Thai Airways flight from Hell

[lonelywombat]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/travel-news/flight-from-hell-leaves-passengers-bloodied/news-story/698c8d370fcf0427b911382d3a138f8b

This was published today but it seems a week old . News Corp tend to sensationalize things a bit, but it sounds like a flight you would rather not have had.

There is the article and a number of photos from inside the plane

[latintopxxx]

if the idiot had kept his seat belt on this wouldnt have happened. This sort if thing happens on amy airline. please move on, nothing to see. Lonelywombatty...u r the weakest link. Fail!!

[lonelywombat]

I guess all we have to do is look at your record,even the last few weeks

http://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/member.php?129-latintopxxx

[cdnmatt]

My initial reaction is, a) even without a seatbelt that must have been one hell of a turbulent flight to crack you head against the ceiling of the plane, and b) what the fuck were the pilots thinking? They can see how turbulent it is up ahead, and they decided to just fly right through it? We've all been on flights where the pilot comes on and says, "please take your seats, and buckle in, because we'll be experiencing some turbulence for the next approximately 30 minutes", so it's not like the turbulence was an unexpected surprise.

[frequent]

My initial reaction is, a) even without a seatbelt that must have been one hell of a turbulent flight to crack you head against the ceiling of the plane, and b) what the fuck were the pilots thinking? They can see how turbulent it is up ahead, and they decided to just fly right through it? We've all been on flights where the pilot comes on and says, "please take your seats, and buckle in, because we'll be experiencing some turbulence for the next approximately 30 minutes", so it's not like the turbulence was an unexpected surprise.

Your ignorance of real life is breathtaking - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear-air_turbulence

[cdnmatt]

Your ignorance of real life is breathtaking - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear-air_turbulence

And your accomplishment of being an asshole is outstanding. Go figure, eh?

[fountainhall]

Just to reinforce what has been said by some because most of us fly from time to time - no-one and no on-board system can see all clear-air turbulence. It has absolutely nothing to do with the more normal forms of turbulence that can be seen on weather radar and with the naked eye, the type which immediately has the captain turning on the seat belt sign. It actually happens a lot, much more than is reported in the media, but usually it is relatively mild. When it is bad, pilots who experience it usually relay the information immediately to their ground controllers so they can quickly warn all aircraft flying behind them at the same altitude.

The fact is that almost every pilot on every airline is instructed to remind passengers to keep seat belts loosely fastened even when the seat belt signs are off. Yet around the world there are millions of new passengers every year who fly for the first time. Many will not even listen to announcements. Some announcements may not be in their language. Some aircraft may have the volume of announcements set too low even to be heard (that has happened to me on far more flights than should be the case). In flight, if the sign has been on for more than a few minutes there will always be someone who just has to go to the washroom.

Then there are the poor flight attendants. Violent CAT mostly happens suddenly and unexpectedly, as with hitting what feels like a large air pocket and the aircraft can quite literally fall several hundred feet! Mostly they will be walking around the cabin doing their duties. They are the ones most likely to get hurt - and what happens to the meal and drinks trolleys can cause major accidents. But if you are a passenger, you are a fool if you sit there with your seat belt just dangling by your sides waiting for the sign to tell you to buckle up.

[Andaman!]

My initial reaction is, a) even without a seatbelt that must have been one hell of a turbulent flight to crack you head against the ceiling of the plane, and b) what the fuck were the pilots thinking? They can see how turbulent it is up ahead, and they decided to just fly right through it? We've all been on flights where the pilot comes on and says, "please take your seats, and buckle in, because we'll be experiencing some turbulence for the next approximately 30 minutes", so it's not like the turbulence was an unexpected surprise.

Desperately naive.....

[scottish-guy]

I'd have thought the twatilly-named Sarah-Jayne (who has obviously carried on the family upper-class-twit tradition by ridiculously calling her daughter AsiaLily) would have had a little more education at her fee-paying school than to write "most scariest" in her "note" to hubby.

