Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Qatar Airways | Privilege Club
Reload this Page >

Multiple injuries due to turbulence (QR17-DOH-DUB)

Multiple injuries due to turbulence (QR17-DOH-DUB)

Old May 27, 2024, 2:50 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by sdm1985
This would not have made the news if it wasn’t for the SIA news last week.
turbulence is the new Boeing
SKT-DK, wrp96, PLeblond and 3 others like this.
nancypants is online now  
Old May 27, 2024, 2:53 am
  #17  
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,786
Originally Posted by tom tulpe
8 people require hospital treatment, but the flight continues for a couple of hours after the incident (Turkey - Dublin is about 4 hours or so) without medical diversion .
All minor injuries. I'm guessing anybody who was injured would have preferred to carry on rather than divert and be offloaded in Turkey (or wherever) and then have to find their own way to Dublin.
DYKWIA is offline  
Old May 27, 2024, 2:53 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by nancypants
turbulence is the new Boeing
Or both if it happened on a Boeing.
PLeblond and pinkibone like this.
SteveF is online now  
Old May 27, 2024, 5:32 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK/Australia
Posts: 1
lol!

I flew QR between LON and ADL a couple of weeks back and the turbulence kept me awake between DOH and ADL for a loooong time. Worst extended turbulence I’d experienced for a while. Went on for hours. I did not enjoy it. That said, the service was excellent between LON and DOH ((Kitty was the best cabin crew I’ve had for a long time). Coming back from ADL the ground staff - check in - were appalling. You’d think I’d been travelling economy on a budget airline if the check in experience was anything to go by.
Mozzle is offline  
Old May 27, 2024, 5:41 am
  #20  
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Singapore
Programs: HHonors Diamond; A3 *Nothing ; BA Exec. Club Gold
Posts: 1,705
Originally Posted by Ativantage
I don't buy that it is CAT. The SQ flight was definitely not CAT, so people claiming that are clueless (CNN recently confirmed the turbulence on SQ321 was due to "developing thunderstorms"). That intensity of turbulence only comes from cells, period.

These carriers that fly over less populated regions at night (aka hard to see what's below) should be operating with the radar on at all times. If we get that level of detail from the SQ321 investigation, at least, we will know if pilot training/ops needs to be adjusted by these carriers.
Are you a meteorologist or part of the investigating team?
If not, your comments have zero backing as of yet and is pure speculation which is just plain dangerous. The fact you comment about radar not being on at all times makes me think you have no clue what you are saying. But then I am a simple passenger and don’t claim to know the detail.

Globalist
ph-ndr, DYKWIA, SKT-DK and 6 others like this.
Globalist is offline  
Old May 27, 2024, 6:22 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Overijse( location 50.75 °N, 4.52 °E ) ; Belgium
Programs: HH diamond(yr 16, >922 nights ), AA Gld for life (1MM),M&M FTL , Sixt platinum; IATA DTTF
Posts: 167
Can QR upset be caused by wake turbulence of overtaking Emirates A380 ?

It seems that QR flight was on level 38 and turbulence / upset happened after Emirates A 380 overtook this flight while A380 was on level 40 and at higher speed ...
Could this be another incident where QR did not offset its track enough and went into wake turbulence of Emirates flight which caused unexpected turbulence ?
florin and dvs7310 like this.
kahuna1993 is offline  
Old May 27, 2024, 6:36 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Mar 2024
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by SEA777GUY
I am not surprised, as I took this same flight a few days ago and had turbulence as well. No attempt to find smooth air.
You clearly don’t understand the realities.

1) Airliners cannot randomly change altitudes, they have to receive a clearance, which can take a significant time when trans-oceanic and out of radar coverage, and even in coverage isn’t assured.

2) Turbulence is, for lack of a better term, hit or miss. ATC and pilots use reports, forecasts and other factors to determine the best choice (often of several bad ones) for a flight path.

3) An airliner cannot fly a circuitous route (in an effort to avoid turbulence, often without success) without carrying more fuel and extending flying time…they can’t even fly a route much lower than planned due to fuel constraints (flying lower burns more fuel, potentially a multiple of that burned at altitude).

If your flight was at altitude, with traffic nearby at other altitudes, they might have been unable to change altitudes or they might have reports of similar or worse turbulence at other altitudes. Controllers and pilots work hand in hand to try to avoid situations like this, and take it very personally when things like this happen. To suggest a flight crew made “no attempt” to find smoother air is a sign you really don’t understand.

Originally Posted by Ativantage
I don't buy that it is CAT. The SQ flight was definitely not CAT, so people claiming that are clueless (CNN recently confirmed the turbulence on SQ321 was due to "developing thunderstorms"). That intensity of turbulence only comes from cells, period.

