Severe turbulence LHR-SIN. One dead.

[safetypee]

For info; advice on managing turbulence - manage the risks before encountering it - knowledge.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/system/files/2023-03/Conversation%20Aviation%20-%2001%202023%20Reduced%20File%20Size.pd
Page 36 …

[blind pew]

Originally Posted by aeromech3

I don't follow, having managed to do a crash land on the 'airfield' in a B747-400 sim, and at 19 years of age, having just made it over the perimeter fence in a glider having taken a longer down wind to give myself extra time, saved only by Bert the rear seat instructor pushing the air brake lever to closed just in time.
Yes more hand flying, but you just cannot be serious to expect experiences to pop up in actual training flying in the circuit.
I also recall the reaction of my Capt. after an engine fire warning soon after V1 in a L1011, drill carried out correctly, then he remarked "Ive never had one of those in over 30 years of flying".

I did my third lot of base training after 7 years of line flying during a very wet blustery spring in Shannon including duck and dive approaches and for relaxation we went low flying along the cliffs of mohar.
My second lot of base included Dutch roll which scared the proverbial out of me. The command courses went to Iceland to get to grips with max crosswind landings.
The sceptics passed a rule that you had to have 1500 hours before you could fly p2 on a jet.
There are hours and there are hours..a mate got chopped from hamble with a vast amount of flying in a tipsy nipper..his instructor said that you obviously spent the time flying straight and level ..he learnt a lesson and finished his cpl getting the first command out of our course eventually finishing on the Singapore 747.
I got bored with British gliding and comps so flew rock polishing in the French alps and on three other continents as well as treating myself to a fully aerobatic glider.
It’s not a normal engine failure that gets you it’s often the weather or something not covered by a checklist which is why my last lot threw the kitchen sink at me during the loft exercises.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by BuzzBox

...The vertical acceleration of -1.5G seems to have occurred about the time the autopilot disengaged. It will be interesting to find out if the two events are related.

BuzzBox: I see you edited your original post as you must also have subsequently noticed the preliminary report said: "3g. In the midst of the sequence of rapid changes in G, recorded data indicated that the pilots initiated control inputs to stabilise the aircraft, disengaging the autopilot in this process. The pilots manually controlled the aircraft for 21 sec and reengaged the autopilot at 07:50:05 hr."

Deducting 21 seconds from 07:50:05 gives 07:49:44 which is why I marked "autopilot disengagement" at that time in the graph.

But the report also implies that the -1.5G vertical acceleration occurred at 07:49:40.6 and by about 07:49:45 it was already back to +1.5G (para 3e). So on the face of it, autopilot disengagement occurred moments after the -1.5G peak.

Events were so rapid, I have concluded it isn't worth delving further into the coarse data supplied by FR24.

[BuzzBox]

Originally Posted by helispotter

BuzzBox: I see you edited your original post as you must also have subsequently noticed the preliminary report said: "3g. In the midst of the sequence of rapid changes in G, recorded data indicated that the pilots initiated control inputs to stabilise the aircraft, disengaging the autopilot in this process. The pilots manually controlled the aircraft for 21 sec and reengaged the autopilot at 07:50:05 hr."

Yes, I noticed that after I wrote the original comment. I agree with your other conclusions - I should have looked at the rest of the timeline a bit more closely too!

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by helispotter

Events were so rapid, I have concluded it isn't worth delving further into the coarse data supplied by FR24.

Yes, that much was apparent as soon as it was published.

[WideScreen]

Originally Posted by blind pew

A partner in a sailplane went for a weeks flying from the long mynd, a ridge site with a hairy old professional deputy CFI..there was a long discussion as to the weather and it’s implications whilst he watched on then dragged himself out of the chair, walked over and drew back the curtain and said “gentlemen that is the now weather”.
There is no substitute as Bonnielass has written for experience, training and actually flying the aircraft at it’s limits.
The magenta line presentation says it all but has far to early been forgotten and the industry relies on computer modelling and automatics which don’t always work let alone are understood by those who press the buttons; with many of the trainers never having done anything than teach simulator exercises defined by a committee.

The bold: Yep, though that's the VFR approach. When at altitude IN clouds, you want to see what relevant stuff is hidden by those clouds, IE the CB's. Mark-I eyeballs will fail on that. Mark-II seat of pants will tell you, but too late.

[WideScreen]

Another interesting aspect is what the influence of this type of extreme turbulence will be for J/F passengers in a relaxed flatbed side-sleep position. I can't imagine the spine will like it when a 2.5G difference is applied sideways with the pelvis restrained by the seatbelt and the upper body bent nearly 90 degrees sideways (legs locked up somewhat in a cubby).

[langleybaston]

So I am safer belted into an economy class seat than in a sort of bed? Add incontinence pads, inject several house reds, and away we go.
If so, brilliant justification to show SWMBO !

[BuzzBox]

Originally Posted by WideScreen

When at altitude IN clouds, you want to see what relevant stuff is hidden by those clouds, IE the CB's. Mark-I eyeballs will fail on that.

Sounds like the kind of place where too much reliance on "computer modelling and automatics which don’t always work let alone are understood by those who press the buttons" will get you into trouble. The kind of place where experience and training come into their own.

[BonnieLass]

Singapore Airlines compensation packages released to media this morning.

Minimum $10k per injured pax rising according to future medical care/need

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwwy3wq5p6o.amp

[9 lives]

The $10k per pax is a nice gesture. However, Singapore Airlines should deduct $9500 from that for passengers who were seated, but not wearing their seatbelt at the time of the occurrence.

[BonnieLass]

Originally Posted by 9 lives

The $10k per pax is a nice gesture. However, Singapore Airlines should deduct $9500 from that for passengers who were seated, but not wearing their seatbelt at the time of the occurrence.

I tend to agree with you. Apart from needing to go to the loo or to stretch the legs, there is no real reason not to be belted up at all times and as a result of this incident, several airlines are now requiring pax to be belted up. Unless there is a way for CC to actually see if all belts are being used, it is quite hard to enforce effectively. It isn't like you can kick a pax off en-route for refusing to wear their belt properly (making unscheduled stops is not generally appreciated by anyone).

There isn't any mention regarding the gentleman who passed away but that might go into the hands of lawyers perhaps since he openly admitted that the holiday would be his last following significant heart surgery and ill health (which he could have died at any point on the holiday since it was almost all longhaul flights and you do have to wonder if he had holiday insurance, given that even the companies that offer medical condition cover tend to be a bit shy of his level of medical condition). As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I am not sure he should have set off on this holiday with the health conditions he had but it was his decision and now comes the wrangling in regard to compensation and discovering his insurance status...was he covered, was he truthful on his insurance forms, did he keep his wife and family in the dark as to how seriously ill he was....no-one will ever know for sure unless it goes to court.