Passenger dies after Boeing 777 experiences turbulence | DW News
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- At least one person has died after a passenger jet hit severe turbulence while traveling from London to Singapore. Dozens of others are injured. Flight data suggests the plane, a Boeing 777, dropped some six thousand feet in five minutes. Witnesses say those not wearing seatbets were launched to the ceiling. The jet was forced to make an emergency landing in Bangkok.
0:00 Intro
2:17 Julian Bray, Aviation Security Expert
6:11 Jacob Goldberg, Journalist
Subscribe: ruclips.net/user/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
#boeing777 #singaporeairlines #turbulence
![Kehlani - Next 2 U [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MpI7ekFG8A0/mqdefault.jpg)
this is the exact reason my seatbelt stays on the ENTIRE FLIGHT unless i am getting up for the restroom.
Yup
Thats what you are supposed to do when flying.
the thing is people like me who go to the restroom like 5 to 7 times during 13 hours flights are the risk cause walking to the restroom and in the restroom dont have seatbelt. the incident like this really adding up to the fear of the flight.
@@Mansikkacake True, but you probably would avoid high-risk times.
Mine too. I loosen it all the way but never detach. As a pilot, I have experienced CAT firsthand.
The 777 is not carbon fiber that is the 787, that expert is not so expert.
Correct, it is an “aluminium plane”.
@@gcm4312 It's not just inferred from clouds. Doppler radar is looking at change in velocity data so he is exactly right it can see areas of turbulence, or to be exact, areas with rapid wind speed changes which causes a frequency spread in the reflected signals.
The 777 is made of carbon composites .
@@jkardez4794 777 was designed in 93-94, before composites.
The 777 is heavy, very heavy. That's why it can't compete with Airbus 350-xxxx. The 350 is much lighter, thus can fly further and use less fuel.
The new 777, the one Boeing can't get certified, it might be made different. At earliest, we will see it in 2026.
It's a Boeing it could be anything!
Thank God they didn't crash but my condolences to the one individual who died.
Airplanes handle turbulence just fine, unlike the unbelted passengers bouncing around at random inside.
@@inyobill totally agreed. tens of million of flights every year, not a single crash because of turbulence. Still it is possible to crack your skull open if you get thrown across like a football in severe turbulence
It is not true that the plane "dropped" 6000 feet. The descent toward Bangkok from 37,000 feet to 31,000 was not part of the turbulence event, but a standard controlled descent to a new flight level, and was after the turbulence
Yes. Also, 1200 ftm is slower than the elevators on the Burj Khalifa tower (if the 33 foot per second value is correct).
That`s probably not the only untrue detail about this incident.
@@RuiLeTuboThe difference is that it's an uncontrolled action .
@@jkardez4794 the point is actually that the 6000 feet descent was controlled. Many news media mixed up between the turbulence and the change in flight level by the pilot afterwards.
If you feel uncomfortable with the seatbelt on, loosen it to keep you in, so long as you keep it on
I would feel more comfortable to know that the plane I'm flying has actually gone through quality control. People will stand up and go to the toilet and baggages will fly away in such a fall, seatbelts wont save the lives more than having proper quality controls.
Of course belts should be in place, but engineering NOT being in place is literally illegal.
@@gaarakabuto1the original 777 was certified for safety, this is not a max series issue. No plane in the world can guarantee your safety in a turbulence without a seat belt on. Boeing is getting a lot of deserved scrutiny, but this one is not on them. People want to avoid a minor discomfort that is the seat belt and many don't put it on unless forced to.
02:26 "777 is carbon fiber"
.......expert?.....really.....
they use it in it's tail plane
Your flying at 550mph at 39 thousand feet, - keep your belt on always.
There’s some very stubborn people that don’t think rules apply for them and now suffered the consequences.
Why? One incident of death out of millions of flights..
Yes, belts should be on whenever seated. However, everyone can't keep their belts on at every moment. That's a long flight, and some would want to walk around to stretch, and some passengers on their way to and from the toilet. What about cabin crew attending to customers' needs?
@@naszadynastia When seated obviously.
@@paulgifis1908 When seated it's required!
I have always kept my seat belt on during the whole flight. It seemed foolish not to.
When the food cart flies into you it is not fun
For me it’s just not possible. I need to go to toilette almost every 1/2 hour if I’m not sleeping.
@@corvomicheleDo you have bladder issues ?
I keep the seatbelt on at all times.
I never fly on airplanes.🙂
High time seatbelts become mandatory full time in planes. You don’t like it - walk, run, swim, take a car (wearing a seatbelt) or risk breaking your neck because of turbulence. Easy to fix. Saves injuries and lives.
Also protects innocent seatbelt wearers from being hit by the non belt wearing missiles/ sacks of meat
I can’t imagine being in the bathroom when this happens.
