SQ Turbulence

[RodH]

I see the resident "Expert " GT has been on TV telling us just what happened to the SQ flight and he is also a n Expert on turbulence. Lucky we have such a clever fellow eh.:{

[Stationair8]

Australia is the lucky country after all!

[kitchen bench]

And he managed to get a plug in for QF in that they “helped develop multi-scan radar, built by Rockwell Collins”. Some research and development department QF must have 🤔

I wouldn’t be surprised if CAAS drops their investigation now that the oracle has spoken.

[Upgraded]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/morning-shows/sunrise-host-visibly-puzzled-during-wild-interview-about-singapore-airlines-emergency/news-story/fabfd34457c6c64b9592a09d6e987da2

How long has Richard Quest been a self appointed expert panelist? Thought he was more of a business journalist?

[KAPAC]

Couple decades ago he was the travel expert and this extended to aviation expert . Business expert has become his thing in the last decade or so . They wheel him out when there is an aviation story .

[Dora-9]

multi-scan radar,

...which is fitted to SQ B777's.

Didn't this same clown tell us that the Air Asia A320 accident was because it wasn't fitted?

Every time I read something he's written the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes to mind. And yet the RAC of WA's Old Fliers group think he's wonderful - they should know better.

[mudguard01]

I remember being in the kitchen at the Sim Building in Sydney when he walked in. There were about 10 other pilots in the room and they all shunned him. Amusing to watch and not one pilot walked over and spoke to him.

[Atlas Shrugged]

I've heard that he's actually paid nothing.... which values his input quite accurately.

[Capn Bloggs]

And yet the RAC of WA's Old Fliers group think he's wonderful - they should know better.
​​​​​​​Was that jibe really necessary?

[Dora-9]

Well, yes it was or I wouldn't have said it. There's some impressive experience amongst the Old Fliers Group (some of whom are friends of mine), yet they seem to laud GT for all his known failings. I'm baffled as to why.

[C441]

And he managed to get a plug in for QF in that they “helped develop multi-scan radar, built by Rockwell Collins”. Some research and development department QF must have. 🤔

……Did have…..not anymore; it's too costly.:rolleyes:

[Track5milefinal]

GT and BB. They wheel all the old blokes out of the home to speak as "experts"

Define 'expert'?? 70+, on the 4th wife and is a 'consultant'.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

It was day time. They clearly flew through a weather cell. Singapore flight crew are renowned for reading the newspaper. I reckon they just weren't paying attention. The fact that they turned on the seatbelt sign before all sh.t hit the fan, backs up my theory. If they were actively scanning the radar they would have not flown into it, nor would they have turned on the seatbelt at the last second. I reckon they put down the paper and realised too late that they were about to unavoidably hit the CB.

[Dora-9]

Capn Rex:

While I agree it's most likely they flew through a cell and that a CAT event, given the location, is highly unlikely, the rest of your post raises more questions.

Are SQ crews really renowned for "reading the newspaper"? I spent a long time with another Asian carrier, SQ were often discussed, I know many ex-SQ crew, but I'd never heard them accused of this - particularly in this area, where you can really need your wits about you. Can you support this statement please? How do you know they weren't actively scanning the radar? A cell penetration doesn't automatically preclude using the radar. Possibly there was an interpretation error, with the B777 radar you can get into a situation where the entire screen paints red - how do you avoid the most dangerous cells then? There was a theory floating around that in this situation you took the Gain out of Auto and fully decreased it, what still painted was to be avoided - I got an epic lightning strike trying this! Or maybe there was an issue with the multi-scan radar (this happens too, from my own experience).

I really would like to know. From what I know (first hand) about this airline though, they can be quite tight-lipped about incidents - they'll promulgate changed procedures, but either not tell you what actually occurred or omit pertinent factors. I truly hope this is not the case with this episode.

[Lead Balloon]

Just heard a radio news reader say, with no hint of irony or humour: “Singapore Airlines are tightening their seatbelt rules.”

[Fris B. Fairing]

While a seatbelt will not protect the wearer from objects flying around the cabin, what we really need to know about this incident is; did all the seatbelts work as advertised?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Capn Rex:

While I agree it's most likely they flew through a cell and that a CAT event, given the location, is highly unlikely, the rest of your post raises more questions.

Are SQ crews really renowned for "reading the newspaper"? I spent a long time with another Asian carrier, SQ were often discussed, I know many ex-SQ crew, but I'd never heard them accused of this - particularly in this area, where you can really need your wits about you. Can you support this statement please? How do you know they weren't actively scanning the radar? A cell penetration doesn't automatically preclude using the radar. Possibly there was an interpretation error, with the B777 radar you can get into a situation where the entire screen paints red - how do you avoid the most dangerous cells then? There was a theory floating around that in this situation you took the Gain out of Auto and fully decreased it, what still painted was to be avoided - I got an epic lightning strike trying this! Or maybe there was an issue with the multi-scan radar (this happens too, from my own experience).

