What happened when SQ321 hit turbulence, according to flight data
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Using flight data, investigators reconstructed what happened on Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 when it hit severe turbulence over the south of Myanmar on the way from London to Singapore on May 21. A passenger died and dozens more were injured, resulting in an emergency diversion of the plane to Bangkok.
Details: cna.asia/3R44ea5
Subscribe to our channel here: cna.asia/youtu...
Subscribe to our news service for must-read stories:
Telegram - cna.asia/telegram
WhatsApp - cna.asia/whatsapp
Follow us:
CNA: cna.asia
CNA Lifestyle: www.cnalifestyl...
Facebook: / channelnewsasia
Instagram: / channelnewsasia
Twitter: / channelnewsasia
TikTok: / channelnewsasia
I always buckle up even if i’m eating or just stationary. I only remove my seat belt when i need to go to the toilet…
@@skyflyer4231no,Who said that?
Within 16 mins the pilots managed to divert and start descending to Bangkok. And by the time they landed all was ready for the emergency. This speedy coordination surely is only made possible by existing relationships between countries, airlines, airports, public services, and international protocols. Great job, all who were involved and all who prepared for these kinds of situations.
A small detail for the animators, but a big detail for aviation enthusiasts. The Singapore Airlines B777-300ER involved in this incident had a special Star Alliance livery and not the usual Singapore Airlines livery.
Taxied past the exact plane involved a few days ago in Singapore 😬 Didn’t realize until I re-watched my footage 😮
I believe it’s been relocated to WSSS until it can have its interior repaired and is ready to be put back in service. Thanks for stating this key detail 😅
The pilots flew into the top of an imbedded thunderstorm through incompetence. They failed to accurately interrogate the weather returns with their radar. As an active international Airline Captain with 30 years in command of Heavies and Supers, your primary job is to avoid storms. Don’t expect an open and honest investigation.
Hmmm. Was wondering about this? Would certainly explain the turbulence. Do you know this or are surmising?
Agreed. The radar trace paints a completely different picture. Seen plenty of Singapore Airlines flights plough headlong into convective CB’s in my time.
This was a case of gross negligence. Nothing less. Any other company would have sacked the pilots.
And another "Hmmm" from me. I looked back at the data, using ADSB and the first instance I recorded was at 08:06:42 Z, not the 07:49 shown on the video. The first change in altitude was at 08:07:07 to 36,925ft with a descent rate of 512ft/min. Note the FMS altitude select was changed from 36,992ft to 31,008ft at 08:06:57. So the descent began after a change in the FMS Alt Select. At 08:07:41, rate of descent had gradually increased to 2,880ft/min. That is almost a full minute after the initial "upset". After this, there was an approx 2 minute period when the rate of descent was steady at 1,920 ft/min. The change from -2,880ft/min to 1,920 ft/min was gradual, certainly not the hard bump you get when a plane suddenly stops falling. (A feeling I know only too well from regular 747 flights from Bahrain to Hong Kong, in the area north of this). I would magine someone should be asking for an explanation re the switch from 37,000ft to 31,000ft. The flight was not intneding to go to BKK at this time so perhaps a little too soon for an approach to Singapore. Also interesting is the declaratioin of an emergency, the Squawk was changed from the cruise squawk 5123 to 7700 only when passing 23,000 ft and 115 miles from Bangkok.
@@GeeBeeMikeso this could have been completely avoided? I’d love to know since I have a flight this Sunday and this disturbs me deeply. Thinking that it is completely out of their control.
It's just a split second but the impact was extraordinary inside
It’s not the airline’s fault for accidents
The seatbelt sign was turned on!
Stricter belting up policy needed
Not only that people are usually advised to always keep the belts on at all times unless going to the bathroom.
Ever since the incident, I can also see that it’s a sign of warning to passengers on board to abide their safety. And lesser (not totally) travellers unbuckle their seat belts only after announcement. Which is great in a way.
This I agree with you! Actually, even as a child with little knowledge of air travel safety rules while flying with my parents, my father and mother used to warn me to put on the seatbelts while seated in the airplane for our family trips, unless we needed to unbuckle so as to walk out of our seats and squeeze along the narrow aisle to get to and fro the toilets in the airplane.@@mamamememoo
I don't think it is the airline's fault but there are only 8 seconds between the seatbelt sign-on and the drop. I could imagine those are in lavatory or walking back to the seat from the lavatory not having enough time to react.
