Every so often we hear of aircraft encountering severe turbulence, leading to injuries. Unfortunately in the case of a recent flight, it ended up being fatal. In the hours following this event, more details are emerging, and the damage to the jet is pretty shocking.
In this post:
Fatality onboard Singapore Airlines jet
This incident involves a Singapore Airlines flight from London (LHR) to Singapore (SIN), SQ321. The flight was supposed to depart at 10:05PM on Monday, May 20, 2024, and land in Singapore at 6:10PM on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. It was operated by a 16-year-old Boeing 777-300ER with the registration code 9V-SWM, and had a total of 211 passengers and 18 crew onboard.
The jet took off from London last night at 10:38PM, and began its 12+ hour flight to Singapore. The majority of the flight was routine, until a couple of hours before arrival.
The aircraft hit severe turbulence, causing 30 injuries and one fatality. The fatality was a 73-year-old man from the United Kingdom who was traveling in premium economy. It’s believed that he had a heart condition, and may have died of a heart attack. Furthermore, seven people are reportedly in critical condition.
My thoughts are with those who were onboard their flights, as well as their families. How beyond tragic. The level of damage this aircraft suffered is unbelievable. We’re not just talking about personal items being thrown around, but also major damage to panels and more. It’s a reminder of how quickly things can change when flying.
Given the level of damage and injuries in the cabin, the decision was made to divert to Bangkok (BKK), where the plane landed around 3:45PM local time.
Now, I see a lot of media reporting that the jet “plunged” 6,000 feet within minutes. Based on what I can see, the jet descended from 37,000 feet to around 31,000 feet in four minutes. I wouldn’t call a descent rate of 1,500 feet per minute a “plunge,” as that’s a pretty standard descent rate under normal circumstances. That’s not to say that there wasn’t an air pocket that caused a big drop, but it likely wasn’t 6,000 feet.
Here’s how Singapore Airlines describes this incident in a statement:
We can confirm that there are injuries and one fatality on board the Boeing 777-300ER. There were a total of 211 passengers and 18 crew on board. Singapore Airlines offers its deepest condolences to the family of the deceased. Our priority is to provide all possible assistance to all passengers and crew on board the aircraft. We are working with the local authorities in Thailand to provide the necessary medical assistance, and sending a team to Bangkok to provide any additional assistance needed.
Always wear your seat belt!
Aviation is an incredibly safe form of transportation, so we often forget the simplest way we can protect ourselves when flying, which is to wear our seatbelts. It’s important to do this not just when the seatbelt sign is on, but also when it’s off (assuming you’re seated), since turbulence can happen at any time.
A vast majority of the time, those injured during turbulence are people who don’t have their seatbelts on. If you’re buckled in, your biggest risk is another object becoming airborne and hitting you while seated. Meanwhile if you’re not buckled in, you could become that object flying through the cabin.
While severe turbulence causes injuries every so often, it’s exceedingly rare to see a fatality. After all, we sometimes go long stretches without a single inflight fatality from a passenger that’s related to safety (as opposed to someone just dying due to an unrelated condition). As a matter of fact, I think this might be the first safety related fatality onboard a Singapore Airlines flight in… a very long time?
Now, admittedly this fatality may have been due to a heart condition that was triggered by the incident, so perhaps this shouldn’t even count, for those purposes. It doesn’t change the tragedy of this, though.
Bottom line
A Singapore Airlines Boeing 777 encountered severe turbulence several hours ago, while enroute from London to Singapore. While severe turbulence with injuries happens every so often, this was remarkable, as there was a fatality, which we almost never see. On top of that, seven people are in critical condition.
What a terrible situation. Here’s to hoping that the seven people in critical condition are able to recover.
Was on SQ23 from JFK the same day.
They had the seatbelt sign on for about the last 5 hours of the flight, without even any turbulence.
Clearly a message from on high to not take any more risks that day.
Live from SQ 191 (HAN-SIN)
All cabin services (incl. meals and hot drinks) are suspended during turbulence.
Once the seat belt sign is turned on, everything stops. Cabin crew go back to their seats & wait.
Service resumes only when the sign is turned off.
I can only imagine how much more stressful it is for BKK & JKT flights.
P/S crew in good spirits tho’
It seems that this accident is the first fatal accident of SIA sin SIA006 crash in 2000, and the first fatal accident involving a 777-300ER
As much as a fuss it can be, my young son has always flown in an FAA-approved car seat on flights. The only time he hasn’t (thus far) was on a BA domestic flight on an A319. Funny enough, from ticketing to the gate agents, they had no problem with it. But the stewards onboard wouldn’t allow it and stored it in a lavatory.