There's actually a jackass video that might sate your curiousity
It would hit the fan
Beat me to it! @@barrywest9456
It's not a bathroom. Lavatory is a new word for you step up your VOCAB
That “6,000 foot drop” was a smooth and completely normal 1,200FPM decent from 37,000ft to 31,000ft as their initial decent toward Bangkok. It was completely unrelated to the turbulence and was planned.
Right, the turbulence was different and much quicker: "The plane's vertical speed, the rate by which the plane ascends or descends, quickly surged to 1,664 feet per minute before plummeting to -1,536 feet per minute in a matter of three seconds."
Years ago, my nonstop flight from Los Angeles to Frankfurt, had to make an emergency landing in Chicago because turbulence had caused a heavy food cart unit to fly up into the air and land on the leg of a stewardess, as well as some injured passengers who had not heeded the captain’s announcement about the seatbelt requirement due to a turbulence warning 20 minutes prior to when it actually hit. All the passengers, including myself who fastened our seatbelts had no issues. I discovered that there was a passenger sound asleep face down, holding a pillow in the center row ahead of me because he suddenly levitated above the seats with eyes popping out from the shock of being awakened to discover that he was floating for about one second. What startled me was the sound of the plane when it encountered the turbulence. It was an enormous BOOM, probably caused by the luggage hold, as well as the items in the overhead bins suddenly banging in one synchronous moment from the severe drop in altitude. The shrieking from some of the passengers was also frightening. I had to spend the night in Chicago. I will be surprised to learn that there was no advanced warning of the turbulent conditions once the investigation concludes.
I worked for a very large airport operating company, we had to deal with an issue where a scheduled flight hit severe turbulence with a coffin as hold cargo.
Far too many people walk around, insist on going to the toilets & not wearing seat belts, even when the seat belts signs are ON! Crazy.
KEEP your Seatbelt ON even if the seatbelt light is OFF!
A complete ban on carry-on luggage would be going way too far. You could make a rule that passangers aren't allowed to access the over-head compartments for part or all of the flight, and that would be more than enough. Carry on bag dimensions can be changed as well.
Airlines lose your checked bags so often, and also often make you wait a ridiculously long time for your checked luggage, and charge unreasonable rates for luggage, and there's still lots of space in those overhead compartments, so it would be totally absurd to ban carry on luggage completely.
The problem is many passengers break the rules by taking well over the weight limit luggage on board and they inconvenience other passengers by holding up the aisle while passengers are trying to board by trying to put their over size bags into the above lockers also passengers who do the correct thing by taking carry on luggage which is the correct weight often find it hard to find locker space if they board towards the end of the queue because selfish passengers with over size bags have taken up all the luggage space .
Where is there any evidence that overhead luggage caused any problems in this event? I get the sense the old guy is just a whiner who hates other people doing things differently than him, and has no evidence that overhead luggage was a problem here. Instead it was lack of seat belts and dinner service happening when this turbulence event hit.
Wow, the amount of misinformation in this report is ridiculous. Get your facts right DW!
Kudos to the pilot he managed to make emergency landing safely and saves 200+ lives.🙏
That expert is not quite an expert. He says the 777 is a carbon fiber aircraft. It is NOT. Also, it's a 30 year old design.... great aircraft that I designed many systems for, but it is NOT state of the art... it was... but isn't. And he talked about "infrared radar".... no such thing.... the first R in radar stands for Radio. Did he mean LIDAR maybe?
Yeah, unfortunately, many TV "experts" are anything but.
Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with the knowledge from this expert.
Parts of it are made out of carbon fiber, but I think it is still inaccurate to refer to it as a "carbon fibre aircraft", as most of it is definitely not made out of carbon fibre.
At first I thought it was a newer variant because of him referring to it as being made out of carbon fibre, and carbon fibre variants have been proposed, but none have been put into production yet as far as I'm aware.
Mentioning that it's made out of carbon fibre also wouldn't have been relevant even if it was a carbon fibre body aircraft, unless it had suffered a major failure and he wanted to discuss the properties and issues related to the material.
@@syncmonism I believe the wings on the latest 777 are of carbon fiber. The fuselage is conventional aluminum.
Should be a full investigation into I'm guessing another boeing safety issue.
That 70 year's old couldn't take it
May his soul rest in peace ✌🏽
so the lesson is to wear seatbelt all the time.
The old bloke is talking from his a*s! A passenger is not allowed to carries a hand luggage or whatever during an emergency exit on the chute, so his justification that no luggage should be carry on board is BS.
I have buckled up at all times for the last 40 years since I had my dinner tray at my eye level in a flight.
Seat belts save lives, rest in peace that one passenger
Secondly... this is not a Boeing issue... this is a flight issue.... any plane in this environment... would of had the same issues....