Thank you Thailand for the speedy response.
I've flown countless number of flights in my life. Surprisingly, I also experienced some of my worst turbulence in this area when I flew from Singapore to Myanmar! It was a on a Jetstar flight and I've never been on a plane that bucked up and down that much. I remember looking outside the window and I could see dark/thick thunder clouds!
Hitting the ceiling must have been painful...😮
Seriously, who doesn't wear seatbelts the entire time they're on the plane? This isn't the 1950s anymore.
There are many that just remove their belts once the sign goes off...Never take safety for granted.
A lot of people. Most people have this mindset of 'it's never going to happen to me'.
To be fair, sometimes you may not be on your seat because the sign was off and you had to go to the washroom.
Sometimes people line up to go to the washroom too, because it's too busy.
There are many scenarios where even a diligent person may not be wearing it, it were just a few seconds from sign being back on to the intense turbulence.
That’s why i always wear seatbelts 💺 throughout the flight, because you’ll never know when turbulence hits. Applause 👏🏻 for the pilot to stabilize the condition
So there were only slight vibrations, not a "severe turbulence" that the plane responded to with climbing 110 metres.
The slight vibrations will be from an updraft of rising air (caused by convecting air) pushing the aircraft upwards; inside the cabin this will be felt as very minor turbulence. After the aircraft passes through the area of convecting air it suddenly drops. This marries with what passengers said; it was relatively calm and the turbulence was sudden.
Agree to your observation, why did it climb? Thinking food was serving going up higher, but the fell?
Said the experienced pilot. Oh wait.
Funny how the sensationalist brigade said it dropped 6000ft approx when it was first news. The actual facts are always so much less dramatic, but surprisingly a small change in G force can cause unsecured persons or items to be severely dislodged.
Thanks for this . The livery was Star Alliance.
The rapid changes in G-forces is a RESULT of falling and rising rapidly in a short time. The g-forces are not the CAUSE of the falling. The animation is very roughly correct but the text is poorly written. Within the 4.6s the plane rose, fell sharply and rose sharply again as animated. This would be like going through an invisible tornado in which the walls of the tornado would have massive air pressure differences compared to the center. No amount of pilot intervention would be able to overcome it.
"The rapid changes in G-force caused the aircraft to fall 178 feet, or 54 metres in 4.6s."
Isn't it supposed to be the fall causing the changes in G-force instead?
Gforce is just a measure of acceleration using the gravity of earth as a unit of measurment (~9.8m/s^2)
So any movement which accelerated the unbelted people up or down can be measured in Gforc as well.
Edit: nvm i misread ur comment. Yea their phrasing is weird as the rapid fall and rise of the plane is an effect and the Gforce experienced is just a measurement of the fall and rise acceleration. They should have put smth like "wind turbulence etc. Caused plane to fall up and down. People on board experience n amount of Gforce"
Both climb and descent produce G force changes, in different directions. Positive and negative G.
@@eatdriveplay yes.
The drop is 54m, at first they make it sound like the drop is 1mile. Capping
haha...good point.... non pilots usually write rubbish regarding aviation
Life insurers worldwide will use all these analysis determined accurately from the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder of Flight SQ 321 by the Ministry of Transport, TSIB, NSTB, Boeing manufacturer of the cockpit flight controls, fuselage, wings, tail, hidden swing wheels while in flight and engine parts, all the radar distances / radio communication that got transmitted between the different region's airport control towers and the pilots on board Flight SQ 321, then finally the aircraft maintenance company logbooks both in London, England, UK as well as in Singapore to determine policy payouts, so the investigators need sufficient time, i.e. many months or more than a year or two to be very careful in presenting their findings and facts to the news media and public, especially if some passengers or all the seriously injured passengers decide to group together to launch a 'Class-Action out-of-court' settlement against Singapore Airlines Limited for their individual cases rather than just only claim the insurance policy payouts.
Just curious why the decision was made to climb higher than 37000 feet?
I think the autopilot was likely to be in use then.
Exactly, the reason?
Yup, why? Autopilot ON meant the avionics calculated and signalled for the aircraft to lift off higher rather than lower because the wind drafts that caused the severe turbulence were detected to come from under the aircraft.