It will be interesting to learn if the captain was on the flight deck when this happened.
Out of curiosity, what’s the relevance of it the captain being in the cockpit or not? If there was no forecast or other aircraft reports of the turbulence, what could he/she have done to mitigate the incident?
Based on satellite imagery there was a lot of convective activity in the area where the turbulence was encountered. An experienced crew would take steps prior to entering an area of convective activity. A couple of less experienced F/Os might not be as proactive.
FWIW, a 1500fpm descent rate isn't anything out of the ordinary. Most likely explanation is that the captain requested FL31 and proceeded to do a normal descent to that altitude.
At the risk of stating the obvious, it's instantaneous vertical acceleration (over just a few seconds) rather than any sustained descent rate that will determine the forces passengers are subjected to. Also, it often involves a pitching moment, so the acceleration in the back will be much larger than in the front. Which would possibly explain the much larger scatter of mess in the rear end of the plane.
Vertical acceleration?
It should be descent, right?
Hi! That's a logical reply/question. In very basic terms, Vertical acceleration can be either up or down... as opposed to horizontal acceleration, which could be from side to side. 'Vertical acceleration' and 'descent rate' are related concepts but they describe different aspects of motion being calculated. I see how calling it 'vertical' might be a bit confusing.
I read about one time in Mexico there was some turbulence reported by passengers on a domestic flight at some point due west over Monterrey. It never caught much of the local - or international - media's attention because it was so light. Light chop, I believe it would have been classified.
The geopolitics of the fatal flight path is interesting. The shortest route would have taken the plane over the Russian/Ukrainian border. But they had to reroute for that, and then reroute again to avoid Iran. The location of the turbulence, however, seems to be on the fastest route anyway.
The Independent (UK) is reporting the 73-year-old deceased had a suspected heart condition.
That must have been what caused the turbulence!
While still being sensitive to the circumstances, I would be interested to know in what cabin the fatality was in.
Also for statistical reasons, what was the injured vs cabin ratio.
Does flying in a flat bed seat make you safer or not in such situations.
Would be very interested to know.
@Jet Setter
I was wondering the same. How many of the injuries were in passengers in First or Business who were in a lie flat position with their seatbelt fastened at the time ?
Just wondering ; not saying anyone is right or wrong.
Very sad story. I rarely wear my seatbelt these days. However as soon as I feel the first sign of turbulence I fasten my seatbelt even if in my sleep. Most of the times momentarily after I do so the seat belt sign is turned on .
premium economy
Apparently the death was due to a heart attack. Articles are also saying people in the lavatories were especially severely injured. That can happen to anyone no matter where they're sitting.
The pictures are dramatic.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/live/singapore-airlines-latest-death-flight-london-sq321-103653119.html
News reported that passengers were having meals at the time, so it's unlikely they were in a bed position.
He was in Premium Economy per FT and CNA reports.
Why don't they have seat belts in toilets?
You'd think that in this incident... someone can be unlucky enough to need the bathroom at the same moment.
This no seatbelt thing is just a mentality I think...
I've had friends visit from Asia and still think seatbelts are not necessarily in cars.
Even after being told that as a driver, I could get penalised...they try to not wear it by just holding onto the seatbelt instead of clipping it. Baffles me...
How is a seat belt in toilet usable when as a guy you are standing up to pass water?
For those who want to live on the edge...stand and pee...for the overly cautious...sit...strap in...then pee.
Guys can still pee sitting down. I know it's emasculating for some men who absolutely have to stand while peeing or else nobody who is watching/listening will know that they're a man (even though nobody is actually watching or listening in an airplane lavatory because eww). But, airlines could still offer the seatbelts for women and less-easily-emasculated men to choose to use, and the men who insist on standing up can take their chances.
I...
Guys can still pee sitting down. I know it's emasculating for some men who absolutely have to stand while peeing or else nobody who is watching/listening will know that they're a man (even though nobody is actually watching or listening in an airplane lavatory because eww). But, airlines could still offer the seatbelts for women and less-easily-emasculated men to choose to use, and the men who insist on standing up can take their chances.
I think another reason why airlines don't want to offer seatbelts in the lavatories - beyond just "it's always been done this way" of course - is that the belts themselves would sometimes (or maybe often, as people are pigs?) end up in the toilet itself. Nobody is going to touch a wet or gross seatbelt.