I really would like to know. From what I know (first hand) about this airline though, they can be quite tight-lipped about incidents - they'll promulgate changed procedures, but either not tell you what actually occurred or omit pertinent factors. I truly hope this is not the case with this episode.

Hi Dora,

I heard from a number of Expat pilots who flew with SQ pre Covid and now work for my airline. They emphatically stated that the local SQ crews would put the "Strait" newspaper over the windshield to block out the sun, and avidly read the paper. I don't know what they did, obviously, but I am sure that SQ will bury and spin the real cause to avoid any loss of face and minimise the impending court cases that they are going to experience.

[megan]

They emphatically stated that the local SQ crews would put the "Strait" newspaper over the windshield to block out the sun, and avidly read the paperOur avionics engineer was up front of a KLM 747, his national carrier, departing Oz for Europe and the same was taking place, he wasn't impressed.

[73qanda]

What’s wrong with a baseball cap and sunnies?

[Dora-9]

Capn Rex - PM sent.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Define 'expert'?? What a great question. "Expert" is composed of two parts - "ex" meaning hasbeen, and "spurt" meaning drip under pressure.

[Hollywood1]

It was day time. They clearly flew through a weather cell.

It appears one aircraft ahead, (Finnair 131), and two aircraft following behind SQ321, (IGO 1053 and SQ331) diverted around its flight path so there must have been something painted on the radar and not CAT. Check out the tracks of Finnar 131 (a few minutes before SQ321), and Indigo 1053 and SQ331 (a few minutes behind SQ321). This is on FR24 playback. Take note of the time. It's been reported that the severe turbulence SQ321 experienced occurred at 0750 UTC.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1298x983/screenshot_90__c345f15929d3c219f7e54623dda7f8369ef91214.png
0738 UTC: Finair 131 ahead of SQ321 appears to divert to left of track


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1309x971/screenshot_91__856f8de75a00b3da33c0e8ad07b800796c2dd8c4.png
0750 UTC: when the severe turbulence event was reported to have occurred. Finnair 131 is left of track.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1295x973/screenshot_84__72297d0856a5bffdad90d2c7eb43c5a4c6eabc2c.png
0753 UTC: IGO 1053 a few minutes behind SQ321 appears to divert left of track as well.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1303x968/screenshot_89__823ce66b09bb72d7d4f2a2be046e3e8d63af28e3.png
0816 UTC: SQ331 has diverted around the area that SQ321 flew through. The diversion left of track was initiated at 0804 UTC.

[Chronic Snoozer]

From the Accident Close Calls forum.

https://x.com/simon_sat/status/1792907210483216696

[AerialPerspective]

Capn Rex:

While I agree it's most likely they flew through a cell and that a CAT event, given the location, is highly unlikely, the rest of your post raises more questions.

Are SQ crews really renowned for "reading the newspaper"? I spent a long time with another Asian carrier, SQ were often discussed, I know many ex-SQ crew, but I'd never heard them accused of this - particularly in this area, where you can really need your wits about you. Can you support this statement please? How do you know they weren't actively scanning the radar? A cell penetration doesn't automatically preclude using the radar. Possibly there was an interpretation error, with the B777 radar you can get into a situation where the entire screen paints red - how do you avoid the most dangerous cells then? There was a theory floating around that in this situation you took the Gain out of Auto and fully decreased it, what still painted was to be avoided - I got an epic lightning strike trying this! Or maybe there was an issue with the multi-scan radar (this happens too, from my own experience).

I really would like to know. From what I know (first hand) about this airline though, they can be quite tight-lipped about incidents - they'll promulgate changed procedures, but either not tell you what actually occurred or omit pertinent factors. I truly hope this is not the case with this episode.

Maybe they were reading the paper when they tried to take-off on a closed runway many years ago, with disastrous results?

[Comoman]

https://www.mot.gov.sg/news/Details/transport-safety-investigation-bureau-preliminary-investigation-findings-of-incident-involving-sq321

Initial report.

[Dora-9]

That's impressively quick!

The line "Flying over an area of developing convective activity" must silence all of those "experts" banging on about CAT and how it's getting more common due to global warming.

The question remains - what did the crew do/not do to avoid this weather?

[By George]

Over reliance on auto tilt, not looking out the window and not watching what the aircraft ahead are doing. Having said all that, you can still get caught avoiding a CB when there is one hiding in the shadow. Just have to be street cunning in convective air. This is why I'm not religious, God spent 45 years trying to kill me, never felt the love.

[BuzzBox]

The line "Flying over an area of developing convective activity" must silence all of those "experts" banging on about CAT and how it's getting more common due to global warming.

