accordingly?

I'd have thought having all the 'big' people in one place would have more effect than a few bits of baggage. If people range from 35kg to 100kg, surely a 300 x 20kg is an easier assumption than 300 x when determining weight distribution?

Huh? (And what's a "pleb"?)

Sorry - bad phrase. I've heard people refer to economy class as 'steerage' and 'cattle class'. My light- hearted comment wasn't meant to offend.

[hawker9000]

I think back in '35 the airliners were operating with much less margin for error when it came to GW & CG. Much larger airliners today with much larger passenger capacities can no doubt afford to assume a certain statistical average when it comes to the passengers themselves (but not their baggage, esp. baggage being checked and placed into the hold). So, not really accurate at all to assert that the Captain doesn't "have a clue". In fact, I expect that if you DID weigh everyone, the results would consistently show the airline actually overestimating in this regard, and the difference between actual & estimated never enough to materially affect the CG calculation or pitch trim setting, or approach takeoff weight limitations. I expect the cargo liners are actually far far more meticulous about such things.

Couldn't it be assumed that 300 passengers have their full allowance and just spread the plebs and the important baggage accordingly?

I'd have thought having all the 'big' people in one place would have more effect than a few bits of baggage. If people range from 35kg to 100kg, surely a 300 x 20kg is an easier assumption than 300 x when determining weight distribution?

Huh? (And what's a "pleb"?)

Sorry - bad phrase. I've heard people refer to economy class as 'steerage' and 'cattle class'. My light- hearted comment wasn't meant to offend.

No - no. Not offended at all. Sorry if I seemed curt. I honestly didn't quite understand the question. I've never piloted a heavy transport, but I can't imagine that there's really any reason for concern WRT commerical airline pilots not being sufficiently informed about their aircraft weight & balance, or with there being any gaps in the process that airlines presently use with respect to that. No professional pilot would want to short-circuit or take risks along those lines because they could directly effect aircraft controllability, and it's a very well understood and fundamental aspect of flying & airmanship. Weight variance from one passenger to the next, averaged over maybe 300 of 'em, as overweight as some may be, isn't such that everyone needs to be weighed. In my experience we didn't even do that in lighter transports with far fewer passengers involved. (We DID however use a number for pre-flight planning that was fairly conservative.)

[Noistar]

I think back in '35 the airliners were operating with much less margin for error when it came to GW & CG. Much larger airliners today with much larger passenger capacities can no doubt afford to assume a certain statistical average when it comes to the passengers themselves (but not their baggage, esp. baggage being checked and placed into the hold). So, not really accurate at all to assert that the Captain doesn't "have a clue". In fact, I expect that if you DID weigh everyone, the results would consistently show the airline actually overestimating in this regard, and the difference between actual & estimated never enough to materially affect the CG calculation or pitch trim setting, or approach takeoff weight limitations. I expect the cargo liners are actually far far more meticulous about such things.

Couldn't it be assumed that 300 passengers have their full allowance and just spread the plebs and the important baggage accordingly?

I'd have thought having all the 'big' people in one place would have more effect than a few bits of baggage. If people range from 35kg to 100kg, surely a 300 x 20kg is an easier assumption than 300 x when determining weight distribution?

Huh? (And what's a "pleb"?)

Sorry - bad phrase. I've heard people refer to economy class as 'steerage' and 'cattle class'. My light- hearted comment wasn't meant to offend.

No - no. Not offended at all. Sorry if I seemed curt. I honestly didn't quite understand the question. I've never piloted a heavy transport, but I can't imagine that there's really any reason for concern WRT commerical airline pilots not being sufficiently informed about their aircraft weight & balance, or with there being any gaps in the process that airlines presently use with respect to that. No professional pilot would want to short-circuit or take risks along those lines because they could directly effect aircraft controllability, and it's a very well understood and fundamental aspect of flying & airmanship. Weight variance from one passenger to the next, averaged over maybe 300 of 'em, as overweight as some may be, isn't such that everyone needs to be weighed. In my experience we didn't even do that in lighter transports with far fewer passengers involved. (We DID however use a number for pre-flight planning that was fairly conservative.)

Cheers - Glad the usual 'written word' gremlin wasn't at large.

I must admit that I believe it would be fairer to base 'incoming weight' as passenger + baggage, but as I'd come off worse on that basis I'm happy to stay with the present system!

From my ignorance I was led to believe that the co-pilot was tasked with moving fuel around etc to keep the plane balanced, but I'm probably wrong.

It's safe to assume that at any point in a journey the plane is equally safe with regard to stability, but I'm ready to stand corrected.

[F4UCorsair]

I do frown at folk who have weighed in their luggage and then come on board with 3 cases , nothing is said by the staff.

Also I am 69 kilos, and have 8 kilos of hand luggage. (1 kilo over) so it will have to go into the hold.

Then a the biggest fat guy weighing in at 120 kilos has 7 kilos, pass right through sir have a good flight.

This can be the same as your 20 kilos main luggage- if I am 1 kilo over I have to pay 1000 bht per kilo extra. the HULK has no excess baggage...to me why have an average, you and your bags should have a combined weight. above that then DIET Fatso.

On Topic, a suggestion of electronically operated overheads would not work as you have the numbskulls who are up and down like yo-yos taking out putting back never stop during the whole flight, thus making the attendants work overtime unlocking the electronic devises.