Having said that, anybody who would say a fellow passenger "looked like an Indian" is obviously from the upper echelons of English society (like our pig-molesting Prime Minister) so perhaps thats about par for the course.

Who the fuck sends "notes" these days anyway - the last one I can think of started "Dear Neville" and ended "Yours, Adolf" - and we all know how that worked out.

[cdnmatt]

Thank you fountainhill for being a gentleman, and explaining CAT. I've honestly never heard of it before, but have been on hundreds of flights, and hell, one that was even struck by lightening. Anyway, thank you again.

Nonetheless, something still doesn't add up. He "bounced off the roof of the plane" according to the article, so that's a good 4 to 5 feet, correct? These commercial airliners aren't technically capable of doing a barrel roll, because they will split into two. So the turbulence was so bad, someone was launched 5 feet upwards and cracked their head on the ceiling so hard they spilt blood all over the place?

Why do I think we're not being told the true story?

[lonelywombat]

I was very concerned about this flight as a family member might have been on board. As it is Canadian flight you probably have more respect for this article, than others who have posted
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/01/world/americas/air-canada-turbulence.html?_r=0
21 Injured on Air Canada Flight After Sudden Turbulence

OTTAWA — Sudden and intense turbulence during an Air Canada flight on Wednesday threw passengers out of their seats, with some hitting the ceiling of the airplane, and resulted in numerous injuries.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is investigating why the jet, a Boeing 777-300ER airliner that was headed to Toronto from Shanghai with 351 people aboard, suddenly plummeted, injuring 21 passengers. The plane made an emergency landing in Calgary, Alberta, on Wednesday afternoon.
The airline said that eight passengers suffered “nonlife-threatening injuries” while the rest were examined and released from a hospital.
Passengers at the airport in Calgary told reporters that blankets and objects flew through the air during the turbulence, and some compared the experience to riding a roller coaster.
As oxygen masks dropped, many people began praying, several said.
“We thought we were dying,” one passenger, Connie Gelber, told CTV, a Canadian broadcaster.
“The ceiling literally fell down,” another passenger, Elizabeth Brayton, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation after arriving in Toronto on a second airplane early Thursday morning. “There was a lot of screaming and a lot of kids crying.”
No medical doctor was on the flight but Suzanne Caudry, a periodontist from Toronto, helped treat passengers’ injuries before the emergency landing.
She told CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/turbulence-injures-21-air-canada-passengers-coming-into-calgary-1.3384986) that she saw two passengers who were not wearing seatbelts thrown into the air.
“Their heads had literally hit the ceiling and actually gone through the plastic,” she said. “The fact that nobody was seriously injured is a miracle.”
In a statement, Klaus Goersch, Air Canada’s chief operating officer, attributed the “very unsettling experience” to turbulence. The safety board offered no immediate cause for the incident.
A version of this article appears in print on January 1, 2016, on page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: Canadian Jet Drops Fast in Turbulence; 21 Are Injured. Order
(https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?contentID=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyti mes.com%2F2016%2F01%2F01%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Fair-canada-turbulence.html&publisherName=The+New+York+Times&publication=nytimes.com&token=&orderBeanReset=true&postType=&wordCount=274&title=21+Injured+on+Air+Canada+Flight+After+Sudden +Turbulence&publicationDate=December+31%2C+2015&author=By%20Ian%20Austen)

[cdnmatt]

What? The original article you linked to said it as a Thai Airways flight from Jakarta to Bangkok, and this new article you posted said it's a Air Canada flight from Shanghai to Toronto, which made an emergency landing in Calgary?

Huh??? Is air turbluence so bad now, people are bouncing off the ceilings on multiple flights?

[lonelywombat]

I am not sure why you are coming across so aggressive. You mentioned posting 10 you did not think people were telling the full story re the Thai flight.
I posted a Canadian flight I knew passengers were probably on. Why is it so difficult to believe?