Seems the reasonable solution there, would be to make them automatically retractable.
Wouldn't be perfect, but would go a long way to avoiding that issue.
Never underestimate the ability of people to be disgusting - intentionally or accidentally. However, the airlines could pad some of the surfaces in toilets including the walls, ceiling and hard edges on the fixtures. However, it's a large investment for a low likelihood event... So unless it's required it won't happen.
Screw it....I'm just going to start wearing adult diapers on the flight and just stay strapped in....
And how would a seatbelt work when washing hands or brushing teeth? I suppose airlines could instal stools for passengers to sit on while doing this.
Another day, another Boeing fatality.
You have a knack for patently idiotic commentary, with this one ranking fairly well among them.
Perfect example of, you can't fix stupid!
Immortal - best comment I have read today. Made me laugh right out loud! Agree - by the way!
Blaming Boeing for the weather?
No one is blaming Boeing for this.
Only ignorant optimistic idiots thinks like that and can't handle the truth.
It's factually another fatality on a Boeing.
@Eskimo - so why say "another Boeing fatality," if you're not trying to insinuate Boeing had some kind of responsibility? It's childish.
@Eskimo
You're officially the biggest troll of OMAAT. What you do make Biglaw V10 Partner, KK13, Watson and UncleRonnie look normal.
i hate to sound like a conspiracy theory but i think this site does not want to get rid of all the trolls because it gets more clicks or something or else they would of done something about it already
@Mason I think you've confused me with someone else.
@Watson
I guess so, you're not at the level of the ones I've mentioned. Mb.
Seriously moronically attention seeking.
Seriously moronically attention seeking perhaps?
Actually, if the event was so violent, Boeing builds them quite strong to with stand some crazy conditions.
Wow, a commenter other than Tim Dunn gets absolutely roasted to oblivion on OMAAT. This is new.
Five lavs available to Economy passengers (maximum 212, but apparently the flight was not full). I always feel sorry for the people standing in line during turbulence.
You're supposed to sit down again and hold it during advertised turbulence.
Not during sudden CAT.
That might be why Uncle Ronnie wrote "advertised turbulence." Turbulence that the staff warns you about, you most certainly are supposed to sit back down, rebuckle your seatbelt and hold it.
It only takes one incident like this to make you reconsider flying. Flying thru severe turbulence happened to me on a US Airways flight from The Bahamas to LGA in 2002. That was the end of me hopping here there and everywhere at the drop of a hat.
Do you drive or ride in cars? Because statistically, the chances of being injured or killed while in a car are FAR higher than the chances while on a plane.
I am often amused by the statement of "statistically, the chances of being injured or killed while in a car are FAR higher than the chances while on a plane for a few reasons never seem to be considered.
1. Frequency of Travel: People generally spend significantly more time commuting in cars on a daily basis than flying on planes. The sheer volume of car trips compared to flights naturally results in a higher number...
I am often amused by the statement of "statistically, the chances of being injured or killed while in a car are FAR higher than the chances while on a plane for a few reasons never seem to be considered.
1. Frequency of Travel: People generally spend significantly more time commuting in cars on a daily basis than flying on planes. The sheer volume of car trips compared to flights naturally results in a higher number of accidents involving cars. Thus, the higher likelihood of injury or death in car accidents may partly be due to the greater exposure to risk.
3. Severity of Consequences: Although the likelihood of being involved in a car accident is higher, the severity of injuries or fatalities in plane crashes tends to be greater. While many car accidents result in minor injuries or property damage, even a single plane crash can lead to numerous casualties.
3. Driving I have some measure of control. A plane falling out of the sky while I am a pax - I have none. No one does.
Have you ever considered that the stats refer to fatalities only and that fatalities rates are measured on a passenger mile basis?
1. I don't think you understand how statistics work. Deaths per mile or per hour flown vs. driven are already adjusted for the fact that most people spend far more time in a car vs. a plane. That's the whole "per mile" or "per hour" part doing the adjusting. Deaths in planes still are less than deaths in cars, even if miles/hours in cars is tens of thousands of times more than miles/hours in planes...
1. I don't think you understand how statistics work. Deaths per mile or per hour flown vs. driven are already adjusted for the fact that most people spend far more time in a car vs. a plane. That's the whole "per mile" or "per hour" part doing the adjusting. Deaths in planes still are less than deaths in cars, even if miles/hours in cars is tens of thousands of times more than miles/hours in planes for most people.