Indeed. The following image was produced by a meteorologist, who overlaid the aircraft's track on a satellite image of the weather at the time of the incident. It's blindingly obvious this was no CAT event.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1419x1109/sq321_weather_image_87108edec20367d6a1fc6ff64f77941fa4eeaf66 .jpeg

[Icarus2001]

We know how this ends.

SQ is owned by Temasek holdings, a government owned investment vehicle. The final report will exonerate the pilots and blame convective activity and increased threats from climate change. At the same time a team of lawyers will secure large payouts for the passengers under the Montreal convention. The needle returns to the start of the song…

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Piss poor report.

We all know the effects of flying into a CB.

it was like if an aircraft crashed and the reports gave us all the max G ratings recorded, but omitted to provide any info on the cause of the crash.

There is no mention in the report as to WHY the crew flew their aircraft into convective weather. This is the only thing that needs to be explained. Was the radar faulty? Were the crew looking at it? These are the questions that need to be answered ASAP.

[Chronic Snoozer]

There is no mention in the report as to WHY the crew flew their aircraft into convective weather.Or why aircraft before and after SQ321 diverted around the same area.

[Jester64]

it’s a PRELIMINARY report

[Capn Bloggs]

Rex, Chronic, calm your farms. The title of the document is:Preliminary Investigation Findings of IncidentIt's not a "report" of any kind. Do you seriously think that the "whys" have been determined already? It only happened last week.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Yeah I know, it's just a 'spacer'. Things will go quiet now for a couple of years. If it wasn't for the internet we'd all be more patient.

[Capn Bloggs]

At least it explains the "6000ft drop".

[Icarus2001]

Do you seriously think that the "whys" have been determined already? It only happened last week.

Which ignores the fact that at least one pilot knows WHY it happened ALREADY, assuming both in flight deck then at least two people.:)​​​​​​​

[Lookleft]

I like the statement about passengers becoming airborne. Everyone onboard was airborne but some were more airborne than others. Intriguing that it includes some analysis

The Gravitational force (G), recorded as vertical accelerations, fluctuated between positive (+ve) 0.44G and +ve 1.57G for a period of about 19 sec. (This would have caused the flight to begin to experience slight vibration).

Why would the change in G force cause a slight vibration? It doesn't seem to be a turbulence event but a jet upset event.

[Global Aviator]

It’s SQ… you think we will ever find out how it happened.

I suspect we are all pretty sure of how it happened.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck………….

[KAPAC]

Anyone know about legalities of suing ? Myanmar, Thailand or country of registration ? Where would you sue ?

[BuzzBox]

Why would the change in G force cause a slight vibration? It doesn't seem to be a turbulence event but a jet upset event.

If the G-force was fluctuating for 19 seconds, it would have presented as a "vibration".

According to the OED:
Vibration = Movement to and fro or up and down, esp. when quick and more or less continuous.

[BuzzBox]

Anyone know about legalities of suing ? Myanmar, Thailand or country of registration ? Where would you sue ?


Article 33 of the Montreal Convention states:
​​​​​​1. An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the States Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made or before the court at the place of destination.

2. In respect of damage resulting from the death or injury of a passenger, an action may be brought before one of the courts mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, or in the territory of a State Party in which at the time of the accident the passenger has his or her principal and permanent residence and to or from which the carrier operates services for the carriage of passengers by air, either on its own aircraft, or on another carrier’s aircraft pursuant to a commercial agreement, and in which that carrier conducts its business of carriage of passengers by air from premises leased or owned by the carrier itself or by another carrier with which it has a commercial agreement.


A passenger could therefore bring a case for damages in Singapore; the country where they purchased the ticket; or their country of principal and permanent residence, if the airline operates there or operates services there under a commercial agreement (eg. codeshare).

Where should they sue? That depends on how much they want in damages. The Convention makes the airline strictly liable for damages up to a certain amount (100,000 XDR = 200,000 AUD), so it probably wouldn't matter much where they sued for anything up to that amount. It would be a harder battle for damages beyond that amount, so I guess it would be better to go for the country with the better record for compensation payouts. Not sure where that might be!

The leaden lawyer will no doubt be here any minute to confirm or deny...:}

[Hollywood1]

We know how this ends.

SQ is owned by Temasek holdings, a government owned investment vehicle. The final report will exonerate the pilots and blame convective activity and increased threats from climate change. At the same time a team of lawyers will secure large payouts for the passengers under the Montreal convention. The needle returns to the start of the song…

Last time SQ had a fatality (SQ6 in Taiwan in October 2000), both Captain and FO were sacked. The third pilot (FO in the jumpseat) was retained.

[compressor stall]

I recall the media release in SQ006 stating pointlessly and pointedly in the final line that the captain was Malaysian.

[Capn Bloggs]

The final report will exonerate the pilots and blame convective activity and increased threats from climate change.
But it's all true. GT said on the tranny this arvo in Perth that a pommie study had found extreme turbulence incidents had increased by 55% and that it was due to climate change!