Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Singapore Airlines | KrisFlyer
Reload this Page >

20/21MAY24 SQ321 LHR-SIN diverts to BKK [due to severe turbulence]

20/21MAY24 SQ321 LHR-SIN diverts to BKK [due to severe turbulence]

Old May 25, 2024, 9:58 pm
  #151  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 80
These new proposals from SQ seem like a huge overreaction. Very unlikely they'd have changed much in this episode given how rapid the turbulence occurred.

Does anyone know if "meal service" includes drinks?
am0985 is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 12:07 am
  #152  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Programs: SQ AA TK
Posts: 1,449
SQ should really take the chance to revise the breakfast service into something more practical and efficient. What's up with the "course by course" fine dining for breakfast. Just put the fruits, yoghurt/muesli, bread, coffee/tea on the tray serve it all at once. Then serve the main course later and wrap it up. Start the breakfast service 90mins before landing, at which point the plane should mostly out of the bay of bengal.

The idea of serving breakfast, 5 hours before landing is just ridiculous. More so considering that east bound flights are up to an hour shorter than west bound.

On another note, seems SWM made it back to SG this afternoon.
dfs24 is online now  
Old May 26, 2024, 4:21 am
  #153  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 925
Originally Posted by am0985
These new proposals from SQ seem like a huge overreaction. Very unlikely they'd have changed much in this episode given how rapid the turbulence occurred.

Does anyone know if "meal service" includes drinks?
Anytime you fly into convective activity the onset of turbulence is rapid. In almost all cases however you have considerable notice well before that. Onboard weather radar sees storms out to at least 160 miles. Weather updates are issued. Radar overlays from ground radar stations are available on WiFi equipped aircraft. ATC broadcast warnings and offers suggested routings many times. The company dispatcher should have supplied updates. The area in question was forecast to have storms and should have been discussed in the crew briefing before the flight so the flight attendants could restructure the service schedule.
Davvidd likes this.
Jeff767 is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 6:33 am
  #154  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 378
Is it really the case that SQ is changing meal timings? I thought they just announced that meal service would be suspended when the seat belt sign is on. If so the meal services would still be at the same time provided that the plane is not flying through substantial turbulence.

As a separate matter, one wonders whether SQ will provide dine on demand in J….
Stratoliner777 is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 8:19 am
  #155  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Stratoliner777
Is it really the case that SQ is changing meal timings? I thought they just announced that meal service would be suspended when the seat belt sign is on. If so the meal services would still be at the same time provided that the plane is not flying through substantial turbulence.

As a separate matter, one wonders whether SQ will provide dine on demand in J….
Yes.

SQ325 (the flight that landed today) had breakfast "re-timed" in Business Class and everyone was woken up 5 hours (!) before arrival because having breakfast over Pakistan was deemed safer.

I will bring duct tape to my next flight and will fixate all cabin crew before take off to ensure no one can move. I think this is safer.
Singapore_Air, RayG and chris63 like this.
SMK77 is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 8:47 am
  #156  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by SMK77
Yes.

SQ325 (the flight that landed today) had breakfast "re-timed" in Business Class and everyone was woken up 5 hours (!) before arrival because having breakfast over Pakistan was deemed safer.
Oh boy, that's a kneejerk reaction for sure. The next time I fly SQ J, assuming that SQ still hasn't íntroduced dine on demand, then I'm going to make a point of checking with the FA as to the service timings -- and if they plan to re-time breakfast that way, then I will inform the FA not to wake me for breakfast!

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, meal timing does not compare against injuries during turbulence, but completely moving the meal service by 2-3 hours is definitely a non-starter. I imagine this would wreak havoc on their SIN-EWR and SIN-JFK "longest flights in the world" with 3 full meal services...
Stratoliner777 is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 9:06 am
  #157  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Zurich / Singapore
Programs: LH SEN, BA Gold, SQ TPPS, Accor Diamond
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by SMK77
Yes.

SQ325 (the flight that landed today) had breakfast "re-timed" in Business Class and everyone was woken up 5 hours (!) before arrival because having breakfast over Pakistan was deemed safer.

I will bring duct tape to my next flight and will fixate all cabin crew before take off to ensure no one can move. I think this is safer.
Originally Posted by Stratoliner777
Oh boy, that's a kneejerk reaction for sure. The next time I fly SQ J, assuming that SQ still hasn't íntroduced dine on demand, then I'm going to make a point of checking with the FA as to the service timings -- and if they plan to re-time breakfast that way, then I will inform the FA not to wake me for breakfast!

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, meal timing does not compare against injuries during turbulence, but completely moving the meal service by 2-3 hours is definitely a non-starter. I imagine this would wreak havoc on their SIN-EWR and SIN-JFK "longest flights in the world" with 3 full meal services...
Yes, this is ridiculous. They had all the information beforehand to change SOP off the back of the BA incident one year ago (and BA have not changed a thing in all my flights with them since and are similar to SQ’s prior to last week’s incident).