3. I don't think you know how numbering works either. "2" comes after "1" and before your second "3." But yes, if you are unlucky enough to be in a plane crash, your chances of survival are much less than if you are unlucky enough to be in a car crash.
3. Having control is an illusion. It's a more vivid illusion in a car, when you're behind the steering wheel. But most car crashes were caused partially or entirely by factors beyond the control of one, both or all drivers involved. Things like weather, road maintenance, wildlife, a third-party doing something stupid like merging into traffic without looking, some defect in the car that you've not noticed until now, all of these cause lots of car crashes... even when the driver is ostensibly doing "everything right."
@Dave
You'd be surprised the number of people who don't get it. Concepts like statistics may seem easy to you but this is hard for someone like ImmortalSynn, a good example for having lack of intelligence.
But even 'statistically' you'd get hit by lightning a lot easier that winning the lottery. But they'd probably argue like this.
1. Frequency: People generally buy more lottery than people are being lightning rods.
3. Severity of Consequences: Although...
@Dave
You'd be surprised the number of people who don't get it. Concepts like statistics may seem easy to you but this is hard for someone like ImmortalSynn, a good example for having lack of intelligence.
But even 'statistically' you'd get hit by lightning a lot easier that winning the lottery. But they'd probably argue like this.
1. Frequency: People generally buy more lottery than people are being lightning rods.
3. Severity of Consequences: Although the likelihood of being struck by lightning is higher, Powerball winner are in the news more often.
3. Powerball I have some measure of control. I can pick my own numbers. A lightning strike, I have none. No one does.
You really can't fix Happy Flyer kind of stupid.
No offense, but you're showing that you have no clue how transportation risk/injury stats are calculated, and you're also just surmising outcomes rather than using actual data.
Your #3 is a rather flagrant example of the latter:
Try to find data that corroborates your claim that "the severity of injuries or fatalities in a plane crash tends to be greater."
You won't, because that's simply not a true statement.
SQ has a massive superstitious nature when it comes to its livery, which is why it has never ever changed.
They had a special livery on a 747-400 that crashed into scaffolding on take-off at TPE. It was operating SIN-TPE-LAX. I believe it was in the early 90s.
The 777-300ER involved in today's flight was also in a special Star Alliance livery. A livery SQ was very reluctant to adopt and refused for many years.
...SQ has a massive superstitious nature when it comes to its livery, which is why it has never ever changed.
They had a special livery on a 747-400 that crashed into scaffolding on take-off at TPE. It was operating SIN-TPE-LAX. I believe it was in the early 90s.
The 777-300ER involved in today's flight was also in a special Star Alliance livery. A livery SQ was very reluctant to adopt and refused for many years.
I suspect the Star Alliance livery will be a goner after this.
My thoughts are with the passengers.
It was SQ006, and the incident was on 31 October, 2000.
I hope they don't change their livery. I find it gorgeous.
how many of these Star Alliance liveries do they have?
Wait till you hear of Spanair 5022, the deadliest crash of 2008, also in the Star Alliance livery…
SQ has four planes in the Star Alliance livery, three 777-300ERs (9V-SWI/SWJ/SWM) and a 737 MAX, 9V-MBL, which didn’t enter service for a year after it was built. Superstition much?
Anyone keeping track of fatalities on SkyTeam, StarAlliance, or Oneworld livery?
Huh? SQ has made multiple changes to its livery over the years, even if we're just counting since the 1972 MSA breakup.
Nothing radical, but changes nonetheless-- similar to KLM.
They've changed the color of the yellow/orange/gold multiple times. They've added a pinstripe through the window cheatline. They've changed the size and font of the typeface. They've changed the size and shape...
Huh? SQ has made multiple changes to its livery over the years, even if we're just counting since the 1972 MSA breakup.
Nothing radical, but changes nonetheless-- similar to KLM.
They've changed the color of the yellow/orange/gold multiple times. They've added a pinstripe through the window cheatline. They've changed the size and font of the typeface. They've changed the size and shape of the kris bird. Etc etc.
Compare this, to what they have today:
https://static1.simpleflyingimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/singapore_airlines_boeing_727_martin.jpg
That's exactly what the OP is saying. The *A livery is a special design that deviates completely from the "standard" SQ colors, which hasn't changed much over the years. Indeed the *A livery seems to be quite unlucky for SQ...