These carriers that fly over less populated regions at night (aka hard to see what's below) should be operating with the radar on at all times. If we get that level of detail from the SQ321 investigation, at least, we will know if pilot training/ops needs to be adjusted by these carriers.
Really, do you understand that developing thunderstorms cause turbulence dozens of miles away, and that the conditions that cause thunderstorms are the same that create some forms of turbulence? Your statement is ill-informed, and the worst turbulence encounters often come encounters that come from interactions with the jet core because the crew and passengers are unbelted, while crews are seated and passengers directed to belt up when storms are around.

What is radar at night over less populated areas supposed to do? Radar is generally not capable of detecting turbulence. Radar isn’t used to detect terrain, that’s what TAWS is for. Radar is VERY difficult to use, with even a fraction of a degree change in elevation potentially causing a flight crew to miss or misinterpret weather ahead. Commercial airliner radar cannot detect other aircraft.
florin, wrp96, DiamondMile and 1 others like this.
TxDucky is offline  
Old May 27, 2024, 6:47 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Mar 2024
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by kahuna1993
It seems that QR flight was on level 38 and turbulence / upset happened after Emirates A 380 overtook this flight while A380 was on level 40 and at higher speed ...
Could this be another incident where QR did not offset its track enough and went into wake turbulence of Emirates flight which caused unexpected turbulence ?
Yes, that is a possible event, however, it also isn’t possible to simply “offset” if they are on a specific cleared track (without a clearance). Additionally, the wake turbulence vortices from a higher, overtaking aircraft do not “fall” in a simple and predictable manner. Winds aloft will actually “blow” the vortices laterally from the course of the overtaking as higher aircraft, so in some cases an offset might worsen the issue. Add to that the unpredictable rate of descent for the vortices,..

For the A380 to be the issue, it would have had to have been something in the range of 3-4 minutes in front of the impacted aircraft (or around 30-40 miles) if it was 2,000 feet higher, given the descent rate of vortices, at the time of the incident. Then they would need to be offset from the Super’s track in the correct direction for the wind to blow the descending vortex into their flight path.
TxDucky is offline  
Old May 27, 2024, 8:03 am
  #24  
Formerly known as tireman77
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,937
I think the idea of wake turbulence cannot be over-ruled, though I am not an expert and will let those of whichever Countries’ Air Safety Investigative boards do their thing.

For those who underestimate what wake turbulence can do, I suggest looking this report from AV Herald when a Challenger 604 (shorter version of a CRJ) encountered wake turbulence from an A380. An excerpt: “ …sending the aircraft in uncontrolled roll turning the aircraft around at least 3 times (possibly even 5 times), both engines flamed out, the Ram Air Turbine could not deploy possibly as result of G-forces and structural stress, the aircraft lost about 10,000 feet until the crew was able to recover the aircraft exercising raw muscle force, restart the engines and divert to Muscat.” The pctures speak volumes.

https://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3&opt=0
  1. Those who accuse an airline and/or crew of negligence with no more information than something sputtered off mainstream media (like the Chicken Noodle Network) on any aviation related subject are demonstrating their ignorance and contributing to blame culture. No blame should be put on anyone until a full investigation is done.
  2. Turbulence is this week’s/month’s media clickbait topic. I suggest everyone go to AV Herald search turbulence. You will see at least a dozen events identified as accidents with injury since the beginning of 2024. This is not new, just gets more attention after the SQ incident.
  3. Again, when sitting in an airplane, wear your seatbelt at all times.
PLeblond is online now  
Old May 27, 2024, 10:31 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NRT / HND
Programs: AA EXP, NH Plat, Former UA 1K
Posts: 5,947
Originally Posted by KingCanute
It reads like this was another incidence of clear air turbulence. It has been widely reported that flight crew can't see that coming. If they had seen turbulence coming then all airlines would put the seat belt signs on. In my experience they all seem a bit over cautious about that. And sometimes the way around the worst of it is still very bumpy. None of us has any way of knowing what the flight crew have done to mitigate the problem.

Best wishes to all injured.

Realistically, what do you expect airlines to learn, other than no service when the seat belt signs are on (which the article says they weren't). Or possibly no service at all, which of course would make the in flight offering even worse than you felt it was?
Originally Posted by KingCanute
If there are conclusive findings from the SQ (and this) investigation that recommend changes to standard operations then all carriers, rather than just "these carriers", will be obligated to implement them. Probably best to wait for the experts on this one.
Originally Posted by PLeblond
The only thing to learn from SQ is to keep your seatbelt fastened at all times in your seat.
Of course you should remember that Captains on US carriers badly abuse the seat belt sign for convenience of the FAs. It's required to ignore the seat belt light on AA, UA, DL, etc. just to pee like a normal human being. They are putting their own passengers in danger by holding the seat belt sign on for so much of the flight vs. using it only when necessary. You'll never know when it's really safe vs. when they have it on for crew convenience. (YAY UNIONS!!!!!!)

Originally Posted by chacor
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5117ev8n7xo

Some detail here suggests the turbulence happened over Turkey, and like the SQ flight also during a meal service.