[cdnmatt]

Apologies. I'll admit I'm in the wrong, and again, my apologies.

No A/C or reliable electic for about a month, work is being a bitch, and various other things. Apologies again.

[fountainhall]

Nonetheless, something still doesn't add up. He "bounced off the roof of the plane" according to the article, so that's a good 4 to 5 feet, correct? These commercial airliners aren't technically capable of doing a barrel roll, because they will split into two. So the turbulence was so bad, someone was launched 5 feet upwards and cracked their head on the ceiling so hard they spilt blood all over the place?

Why do I think we're not being told the true story?
I have zero idea why you should think so - but I can confirm these sort of stories are 100% true. Can you imagine what it is like when a huge airliner weighing goodness knows how many tons suddenly finds itself with no lift - which is part of what happens in CAT? It drops like a stone! Because it is flying so fast, it loses little of its flight configuration and a barrel roll has rarely - if ever - happened. I certainly know of no instances. Fortunately these pockets of airless air are usually relatively small and once the aircraft finds 'real' air that can give it lift it continues on, although perhaps several hundred feet lower. I have experienced lots of CAT over the years, thankfully never anything serious. But when I lived in Hong Kong it was far from uncommon to read about passengers who had been injured as aircraft descended into unstable air near Hong Kong.

It's exactly what would happen to you if a lift you were in in a 50-storey building suddenly dropped 15 floors before stabilising. I'll bet you anything you would certainly hit its roof and end up a bloody mess!!

Another natural phenomenon that pilots have to be extremely careful about is windshear. This normally happens as a plane is close to landing. Basically it is a massive downward burst of air. When it hits the ground ahead of an aircraft it immediately spreads out in all directions and effectively becomes a sudden headwind that pushes the aircraft upwards. To compensate and maintain the position for landing, the captain would usually increase thrust and push the nose down. But once past the centre of the airburst, he finds he suddenly has a tailwind and is now descending far too fast. Windshear has caused several major crashes and used to be one of the major causes of air accidents. Fortunately, most major airport systems are now able to detect windshear and warn pilots well in advance. The same is not true of CAT, unfortunately.

[latintopxxx]

so what we have here is several board members who think it is ok to ignore the crews instructions to remain buckled up. Probably the same nitwits that will blame macdonalds when they burn themselves spilling their coffee cause its hot.LOL. Probably cant walk and chew gum at the same time.

[arsenal]

Scottish: The echelons of high society are not necessarily English. The previous two PMs were both Tartan Nickers. One started a never ending war and the other watched the economy melt away before our eyes. You've got just as many arseholes north of Hadrians wall as there are south of it.

[scottish-guy]

That may well be true - but I'd point to the fact that the two particular arseholes you cite both steadfastly avoided being identified as Scottish.

Indeed, the one-eyed wonder when asked by a world leader "I hear you're from Scotland" infamously replied "Actually I'm North British"

Both the unprincipled, money-grabbing bastards are Uncle Toms To the fullest extent possible and no tears will be shed in Scotland when either or both draw their last breath and pension payment.

Meantime, let's see Blair hauled in front of a War Crimes Tribunal and let's see the so-called "charity" - The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown - investigated by the Charities Commission and possibly the Fraud Squad. I think it's the Guido Fawkes site which has plenty of illustrations of the (alleged) financial shenanigans going on there!

I note that you make no adverse comment though on the current Prime Minister who finds it all a jolly public school jape to stick his dick in a dead pigs mouth or a Chancellor who thinks it's morally acceptable to give tax breaks to the rich while stealing £30 a week from disability benefit claimants.


:p

[arsenal]

Scottish: Really! Brown said that. I didn't know that. Technically I suppose he's correct but it's a slimy thing to say. It's a sort of inverted racism. A very very odd thing to say. I describe myself as being British, English or from The UK depending on the point I'm making. But South British. Ridiculous.

[Yraen]

, so it's not like the turbulence was an unexpected surprise.