You asked a very good question you know! I think the TSIB, NTSB and aircraft maintenance engineers should take note of your pointers to analysis carefully the final verdict before jumping to a conclusion so soon! Should take months or more than a year rather than within few weeks to conclude findings.
Great coverage❤❤
I do like the graphic in the end at Suvarnabhumi airport (as my home airport) where they put the airport terminal in the background. Since I’m not in Bangkok at the moment, it makes me feel a bit less homesick.
The key detail they have omitted here is that, after the sudden fall due to unseen turbulence, the sudden climb in altitude that threw people right back down into the floor/seats was the autopilot dangerously over correcting for the loss in altitude. This is implied by them saying "the pilots took over to stabalize the plane, then autopilot was re-engaged"
Pilots negligence then ?
@@PianoWrecker Everything happened in 4.6 sec, it is too fast for any pilot to react appropriately. They are humans too, and they would've been shocked by the sudden drop.
Yep
@@PianoWrecker My read was more that it might be an issue with the calibration of the autopilot. Perhaps the initial fall was so sharp that the autopilot was programmed to act as though the plane was in free fall and needed to sharply gain altitude, when that was very much not the thing to do in turbulence. I have just been shocked at how underreported that bit about the autopilot making the plane climb has been when it seems to be the most unusual thing about an event that, while rare, is not in any unprecedented whatsoever
Why this airlines getting so stingy that they provide only 777 plane for long routes? If they used jumbo a380 in the first place, turbulence could be minimized and no injuries nor dead at all.
Jocelyn Chia not joking today
LOL! Totally forgot about her but I get ya! She no joke today
So, it's not true that the seatbelt sign wasn't turned on. The passengers didn't realise it because the drop happened a few seconds later. Goes to show the unreliable narrator at work. Seems more and more likely that it's clear air turbulence too.
Omg .thanks
Well built aircraft.
I thought it was 4 minutes the drop, not 4 seconds
The sudden drop in altitude happened 8 seconds after the seat belt sign was turned on. That might not be enough for some passengers out of their seats to sit down and buckle up. Should the warning be given earlier before the climb in altitude? This is a question and not a criticism.
They tell you to leave your seatbelt on at all times when seated. I do. I have a brain.
Would have been a better video if you didnt pause it for the explanation
It’s so sad that I’m a singaporean
Turbelence are worse,people should wear their seat belt when instructed ,for their safety
Pilot skill
Like any other airline, it's seeking to limit its liability, I think.
💯
Just goes to show that even with the most severe turbulence the plane kept flying (I'm trying to reassure myself - a bit of reverse psychology).
Seat belt must always to be wear. If you go toilet that the only time to unbuckle it,
My recent first time flight during the Hari Raya holiday from KLIA to Changi. I knew nothing about flights other than from the movies. I buckled the seat belt despite a bit loose and did not unbuckle though was announced safe to do so. Furthermore it was like 45 minutes of flying time. Returning from Changi to KLIA on 12th April noon flight was announced by the pilot of a bit of turbulence since it was raining badly in Singapore since morning. However, nothing happened and my seat beat was intact till safe landing. Flying was nice except for the cheap budget airline and the aged plane was noisy during taxi to the runway. Planning to go to Bangkok soon with a slightly better airline and hope not boarding the 737 Max. I wonder how to find out whether it's 737 Max or AirBus during the booking?
ua-cam.com/video/Z76YpCz9N2Y/v-deo.html
CNA? this quality? National broadcaster? 1st world nation? 2 ways how it all can be better.
Pilot disconnected autopilot. Boeing FCTM ( Flight Crew Training Manual ) says to leave autopilot engaged in inadvertent overspeed and only gradually employ partial speedbrake - not full speedbrake which at high altitude and high Mach No. would induce massive shockwave and loss of lift. I have thousands of hours Captain B777.
So people still gathering, don't forget it's always a matter of time before the next biggest spike in cases, and it maybe those people last travel of their lives.
they flew into a thunderstorm ... end of story
0:17 The plane vibrated SLIGHTLY and then it climbed 110 metres. In the official statement they said the climb was "UNCOMMANDED". So why did the plane climb110 metres in response to slight vibrations?
