22 injured after SIA flight to Mumbai hit by major turbulence

[webfact]

22 injured after SIA flight to Mumbai hit by major turbulence



SINGAPORE: -- Major turbulence that hit a Singapore Airlines (SIA) flight from Singapore to Mumbai on Saturday night left eight passengers and 14 crew injured, according to The Straits Times.

It is not known how serious the injuries were but all 22 received medical treatment when the plane landed.

The incident on board SIA Flight 424 which was carrying 408 passengers and 25 crew happened as the plane was making its descent.

An airline spokesman said: “Our immediate concern is for the well-being of our passengers and crew. Singapore Airlines will provide full assistance to the authorities in their investigations.”

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/22-injured-sia-flight-mumbai-hit-major-turbulence/


-- Thai PBS 2014-10-20

[bkkcanuck8]

Once you have been through that once, you always wear your seatbelt (except for when going to the washroom)....

[o2eZy]

that is what seatbelts are for...I have mine fastened all the time I am seated ...been there done that...

[tx22cb]

The poor crew - over half were injured (14 out of 25).

And I thought the Airbus 380 was so big it must be more stable .... wrong.

[barryofthailand]

I always wear my seatbelt when seated and try to use the bathroom before any decent for landing.

[bkkcanuck8]

Luckily the only time I had been through it, I was wearing them (only a few injured).... but up until that time - sometimes yes, sometimes no.... but always now.

[tx22cb]

that is what seatbelts are for...I have mine fastened all the time I am seated ...been there done that...

Only 8 passengers out of 400+ were injured, so most were belted.

It's the cabin crew that I feel sorry for.

[catterwell]

Must have been CAT (Clear Air Turbulence), which you can't see coming and which can be quite dramatic.

[lee b]

The poor crew - over half were injured (14 out of 25).

And I thought the Airbus 380 was so big it must be more stable .... wrong.

Yep, I don't belive that any plane can withstand major turbulance regardless of the size.

[smedly]

wearing a seatbelt is always a good idea but the problem is when equipment the cabin crew are using starts getting airbourn and landing on you where you sit - those trolly's are heavy

[Credo]

I've been on a few flights where several of the crew would not easily become airborne.

[outsider]

The poor crew - over half were injured (14 out of 25).

And I thought the Airbus 380 was so big it must be more stable .... wrong.

Another way of looking at it is, lucky it was an A380. Imagine if it had been an A320. Or an even smaller craft... *shudders*

[Wat dee]

Must have been CAT (Clear Air Turbulence), which you can't see coming and which can be quite dramatic.

Not likely.Only 8 passengers injured means fasten seat belt light was on.

[Jdiddy]

I've been on a few flights where several of the crew would not easily become airborne.

You mean those feminist equal rights western airlines?

Glad i stopped taking them

[Chao Lao Beach]

http://www.navyaircrew.com/blog/2009/08/30/light-moderate-or-severe-turbulencehow-are-they-defined/

[Credo]

I've been on a few flights where several of the crew would not easily become airborne.

You mean those feminist equal rights western airlines?

Glad i stopped taking them

Actually, once on a Russian flight I think getting a couple of them airborne would have been difficult.

[annabel]

that is what seatbelts are for...I have mine fastened all the time I am seated ...been there done that...

Where does it say those injured were not wearing their seat belts...?? You can be injured in heavy turbulence even if you are strapped in..... Over head bins open and things fall.... food tray goes flying... etc...

[JacChang]

Sometimes, I bring my seatbelt to the bathroom.

[lumply]

Must have been CAT (Clear Air Turbulence), which you can't see coming and which can be quite dramatic.

CAT would perhaps have been encountered at altitude or top of descent. The a/c in this incident was descending for approach to landing so probably flying through cloud or cloud layers which can be turbulent, especially in the tropics. Good job most were strapped in but it never ceases to amaze me how nonchalant some people are about their own safety when flying.

[richard_smith237]

On a recent flight my child (10 months old) was not given a 'lap belt'... as regular fliers with different airlines we are usually given an 'infant' belt which loops into my seat belt.

Thai Airways cabin crew pointed out that it was more dangerous for my infant child to be belted on my lap. I argued that under extreme breaking, sudden stoppage and / or unpredictable turbulence it may not be impossible to maintain grasp of my Son.

Every Airline I have flown with other than TG have provided this additional lap belt which loops into my seat belt... I hold my son laying sideways across my lap such that if a plane stops quickly I don't squash him as my upper body is thrust forwards.... additionally a 10 kg child can effectively become 30kgs suddenly under heavy breaking... The negative G effect of turbulence could see a child momentarily airborne along with the drinks and magazines....

I couldn't believe TG had such a policy.

That said - A recent flight (TG Business Class) also had a shoulder belt (similar to a car) with the shoulder part detachable.. the safest airline seat I've sat in.

But still, no child lap belt available.

In air-travel I always keep a belt loosely fastened, and when travelling with my Son I use the lap-loop to prevent unpredictable 'slippage' from grasp due to sudden vertical movement in the air or heavily landings.

My thoughts on this are that TG have somehow missed the logic/safety boat... (or plane to place the metaphor skywards....)

[tx22cb]

On a recent flight my child (10 months old) was not given a 'lap belt'... as regular fliers with different airlines we are usually given an 'infant' belt which loops into my seat belt.

Thai Airways cabin crew pointed out that it was more dangerous for my infant child to be belted on my lap. I argued that under extreme breaking, sudden stoppage and / or unpredictable turbulence it may not be impossible to maintain grasp of my Son.

Every Airline I have flown with other than TG have provided this additional lap belt which loops into my seat belt... I hold my son laying sideways across my lap such that if a plane stops quickly I don't squash him as my upper body is thrust forwards.... additionally a 10 kg child can effectively become 30kgs suddenly under heavy breaking... The negative G effect of turbulence could see a child momentarily airborne along with the drinks and magazines....

I couldn't believe TG had such a policy.

That said - A recent flight (TG Business Class) also had a shoulder belt (similar to a car) with the shoulder part detachable.. the safest airline seat I've sat in.

But still, no child lap belt available.

In air-travel I always keep a belt loosely fastened, and when travelling with my Son I use the lap-loop to prevent unpredictable 'slippage' from grasp due to sudden vertical movement in the air or heavily landings.

My thoughts on this are that TG have somehow missed the logic/safety boat... (or plane to place the metaphor skywards....)

I wouldn't take what a flight attendant say as always being the official company stance.

If you are curious, suggest you e-mail the airline and get their definitive policy.