Ahhh, Matt, for such a well-travelled person you have learned very little.

Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) is not visible ahead, either on the Mark One Eyeball nor on nose radar.
When it strikes it is often vicious - think of drops up to 10,000 feet caused by vertical wind-shear - and there will be damage to people and equipment.

The thing you got right is that those who "hit the ceiling" should have been wearing their seat belts. Everyone hears the "When seated, please keep your seatbelts loosely fastened" message but there are always "those few" who believe that is everyone except themselves.

Happy trails.

[a447]

In the case of light to moderate CAT the aircraft only falls maybe up to 10 metres. To the passengers though, it feels like it's falling a lot further but in reality, it isn't.

[Nirish guy]

"I describe myself as being British, English or from The UK depending on the point I'm making. But South British. Ridiculous."


Hmm with my being East British, Northern Irish and Ulster Scots I guess I'd better say nothing then ! :)

[christianpfc]

Scare mongering. I don't have numbers, but consider traveling by plane safe.

Can you imagine what it is like when a huge airliner weighing goodness knows how many tons suddenly finds itself with no lift - which is part of what happens in CAT? It drops like a stone! Because it is flying so fast, it loses little of its flight configuration and a barrel roll has rarely - if ever - happened. I certainly know of no instances. Fortunately these pockets of airless air are usually relatively small and once the aircraft finds 'real' air that can give it lift it continues on, although perhaps several hundred feet lower.
Those statements are not physically correct. Even provided there is "hole in the air", the aircraft would continue moving forward, even at the same speed as there is no resistance, and make a descent in parabolic shape. But there is no "hole in the air", just air movements in varying directions. I would say the airplane doesn't necessarily have to go down, it can even go up or sidewards. But the passenger hitting his head on the ceiling (that is probably the hand luggage storage, not the metal tube) indicates the airplane went down.

I note that you make no adverse comment though on the current Prime Minister who finds it all a jolly public school jape to stick his dick in a dead pigs mouth...
You made me curious. What exactly happened?

[cdnmatt]

You made me curious. What exactly happened?

I think John Oliver sums it up better than any of us could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEUD_mMos28

[fountainhall]

Those statements are not physically correct. Even provided there is "hole in the air", the aircraft would continue moving forward, even at the same speed as there is no resistance, and make a descent in parabolic shape. But there is no "hole in the air", just air movements in varying directions. I would say the airplane doesn't necessarily have to go down, it can even go up or sidewards. But the passenger hitting his head on the ceiling (that is probably the hand luggage storage, not the metal tube) indicates the airplane went down.
You are of course correct, but I was merely trying to illustrate a somewhat complex problem regarding sudden changes in air density etc. by offering a much more simple analogy. And aircraft can indeed move upwards in CAT. But we rarely hear about such cases because this forces passengers down into their seats and causes far fewer problems in the cabin. Reports of CAT are much more usually of the "air pocket" variety in which those on board are basically flying upwards because the aircraft appears to have effectively and without warning dropped into a hole.

[a447]

In the case of "severe" CAT, the aircraft can indeed fall 100 metres.

But ask any pilot if he has ever experienced "severe" in his career and odds on the answer will be "never."

It beats me why passengers do not buckle up for the whole journey. Maybe the pre-flight safety video should give them some basic info re: CAT.

[fountainhall]

Maybe the pre-flight safety video should give them some basic info re: CAT.
I really wonder how many passengers actually pay much attention to the safety vdos. My guess based on many millions of kms flown is less than 10%! The problem is that once they have heard one of these vdos or watched the demonstrations the chances are they assume they know it all and don't need to pay attention, even though there are so many different types of aircraft. On airlines flying within the USA I have often heard safety instructions read out so fast it was actually impossible for me to comprehend most of what was actually being said!

And as for checking the printed safety instructions in the seat pocket, I'd further guess the numbers would fall to less than 5%.