0:23 why did the seat belt sign was switched on AFTER the plane climbed 110 metres? Was the pilot asleep?
0:48 "rapid chanes in G-force caused the aircraft to fall"? What is that supposed to mean? It like saying the "car accident was caused by a tree growing by the road"".
Have u even taken a plane before to know their usual protocol? Lol
At 0023 : the climb may not necessarily be caused by turbulence ( of course on hindsight it was)i, it could be autopliot malfunction or flight controls issues or pitot blockage etc ,, it would take sometime for pilots to ascertain the cause of it therefore it took a while for them to switch the seat belt sign ON.
@@marcuskarentan Exactly. So the media version of what caused that incident is not necessarily true either.
Developing convective activity is jargon for clouds, specifically - cauliflower looking clouds on a hot afteroon. These clouds tend to form and rise quickly hence pushing the plane upwards. Commerical planes are not able to outclimb these clouds. I'm curious why it wasn't picked up on the weather radar, which basically reflects off water droplets, i.e. clouds.
Why it climb is the key is the most important question
The animation makes the whole project look like a school project
Should've used Blender3D or a flight simulator to recreate this
6000 feet in 3 mins is a normal decent lol
Big deal … always where your seat belt … had worse …
Aren't you the real big boy then?!?!
So it went up then fell, what was it avoiding
the turbulence indicated by the shakes?
Blame Boeing
Boeing Does Not Control The Weather
That's a boeing plane too btw, their autopilot systems had been a problem for awhile now.
No they haven’t
since when has the 777 had autopilot problems
Luckily it was not MAS.
what is MAS?
They use the same plane dumdum
It should not happen to anyone .
i shall not watch. i shall snigger. statistical analysis - freak occurance. current plane manufacturers are ... pilots are ... leave exising designs untouched. newer should be diesel piston.
plane aerodynamics
pilot - operational-envelope
computational capability
designed-specifications
performance-parameters
negative-g super-mario italiano nintendo my-foot
Well done to all air and cabin crews.. We all know It's not an easy handled situation.. And may those who are still hospitalised have a full and speedy recovery.. Stay well and safe always..
They could have done better had they knowing the real risks of more frequent turbulence and the region, to enforce the belting up stricter. Its due diligence
@@LonganLee well.... there is a safety briefing at the start of every flight which talks about buckling up the seat belts so the people who did not do that probably did not care...
@@CatAndRain-kn6lv drivers also learnt and passed driving test and many break the rules, big or small. So that's why there are enforcements and enforcers. In this case, the crew
@@CatAndRain-kn6lv
There is an Australian interview by 60 minutes that takes it from a different perspective that the pilot could have done better and also sharing some lights from the passengers perspective.
The turbulence was very sudden and by for no one has ever expected that to happen. Plus the turbulence was stronger than normal and passenger, including the crew were tossed around the airplane.
Normal turbulence wouldn’t throw passenger into the ceiling and it surely wouldn’t plunge the airplane 1,000 ft down. (The pilot should have realize what’s going on with the airplane started to climb drastically)
Those who likes to travel also must take risks no matter what mode of travel, that's the meaning of travel of course.
That's why seat belts are important. Even when on the roads. Seat belts saves lives.
The entire cabin crew and pilots need to be given a hero’s welcome. The pilots have done extremely well under extreme pressure. Well done🫡🫡. For the passengers injured during this flight, speedy recovery. God bless.
As a retired pilot, I can tell you. It’s either the pilot or SG fault. They shouldn’t fly anywhere close to those CBs/weather cells in the first place
Hero? Somebody died and few are having severe/permanent injuries. Be objective, nobody should be overly jubilant over this. Court case may happen after investigation.
This could've been avoided. There's no jetstream there for clear air turbulence. The pilots flew into a thunderstorm! Saying its Clear air turbulence is irresponsible and avoiding compensation
If the seat belt sign was on, the unbelted passengers need to take some personal responsibility. Do we need the constant beeping on unbelted seats?
It was only on for 8 seconds before the fall actually happened.
Real pilots dont get fooled by this news reports written by laymen....we fly thru this way last 35 years and the weather was always similar every other day. A good pilot who intends to circumnavigate weather wud have asked the cabin staff to serve meals earlier and briefed them regarding the upcoming weather circumnavigation.....and to have all seated and seat belt signs ON prior to the circumnavigation. This was not done. ..