A friend of mine was on a flight with severe turbulence. The plane dropped and the person beside him with no seat belt on hit the ceiling. Always wear seat belt after that.
I was on a United flight from ORD to YYZ and the pilots in a very urgent tone told the FAs to immediately be seated (I cannot recall exactly how they phrased it). I was in row 2 and the male FA just launched the cart into the lav, put the lock on the cart and dove into his jumpseat. I have flown a lot and never have I seen the crew react so swiftly...
I was on a United flight from ORD to YYZ and the pilots in a very urgent tone told the FAs to immediately be seated (I cannot recall exactly how they phrased it). I was in row 2 and the male FA just launched the cart into the lav, put the lock on the cart and dove into his jumpseat. I have flown a lot and never have I seen the crew react so swiftly and never push a cart into a lav. We had quite a few big drops, everyone was very tense and it was uncomfortable but at least we were all belted in as we had a few seconds warning, I could easily imagine we'd all have been airborne otherwise. I always wear my seatbelt with just a little slack so it's comfortable but still protective.
I think this is the first fatal Singapore Airlines flight in over 20 years? The last being SQ 006.
Honestly this incident basically has 0% to do w/ SQ. Pax that died was old with a heart condition, any similar circumstance in a different plane or airline, probably would caused similar outcomes.
SQ doesn't control the weather, so unless they actively didn't tell people about the turbulence and didn't instruct people to wear seatbelts, it's a bit unavoidable.
Understandable, but unfortunately the ranking purely uses statistics. Malaysia airlines was ranked one of the most unsafe airlines in the world in the 2010s, did it really have control over MH17s demise? An SQ plane was merely 10 minutes behind it on the same flight path.
There are many accidents in aviation that aren't the airlines fault. Unfortunately it still gets on their record.
If you've never experienced sudden severe turbulence, it's hard to convey how violent and unexpected it can be. I've only had one incident in decades of air travel, over the Black Sea flying from Tbilisi to Istanbul in 2000, which was severe enough to topple a beverage cart and cause a flight attendant to fall down and one passenger without a seat belt to bang his head on the overhead bin (he kind of levitated)....
If you've never experienced sudden severe turbulence, it's hard to convey how violent and unexpected it can be. I've only had one incident in decades of air travel, over the Black Sea flying from Tbilisi to Istanbul in 2000, which was severe enough to topple a beverage cart and cause a flight attendant to fall down and one passenger without a seat belt to bang his head on the overhead bin (he kind of levitated). I've kept my seat belt on at all times since, including when fully reclined and sleeping. It's one of those things that seems remote and hypothetical until it happens to you.
TL/DR
Indeed, similar experience. One female cabin attendant wend totally prone on the floor and she was not young. Others were concerned but she got up and said that was the way she was trained. I was hit in the shoulder with the drink cart and soaked with soda and ice but service was then discontinued. I was drenched but thirsty. Upon landing I ran to the Delta lounge but at first was refused access because...
Indeed, similar experience. One female cabin attendant wend totally prone on the floor and she was not young. Others were concerned but she got up and said that was the way she was trained. I was hit in the shoulder with the drink cart and soaked with soda and ice but service was then discontinued. I was drenched but thirsty. Upon landing I ran to the Delta lounge but at first was refused access because they were closing in 18 minutes. I showed them my clothing and the time and I was able to get a drink. (that level of service makes me "DUNN" with Delta.
Just like Ben said, always fasten your seatbelt. It's sad that many people don't listen to the announcement the FAs would give at the beginning of every flights, "The seatbelt sign has been turned on. However, please fasten your seatbelt in case of a sudden turbulence." Please, follow that. They say that even on board a 50-minute flight, and there's a reason for that. But I can't blame the victim(s) of this flight, though.
...Just like Ben said, always fasten your seatbelt. It's sad that many people don't listen to the announcement the FAs would give at the beginning of every flights, "The seatbelt sign has been turned on. However, please fasten your seatbelt in case of a sudden turbulence." Please, follow that. They say that even on board a 50-minute flight, and there's a reason for that. But I can't blame the victim(s) of this flight, though.
This is also the first fatal accident of Singapore Airlines of last 23 years, since SQ6 which happened on Oct 2000.
When the seatbelt sign is turned off it is not MANDATORY to keep it on.
True but it’s advisable
It is not MANDATORY that you take simple precautions to protect your life, but it is advisable.