So many safety dos are so incredibly boring it's perhaps not surprising most people don't heed their instructions. This one from Virgin America got a lot of praise when it first came out - and it does ask for seat belts to remain bucked whilst seated (at 1'12")


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtyfiPIHsIg

[BonTong]

Nonetheless, something still doesn't add up. He "bounced off the roof of the plane" according to the article, so that's a good 4 to 5 feet, correct? These commercial airliners aren't technically capable of doing a barrel roll, because they will split into two. So the turbulence was so bad, someone was launched 5 feet upwards and cracked their head on the ceiling so hard they spilt blood all over the place?

Why do I think we're not being told the true story?
If a plane suddenly drops a few hundred feet in a matter of seconds.........

In the aviation industry this would count as a serious incident triggering an investigation by the relevant accident investigation authority. Many countries publish their reports on-line - Google is your friend - You will perhaps be surprised how often this occurs. I believe turbulence is the largest cause of aviation industry injuries every year, especially to cabin crew.

[cdnmatt]

No, it can't be just the fact a plane drops. Hell, I've been on a plane before that got hit by lightening. From Mallorca to London, UK to be exact. All the lights and engines went out, and we were free fall for a good 15 - 20 seconds. I don't know how far we fell, but I'm assuming at least a couple thousand feet before the systems rebooted and the engines came back on.

[fountainhall]

All the lights and engines went out, and we were free fall for a good 15 - 20 seconds. I don't know how far we fell, but I'm assuming at least a couple thousand feet before the systems rebooted and the engines came back on.
Odd! I have been in three lightening strikes and absolutely nothing happened apart from a rather loud bang (more like a heavy knock, I guess) on the fuselage. Absolutely no interruption to the flights whatever. The latest was a Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong. This from Scientific American -


Although passengers and crew may see a flash and hear a loud noise if lightning strikes their plane, nothing serious should happen because of the careful lightning protection engineered into the aircraft and its sensitive components.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-when-lightni/

Are you sure the aircraft did not hit turbulence of some kind that just happened to coincide with the lightening strike? That would be relatively natural in severe weather.

[cdnmatt]

I don't know. This would have been when I was 17 years old, so I guess 17 years ago. Maybe planes have upgraded since then, and a bolt of electricity no longer affects them as badly.

But no, no real actual turbulence. Just a big bang, everything shut down, and the plane just started gliding downwards for a good 15 - 20 seconds until the engines rebooted.

[francois]

Come on matt, you changed your story from the plane being in "free fall" to gliding! Big difference. As for lighting protection the real protection is the aircraft are typically made of aluminum or a metallic alloy. Electricity flows around but not through the aircraft. Aircraft made with composite (non-conducting) materials must have a some form of metallic conductor embedded in the composite to offer protection from lighting.

[fountainhall]

That Scientific American paper was written in 2001. It points out that the last actual crash directly attributable to lightning was in 1967 when the strike caused a catastrophic fuel tank explosion. Thereafter there were significant advances in protection techniques with the increasing use of aluminium in fuselage construction being an additional safety measure. I'd therefore suspect - but can't be certain - that turbulence was the primary cause of the disruption to your aircraft's flight. That said, turbulence should not cause engine cut out, whereas lightning getting to some of the on board cabling could.

However, another paper I read this morning points out that the increasing use of composite materials in fuselage construction gives less protection to the fuselage than aluminium which is a better conductor of an electrical charge. However, Airbus devised a method of adding metallic foil strips into the composite materials and this has virtually the same effect. In any case, all aircraft have to undergo extensive lighting strike testing. So despite having flown into BKK several times on an A380 during storms and having to circle the airport with lightning flashing all around that monster plane, it never concerns me - as long as I still have a drink in my hand! ;)

[cdnmatt]

Come on matt, you changed your story from the plane being in "free fall" to gliding! Big difference. As for lighting protection the real protection is the aircraft are typically made of aluminum or a metallic alloy. Electricity flows around but not through the aircraft. Aircraft made with composite (non-conducting) materials must have a some form of metallic conductor embedded in the composite to offer protection from lighting.