I am as loyal an SQ customer as they come but these changes beggar belief.
chris63 likes this.
RayG is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 9:26 am
  #158  
Hilton Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: AMS+IAH
Programs: Lufthansa: Senator || IHG: Diamond Royal Ambassador Inner Circle || Plutonium Status
Posts: 3,805
I think it will apply primairly mostly for flights that cross the bay of Bengal.
davidj1 likes this.
HadesNL is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 9:33 am
  #159  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: PMD
Programs: UA*G, NW, AA-G. WR-P, HH-G, IHG-S, ALL. TT-GE.
Posts: 2,925
Originally Posted by Jeff767
Anytime you fly into convective activity the onset of turbulence is rapid. In almost all cases however you have considerable notice well before that. Onboard weather radar sees storms out to at least 160 miles. Weather updates are issued. Radar overlays from ground radar stations are available on WiFi equipped aircraft. ATC broadcast warnings and offers suggested routings many times. The company dispatcher should have supplied updates. The area in question was forecast to have storms and should have been discussed in the crew briefing before the flight so the flight attendants could restructure the service schedule.
According to the analysis of AA pilot Juan Browne (YouTube video "0UYNFthOx1o"), a strong thunderstorm cell can block the signal of another cell behind it because strong radar beam reflections reduces the signal from behind. (Just look at any strong typhoon/hurricane/TC offshore on radar and you'll notice.) The second cell on the eastern half of the Burmese peninsula that SQ321 went through was apparently what caused this incident. So (1) I don't think the pilots had considerable notice, (2) any Burmese ground weather radar data go into the cockpit, (3) Burmese ATC would suggest routings. Nowadays geostationary weather satellites scan speed can outperform ground radars, and the aviation industry should improve data availability so they don't need onboard radar to see the rapidly developing second cell behind the first.
chris63 and mnhusker like this.

Last edited by HkCaGu; May 26, 2024 at 9:35 am Reason: fixed YouTube link
HkCaGu is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 9:35 am
  #160  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Zurich / Singapore
Programs: LH SEN, BA Gold, SQ TPPS, Accor Diamond
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by SMK77
The main recommendation that comes from NTSB is to have flight attendants seated during approach when the aircraft is below 20,000 feet.

Having flight attendants seated with their seat belts fastened during additional portions of the descent phase of flight would reduce the rate of flight attendant injuries due to turbulence and the rate of turbulence-related accidents overall.

According to NTSB, having everyone seated below 20,000ft would reduce injuries for flight attendants by about 60%.

It's interesting to note that Singapore Airlines seems to be operating in a fact-free environment as this key recommendation has been ignored for years and has not been implemented with the recent changes announced after the SQ321 incident. Same goes for BA12 in June 2023. A flight that travelled on the same London-Singapore route and got into trouble around the same area as SQ321. 5 crew injured including one with spinal injuries.

The current head-less chicken management style reflects very poorly on key decision makers at SIA. If fear and not facts dictates what safety measure are deployed, there is something very wrong.
Originally Posted by HadesNL
I think it will apply primairly mostly for flights that cross the bay of Bengal.
Changes which could have been done a year ago in the name of crew safety.

As someone who find himself on this route twice a month, I am struggling to understand the rationale. Surely, the way it looks they would then have ignored crew and pax safety since this last incident on BA — same route same place for that BA flight.
chris63 likes this.
RayG is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 10:20 am
  #161  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 378
There is probably an element of optics -- maybe the largest element -- to shifting the meal service timings. It shows that "they are responding" to this event. But shifting the meal timings by many hours is going to wreak havoc with passenger comfort (especially as those meals are usually well-timed to the different time zones / potential jet lag / etc.)

I hope and expect that they will make further adjustments down the line. Moving a breakfast service up 5 hours before landing, when it was usually probably around 90 min to 2 hours prior, is just not going to cut it. Passengers need to maximise sleep and have a proper meal before arrival.
Stratoliner777 is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 10:26 am
  #162  
 
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by mach92
Three other Wide-body planes in the area deviated to the RIGHT of course staying in the clear and just south of the coast. SQ 321 did not and from the satellite overlay it appears they went into a cell. This would explain the worst injuries in 25 years+ on an airplane. It's also my guess based on the flight time that the Captain and Senior First officer were not at the controls. Leaving very junior and younger pilots flying SQ 321. Sorry experience matters and when then full investigation comes out I am sure this will be noted.

SQ changed the policy on the seat belt sign. Now anytime it is on the Flight Attendants will be seated period.
100%. The findings of the investigation are going to look very bad for the crew. The only way you shake an airframe like that is when you barrel into a cell and get caught with your pants down.
TheIcon likes this.
Ativantage is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 10:39 am
  #163  
 
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: Everywhere there's sport
Programs: IB+ Oro (OWS) / FB / SQ
Posts: 490
Or maybe we let said investigation run its course instead of prejudging its findings and what the crew supposedly did or didn't do right or wrong.
chacor is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 10:50 am
  #164  
 
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: Everywhere there's sport
Programs: IB+ Oro (OWS) / FB / SQ
Posts: 490
Originally Posted by chacor
I doubt it. People generally accept turbulence happens, and I don't see any contemporary reports of similar drops when such incidents happened to Latam (SYD-AKL earlier this year) or indeed the BA flight last year mentioned a few posts ago.
Another turbluence incident, this time on QR, today: Multiple injuries due to turbulence (QR17-DOH-DUB) and I doubt people are going to stop flying QR, or even ask the question.
est-gratuite likes this.
chacor is offline  
Old May 26, 2024, 4:02 pm
  #165  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 925
Originally Posted by HkCaGu
According to the analysis of AA pilot Juan Browne (YouTube video "0UYNFthOx1o"), a strong thunderstorm cell can block the signal of another cell behind it because strong radar beam reflections reduces the signal from behind. (Just look at any strong typhoon/hurricane/TC offshore on radar and you'll notice.) The second cell on the eastern half of the Burmese peninsula that SQ321 went through was apparently what caused this incident. So (1) I don't think the pilots had considerable notice, (2) any Burmese ground weather radar data go into the cockpit, (3) Burmese ATC would suggest routings. Nowadays geostationary weather satellites scan speed can outperform ground radars, and the aviation industry should improve data availability so they don't need onboard radar to see the rapidly developing second cell behind the first.
They certainly saw the line of weather with multiple cells from way out. They had plenty of notice provided by the first cell to lock everyone down. What Juan is describing is when you are trying to pick your way through a line of convective weather. There are also simple techniques to tell if a return is being attenuated.
Jeff767 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.