I watched a Poirot ''who done it'' last night, think it was set in 1935. Folk got to the airport to check in, ''they'' were weighed, then their luggage for a total weight . Not sure if it was for the Captains knowledge or for load payment but it should be done now cos really the modern day Captain really doesn't have a clue of his actual load.

The reason pax were weighed was because as a percentage of the total weight, 50 Kgs was huge, e.g., a DC3 was about 22 tonnes I think, and a 747 can be almost 500 tonnes. Now 50 Kgs is nothing as a percentage of a 400+ tonne aircraft.

Modern day Captains do 'have more than a clue' of the actual load, know exactly what the load is, as required by law, and sign a load sheet that gives that information. These days, average weights are used, and a few years ago they were 77Kgs for an adult, less for kids. Of course, airlines operating in countries where people are generally bigger and heavier, e.g., the South Pacific (ever been to Samoa, Fiji or Tonga?), use greater average weights, an initiative they can take and advise to their regulating Civil Aviation authority. Also, companies operating commuter category aircraft often do weigh pax.

If the final load is 500 Kgs higher or lower than the actual calculated using average weights, that's almost nothing as a percentage total weight of the aircraft, even for a 737NG being only about .75%. The take off speeds would change by less than one knot. For a 747, it represents about .125%.

When a Captain signs the load sheet, he's also signing for the 'centre of gravity' position, critical for take off. That's why pax are normally prevented from changing seats by moving fore and aft prior to take off. It's not as critical in cruise, but still very important for landing. If 20 pax moved from the extreme back of the aircraft to the extreme front before take off, the aircraft wouldn't become airborne.

Captains occasionally direct FA's to move pax to achieve a more favourable CoG position prior to take off. The Load Controller has limits within which he has the aircraft loaded, but if the Captain isn't happy with the CoG position, even though it's within limits, he can adjust it by moving pax. That saves moving freight down below and generating a new load sheet with the CoG closer to the centre of the range, causing a delayed departure. Load controllers try for a position close to the centre of the range. That's done by allocating containers of freight/baggage to different cargo holds, and bingo!! That's why baggage and freight ARE weighed.

There's an old saying in aviation. A forward Centre of Gravity flys badly, but an aft Centre of Gravity flys once! It really is that critical, and the 747 crash at Bagram, near Kabul recently, (see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lksDISvCmNI) is now believed to have been caused by a vehicle being carried as freight, breaking loose and rolling aft, making the aircraft uncontrollable.

Edited September 7, 2013 by F4UCorsair

[thaibeachlovers]

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,

I've seen it happen once, but the cabin crew were on him pronto.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

On one landing in saudi the girl beside me was screaming in fear ( might have been others too ) and after we landed, EVERYONE clapped the pilot.

[dogeatdog]

And....... 18 days later we have this one.

Can only find in thai so far, no english language one that I can see.

But I guess the picture says it all.

I wonder if this will have any affect on its pax or is it just about liabilities??

[Bpuumike]

And....... 18 days later we have this one.

1379474402579.jpg

Can only find in thai so far, no english language one that I can see.

But I guess the picture says it all.

I wonder if this will have any affect on its pax or is it just about liabilities??

Thought it was landing in Suvarnabhumi. Must have missed the green pyramids on my numerous trips.

[harrry]

And....... 18 days later we have this one.

1379474402579.jpg

Can only find in thai so far, no english language one that I can see.

But I guess the picture says it all.

I wonder if this will have any affect on its pax or is it just about liabilities??

Thought it was landing in Suvarnabhumi. Must have missed the green pyramids on my numerous trips.

Without reading the Thai it seems like a perfectly good explanation telling people one reason for turbulance and saying that seat belts should be worn.

[Oxpilot]

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.

Ok Gentlemen,

I am a retired Captain from Delta Airlines and while we have Wind-shear warnings we do not have "Turbulence warning equipment" currently. For turbulence we still rely on reports from aircraft in front of us passing their reports. With rapidly moving and changing weather patterns even the aircraft ahead of you on the approach may have different wind and turbulence that you will have. Therefore it is less than a perfect science. I agree with the posts stating that passengers from China disregard safety procedures to their own detriment. "You can lead a horse---etc." But I have seen it with all cultures with possible exception of the Japanese who seem to follow instructions.

All the other people on this forum telling of their personal experiences and problems with certain airlines, may I say most are not of interest to anyone else.

[Oxpilot]

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.

You are mistaken that we have instruments to detect turbulence. The instruments we have detect wind=shear which is a source of turbulence but not the only one. I hope they are able to do that in the future. At the moment we rely on aircraft flying in front of us reporting the turbulence, but it can change dramatically in the space of a few seconds. One aircraft can make a normal approach and landing and the next is driven into the ground as was the case with our L-1011 in Dallas, killing most on board and my friends in the crew.

So many posts on this are so ridiculous I am amazed that some of you need to tell your personal tales of flights. NOBODY CARES

[MJP]

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.

You are mistaken that we have instruments to detect turbulence. The instruments we have detect wind=shear which is a source of turbulence but not the only one. I hope they are able to do that in the future. At the moment we rely on aircraft flying in front of us reporting the turbulence, but it can change dramatically in the space of a few seconds. One aircraft can make a normal approach and landing and the next is driven into the ground as was the case with our L-1011 in Dallas, killing most on board and my friends in the crew.

So many posts on this are so ridiculous I am amazed that some of you need to tell your personal tales of flights. NOBODY CARES

Delta's great. Used to fly fancy class between Tokyo and JFK. Big comfy chair. Couldn't feel turbulence. Had a real knife and fork too.