Oh geez. Yes, ages ago I was on an airplane that got hit by lightening. Yes, all the electric systems and engines went out, because as it turns out, a bolt of lightening contains a hell of a lot of energy. No, the plane didn't go into a nose dive, because as it just so happens, airplanes are built to fly through the air, and the plane still had its wings, so we had some lift working for us.

Not sure what else you want me to say. It was a 20 second ordeal, before all the systems & engines rebooted, and we were off and running again.

[francois]

But here is a real flight from Hell!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCM9c4AmiX0

[lonelywombat]

Read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/business/aviation/midair-scare-for-etihad-passengers-as-plane-encounters-severe-turbulence-20160504-gomlut.html#ixzz47k8BJLj9

There is an inflight video and photo


Passengers could be heard screaming and crying as their flight encountered severe turbulence.Oxygen masks tumbled from the ceiling, passengers told Jakarta-based news website Okezone .
It happened when I was performing prayer," passenger Nenden Nurhaini told the website. "The plane suddenly began to shake so fast."medical teams met passengers as they disembarked from the Airbus A330-200, which landed safely at Soekarno Hatta International Airport.A spokesman for Jakarta airport, Haerul Anwar, described nine of the injuries as serious.


"Twenty-two are being treated by paramedics for minor injuries at the airport," the airline said in a statement. Nine other passengers have been taken to a local hospital."Cabin storage areas were also damaged in the turbulence. It is not known if any `Australian passengers were on board.

Officials from the airport and Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee are inspecting the plane.
Passengers were left bruised and bloodied after a Thai Airways (http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1460460292) flight carrying 86 passengers from Jakarta to Bangkok hit severe turbulence in April.
In January, passengers on an Air New Zealand flight (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11575919) from Tokyo to Auckland were injured when the plane dropped sharply without warning.


Follow us: @theage on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bRrpOkwwyr34jFadbiUt4I&u=theage) | theageAustralia on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bRrpOkwwyr34jFadbiUt4I&u=theageAustralia)

[fountainhall]

It might have been more appropriate given the title of the thread to have pointed out at the start of the post that this latest incidence of turbulence had nothing to do with Thai Airways. The events took place on an Etihad flight from Abu Dhabi to Jakarta.

[lonelywombat]

Fountainhall there were 37 posts in this thread many from you. Discussion went from this flight to other flights and causes .

[fountainhall]

Fountainhall there were 37 posts in this thread many from you. Discussion went from this flight to other flights and causes .
Yes, the discussion went from the specific to the general. Yet you brought it back to a specific incident that had not been mentioned before without highlighting that. It would, I submit, have been helpful in adding that at the start of the post to avoid incidental readers believing is was connected to the TG flight. Not everyone reads every post especially when there has been more than two weeks break in a thread. But each to his own.

[frequent]

Why do I think we're not being told the true story?Because you're a fool?

[Moses]

Gent, could you please to avoid personal attacks?

[fountainhall]

I'm adding to this thread since its main content is about clear air turbulence when flying. There are reports today of yet another occurrence, this time on a United flight from Houston to London on a Boeing 767. The plane made an emergency landing in Ireland. One passenger reported the plane suddenly dropped four times, injuring two crew members and 14 passengers.


“These were petrifying, enormous drops. A part of me didn’t know if we were going to make it. It was that bad,” he said. “I gripped the armrest and thought whether the next sound was going to be hitting the water . . . I thought: this is not turbulence. This is what feels like a life-threatening drop. This is not like any feeling I have had. This is immediately like an experience of being fired from a cannon.

“It pulls you down so hard then it stops for a second and then it does that four times in a row. If you didn’t have your seatbelt on you would have smashed your head.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/31/united-airlines-passenger-jet-emergency-landing-ireland-shannon-16-injured