Seven hurt when Qantas flight hurts turbulence

[Mal]

Qantas jet in the dark on turbulence risk | The Australian

(Not aimed at you).

Sensationalist enough?

THE inability of radar on a Perth-bound Qantas Airbus to detect ice crystals will be at the centre of an air safety investigation into severe turbulence that threw passengers out of their seats

I'm nearly speechless with that comment. I bet the ATSB will issue an immediate safety bulletin for all airlines to upgrade their radar to detect Clear Air Turbulence and ice crystals.

Or maybe the real issue is that Qantas forgot to install the Crystal Ball option on their planes.

"There was this massive drop and Vicky, who was with us, she didn't have a seatbelt on and she hit the roof, the console, and she actually cracked it and took one of the light covers off," she said.

I presume "Vicky" was seated without a seatbelt on. Belt up flyers!!!!

 

[Blackadder]

If these pax were seated without having the seatbelts done up, as per QF requirements than no sympathy what so ever.

 

[NM]

"Some media reports have suggested the aircraft was travelling through thunderstorms at the time of the incident. There may have been thunderstorms in the vicinity, but there is nothing to suggest the aircraft was actually flying through any storm activity."

You've gotta love this, the media simply making stuff up rather than waiting for the facts...

I think it was more that the media were quoting passengers who really didn't understand the situation. They saw lightning through the windows in the night sky and assumed that means flying "through" thunderstorms.

 

[NM]

If they were not wearing seatbelts then obviously they share a portion of the blame. But the fact remains that whilst encouraged to keep your seat belt on at all times it is not mandatory.

The term used by Qantas in their cabin announcement is "a requirement". I don't want to get get into the definitions of "mandatory" vs "a requirement", but they do seem to have similar meaning in the context of wearing a seat belt.

 

[oz_mark]

I'm nearly speechless with that comment. I bet the ATSB will issue an immediate safety bulletin for all airlines to upgrade their radar to detect Clear Air Turbulence and ice crystals.

It's a good thing the ATSB conduct safety investigations and not journalists. I am sure everyone in the industry, including the ATSB, is aware of the limitations of the on board radar of picking up turbulence.

 

[djfuzz]

Given all that's happened of late, it would be foolish to be seated without wearing a seatbelt.

I do sympathise with any passengers caught out of their seats in or going to the toilet, the snack bar or caught standing for some other reason prior to the seatbelt sign being illuminated.

As always though, it's difficult to tell from the media reports which category the seven who were injured fell into.

 

[mannej]

Silly question but does anyone know the rego of the 330 involved?

Cheers

 

[oz_mark]

Silly question but does anyone know the rego of the 330 involved?

Cheers

I believe it was VH-QPI

 

[Groundfeeder]

I believe it was VH-QPI

I thought it was OMG

 

[harvyk]

I think it was more that the media were quoting passengers who really didn't understand the situation. They saw lightning through the windows in the night sky and assumed that means flying "through" thunderstorms.

But that's half my point. The ATSB need to speak to the pax as it helps them get a clear picture, and they know how to filter out speculation, journo's don't, and infact seem to love printing it. In the off chance they need to print an appology or correction, it can be is size 6 print on page 47. It's funny how corrections are never on page 1 in big print...

 

[mannej]

I believe it was VH-QPI

QPI was responsible for my 10 hour delay doing PER-HKG in Feb. I was surprised that never made the news

 

[simongr]

Just to understand this. Is it likely that the aircraft would have experienced this massive drop without other turbulence beforehand that might have triggered the seat belt light going on?

 

[JohnK]

If they were not wearing seatbelts then obviously they share a portion of the blame. But the fact remains that whilst encouraged to keep your seat belt on at all times it is not mandatory.

That is not fair and is putting the responsibility, that should be with the passenger, back on the airline. Why would you need to have the word "mandatory" in any announcement?

I presume "Vicky" was seated without a seatbelt on. Belt up flyers!!!!

Some people never will never listen.

I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I have learned one thing and that is to keep the seat belt fastened whilst seated which a lot of people do not do especially the ones that lie down across more than one seat.

 

[SnowYeti]

I myself always use the seatbelt when seated. I get laughed at by some of my friends who do not fly much, they think it's rediculous to have to wear one.

 

[Andyzx]

Ice cloud caused Qantas plane to drop 250m

This thread is similar to others started on QF reporting but on the specific flight HKG to PER flight in June 2009 where 219 passengers and crew on the flight from Hong Kong in June last year, 13 received medical treatment and seven suffered minor injuries when the plane hit clouds containing ice crystals and dropped about 250m

These are the first 3 paragraphs of the online stories.

SMH reported (copied without permission from smh.com)
Both Qantas pilots and a radar system failed to detect cloud made up of ice crystals, which caused the plane to drop about 250 metres, while on a flight from Hong Kong to Perth.
Passengers and crew were hurled around the cabin when the flight hit "convective turbulence" about two hours into the June 2009 flight.
An investigation into the incident, released today, found the type of severe turbulence experienced had "minimal detectability" by aircraft weather radar.

The Australian reported (copied without permission from smh.com)
QANTAS flight crew on board a plane that plunged suddenly, injuring seven people, didn't detect ice clouds causing turbulence, the aviation watchdog says.
Passengers aboard the Qantas A330-300 Airbus bound for Perth said the drop was like a fall from a 30-storey building.
They told of their horror as passengers who were not strapped into their seats were flung around the cabin.

If you read further into the articles
The clouds had minimal detectability by aircraft radars and the pilots had little opportunity to see them in the early hours of the morning with no moon, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said. Qantas is upgrading their A330 fleet radar

There were 2 other minor safety issues
No lid on the pilot’s library storage, now replaced by electronic versions and Manual locking of the door prevented access to the area by others. A change to the standing orders has been issued.
My question is how balanced the articles are as most people only read the headline and few paragraphs. Is this fair balances and informative.
:arrow:

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Ice cloud caused Qantas plane to drop 250m

The full ATSB report is here:

AO-2009-029

People won't read too much into the headlines I don't think. The fact it isn't up the front of the paper suggests there isn't a beat up on it.. as the ATSB said, no QF or the pilots fault.

 

[harvyk]

I've seen the articles on both news.com.au and smh.com.au. IMHO, smh.com.au has provided a whole heap of facts, and that's it, news.com.au has given a very short article, but they lose points for using the following

"They told of their horror", which is emotive language, however they do deserve points for
A. not making this a featured news article.

and

B. not using the name Qantas in the title.

Infact it's very unlike news limited, as there is no real beat up (it looks more like an article which they would publish for another airline) which makes me think QF have whispered in their ear about advertising $$$ and a potential lack of.

 

[medhead]

"There was this massive drop and Vicky, who was with us, she didn't have a seatbelt on and she hit the roof, the console, and she actually cracked it

I presume "Vicky" was seated without a seatbelt on. Belt up flyers!!!!

No need to presume it clearly says Vicky wasn't wearing a seat belt.

 

[nlagalle]

No need to presume it clearly says Vicky wasn't wearing a seat belt.

In cases where people are seated without belts on, they should be excluded from trying to claim any "damages" beyond basic medical care. Or suing the airline for "pain and suffering".

 

[serfty]

I guess there's no need to beat up now the engineers and Qantas have reached agreement.