And again it seems some people weren't wearing seatbelts (even ignoring the fact it was a meal service – the BBC report quotes someone who says she was asleep).
Meal service is irrelevant, it could happen at any time. Passengers choosing to not wear their belt while seated however are to blame wholeheartedly. There's no reason for that and they then take responsibility for themselves.

I do blame pilots who are complicit when they use the seat belt sign for 80% of the flight, but if it's a reasonable airline then that's not the case and you make your own choice on when to be up and if you're unbuckled. I think on any plane more than 10-15 people standing waiting for the loo is enough, anyone else probably was just sitting with no seatbelt which is 100% their own fault.

If I were on one of these unfortunate flights, I'd certainly bring that up in the court filing if the pilots abused the seat belt sign for convenience of the crew.The seat belt sign should be OFF in 80-90% of long haul flights and should be required to be justified it it wasn't.

Last edited by dvs7310; May 27, 2024 at 10:45 am
dvs7310 is offline  
Old May 27, 2024, 1:23 pm
  #26  
Moderator: Qatar Airways
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: LHR/NCE/MIA
Programs: BAEC GfL & GGL, SQ Gold, Amex Centurion, Mucci des Chevaliers des Bons Mots et Qui Savent Moucher
Posts: 9,035
The language of certain posts is skirting close to being unpleasant and unnecessary.

I want to keep this thread open, but please familiarise yourself with the Flyertalk Rules before posting - and stay on the topic, not the poster.

Thanks

Msm2000uk
Qatar Airways Forum Moderator
ph-ndr, SEA777GUY and wrp96 like this.
msm2000uk is offline  
Old May 27, 2024, 4:51 pm
  #27  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,163
Originally Posted by ph-ndr
This is something I noticed while reading this. QR usually doesn't have meal times, as most is on demand.
Flying just once or twice in economy-class could be revelation...
ph-ndr, wrp96, nancypants and 1 others like this.
IAN-UK is offline  
Old May 27, 2024, 6:08 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: MEL
Programs: DL, QF, QR Silver, MR Lifetime Gold
Posts: 7,050
Originally Posted by dvs7310
Of course you should remember that Captains on US carriers badly abuse the seat belt sign for convenience of the FAs. It's required to ignore the seat belt light on AA, UA, DL, etc. just to pee like a normal human being. They are putting their own passengers in danger by holding the seat belt sign on for so much of the flight vs. using it only when necessary. You'll never know when it's really safe vs. when they have it on for crew convenience. (YAY UNIONS!!!!!!)
Back in my TATL flying days, there was a notable difference in the attitude towards the seatbelt sign on US compared to EU carriers. It was very uncomfortable to have to hold it in forever and eventually having to make a run for the toilet while the seatbelt sign was still on. I mentioned this to a US-based pilot and they said to me they were doing it to avoid being sued (if turbulence did happen, having the seatbelt sign on eliminated any liability on their part.) I don't know of any agreement they have with the crew; maybe you know something that I don't... I hope you are not speculating.

Originally Posted by dvs7310
I do blame pilots who are complicit when they use the seat belt sign for 80% of the flight, but if it's a reasonable airline then that's not the case and you make your own choice on when to be up and if you're unbuckled. I think on any plane more than 10-15 people standing waiting for the loo is enough, anyone else probably was just sitting with no seatbelt which is 100% their own fault.
In Y the lavatories : pax ratio is low, and AFAIK the regs require total number of lavs / total number of pax, rather than for each section. Then you get the "rushes", usually after meals, when EVERYBODY goes to the loo. Of course, keeping the seatbelt sign on forever will cause more toilet rushes. Maybe there is a better way to manage this - stay seated until your number is called, like at the DMV 😄
florin is offline  
Old May 28, 2024, 1:34 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Programs: QR Plat
Posts: 2,473
Originally Posted by IAN-UK
Flying just once or twice in economy-class could be revelation...
From the post just above yours:
The language of certain posts is skirting close to being unpleasant and unnecessary.



-A
wrp96 likes this.
ph-ndr is offline  
Old May 28, 2024, 2:36 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 2,367
Originally Posted by SEA777GUY
My "no attempt to find smooth air" comment was that we stayed at 36k the entire flight. Sure, they might have been told by ATC that there was no better option.
Just an observation
And to be fair, IATA operate a "Turbulence Aware" platform for airlines, the text for which does specifically use the expression "smooth air"

https://www.iata.org/en/services/sta...ence-platform/

Now whether there are air traffic, fuel, war zone or any other operational restrictions in place that prevent diverting far enough to find such airspace is another matter. Pilots may also have altered course slightly or slowed down to mitigate the impact in ways that passengers are not aware. 36k may also have been deemed to be the least bumpy level for an aircraft of that size. We don't know.

And any of that can make no allowance for unexpected or unpredictable events anyway, which this and the SQ incident appear to be so far.

QR appear to be one of only 15 airlines listed as part of that IATA turbulence initiative, so it does seem reasonable to assume that as a company they take it seriously. As will all pilots from all airlines.
SEA777GUY likes this.
KingCanute is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.