Nothing much you can do as you are up in the sky ,you can't run anyway, the only thing you can do is buy insurance, seatbelt on and most importantly, pray and keep your mind just on prayer or if those who has no religion, just think only the good deed you have done in the past, no negative thoughts. 阿弥陀佛🙏
But passengers say the seat belt was not turned on
The black box doesn’t lie though and there were many who said it came on but most of them didn’t have time to put the belts on. Others were asleep and oblivious.
Until this incident, nobody believe any turbulence will involve so some pretend to belt for their comfort.
Rather than the turbulence, I witnessed a sudden dead brake for the parking which resulted head injury from the hit.
This is why you keep your selt belt fastened
Lol always them idiots that don't follow rules. Pilots don't turn on the seat belts on for no reason.
Seemed that autopilot couldn't handle the situation well and it was clear air turbulence supposedly
There's no issue with the autopilot, it's the plane itself whether it's fit to fly even there's clear air turbulence, in this case as usually we'll wait for the NTSB report sigh.. might as well check 787 dreamliner 😅 can't really trust Boeing/FAA certified airplane
I thought the same
Must have been so deathly terrifying on board 😖 definitely an experience not to repeat 😖 I saw pictures and videos of cabin crews and passengers being injured .. I'm waiting for the investigation to come out. I wanna know if it's weather like everyone says, or if it's Boeing factor ..
Didn't know Boeing was in the air turbulence manufacturing business.
Indescribably silly speculation!
If its boeing i aint going
Hello dear how are you doing today?
@@martinluke9470 if its boeing i aint going
who is responsible for this?
No one. We cant fight Nature and actually you should keep using your seatbelt even the light turned off perhaps you want to go to toilet. So for the victims its their own mistake
Was it CAT or sneaked into CN cloud? Need to clarify!
that’s it , SIA should clarify first , just ask the pilots !
@@sv8454 👍weather radar onboard should tell!
Honestly this isn't a good representation - why not animate it with full 6 DOF including pitch/roll/yaw, something like a flight simulation?
The start of the Monsoon and being around those Arakan Mountains..... its going to get rough...
a lot of passengers don't care about seat belt lights. same people who don't use turn signals... they just don't care
They flew into it they should have diverted around it . Pilot error ?
And one passenger died.....
Can CNA stop the misleading news? The aircraft image is totally wrong, SQ321is a STAR ALLANCE coshare fights by London under Singapore Airline. Is a different type of aircraft being manage by the London management, so stop using our official SQ flights as an example
This was a Singair B777-300 operated by Singapore Airlines. Do not shift the responsibility.
@@CaptStevenHorn Yes I know but coshare flights are being manage by another country that manage. The cabin crew are all not Singaporean, They are pinoys. The actual Singapore airline without the star alliance.. the cabin crew are all local Singaporean. Please know the difference before you comment.
It can be pilot error also
.... the near vertical drop of 6,000 feet in under 3 minutes needs investigation. You had a plane go thru about 200 feet downward, however nothing I saw on flightaware explains loss of 6,000 feet in 3 minutes. Why would pilots do that to an aircraft already beat up by turbulence. It does not make sense
6000 feet in 3 mins is a normal decent lol
Autopilot needs massive re-evaluation.
Where's the due diligence
Autopilot working as intended, its a literal force of nature, suck it up
CNA, why don't you apologise here for repeatedly giving incorrect information in previous news reports, for example wrongly reporting that the airplane was "free falling for 6,000 feet". Such incorrect reporting repeated after I had already pointed out in the comments that this was an incorrect interpretation of the flight data. You can at least apologise for ignoring my comments for so many days, while I explained your mistakes right away after the first incorrect report.
perhaps they're too busy to stoke your ego🤷♂
Mabye they lazy to get right
What's with the background music😂
i know right.. was thinking the same thing. Like some spy/murder issue 😅
Is possible ice formation on the AOA sensors?
So, the seatbelt sign was turned on before the incident happened. I am curious if it is at all possible that an aircraft would experience a sudden serious turbulence without warning even for the pilot? I guess I am wondering if it is safe to only wear seatbelt when the sign is turned on or it is best to wear it all the time?