Correct. Boeing does get a bad rap deservedly for a few of their models but the 777-300ER has a strong track record. This was just bad turbulence, and the one death appears to have been a heart attack and not blunt force.
"would have" or "would've" (which is a concatenation of "would have"), but DEFINITELY NOT "would of". Wtf does "would of" even mean!? You an american!?
@@TheRealEtaoinShrdlu DW is German and has an international audience. Don't assume everyone is American or speaks English as their first language. On that note, the correct term is contraction.
I hope this doesn't lead to many changed policies, if given that these types of incidents are extremely rare. Of course, keeping seat belt on while seated, even loosely, is always better than having it unbuckled. B777s are not carbon fiber, btw.
Does not the crew tell you to wear your seat belts at all times when seated? Now you know why.
These days everyone wants to be an entitled Karen and do the opposite.
Not really, except during take off and landing. And if there will be a turbulence ahead during flight then they will announce.
@@gjmob I hate these Karens. Don't know what to do with them when they feel entitled to step on others
@@donovan8747if you fly often, you’d know, that all passengers are advised to keep their seatbelts on at all times when seated. It’s the entitled folks who choose not to listen to advise or instructions, pretty much like people, who stand around outside toilet cubicles on planes, even when seatbelt signs are on! I’ve seen it far more times than I care to remember.
@@donovan8747 Most airlines I know make a recommendation during the safety video suggesting people keep their seatbelts fastened when in your seat at all times. Not much different than when in a car.
That must have been terrifying to drop 6000 ft in altitude. Condolences to the deceased loved ones and passengers aboard this flight!
They didn't, it was a controlled and scheduled descent that had nothing to do with the turbulence. Also the plane is not made out of carbon fiber. Also not "state of the art" plane, although being very reliable it is considered a somewhat old design. The reporting on this piece was very bad
Confucius say: He who is in airplane bathroom during extreme turbulence is going to Bangkok.
Ever since I saw the episode about Aloha Airlines' roof blowing off on National Geographic channel, I always keep my seat belt on throughout the flight.
Like 50 people out of 210 did not have seatbelt, that's like 25%, thats crazy, how can you make such a flight without seatbelt on the whole time?
Turbulence???
5 minutes???
it seems like the nose of the plane taking over...
It seems pretty unusual to fall 5000 feet in five minutes from turbulence, but who knows I’m no expert. I bet they find something else out about what happened.
Not wearing your seat belt seems like riding a motorcycle without a helmet, dumb. How hard is it? Especially experienced flyers at least your head wouldn’t hit the ceiling.
The only thing dumber than riding a motorcycle is riding one without a helmet
Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is still far, far more dangerous.
And, let's be real here, your chances of life threatening injury are still much higher in a car than flying in a plane with no seatbelt, even if we're counting risk per hour of travel rather than kilometer flown.
The only thing safer than flying is taking the train (on average), and maybe also biking if it's done on purpose built bike paths.
Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is like 2 orders of magnitude more dangerous. Flying in a plane with no seatbelt is already safer than a car. But yea, just wear it. There's no reason not to.
A lot of people don't like to wear seatbelts in flight and they take the turning off of the seatbelt lightsign as an invitation of doing so (eventhough everyone I know does make an announcement suggesting you keep it on). It's not a difficult ask, but as the saying goes, give people an inch, they'll take a mile.
@@joetran8798get in a vehicle and buckle up. Then the journey starts….why take off the seat belt? Risk has passed? NO…then why on a plane?
Luggage ia not the issue.. the doors are the point of failure
Yeah, I wonder why he brought up the carry-on in the conversation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the incident. Even an airplane had no overhead luggage space, people could fly and crash into the ceiling in such turbulence. Then such an expert would blame the ceiling and asked for the ceiling of the plane to be removed?
Horrible "expert" they found this time. They guy doesn't even know what material one of the most popular planes of all time is made of
Protect your Boeing whistleblower this time.
Dear DW.
You should be able to find a better "expert".
The guy opening statement is "the 777 is made of carbon fiber" 😂 legit made me laugh out loud
@@rafael_lana That's why I started this thread.
@@rafael_lana exactly. 777 has aluminum fuselage and composite wings. It's the 787 that has composite fuselage with carbon fibre, not the older-school 777
I dont believe the average person has any idea of flight and impacts on aircraft from weather conditions or air turbulence during flight. This is exactly why seat belts are to be worn all the time whist seated. My condolences to the family of the deceased. People need to follow rules whilst seated, its not hard to understand.
Even a loosely fastened seat belt protects you from hitting the overhead, also stow cabin baggage either in locker or under seat when you are not accessing it. Personally I only use a small soft carry on bag for this very reason
My condolences. That is terrific turbulence. Let this be a PSA to all of the travelling public.
I’m sure the Pilots were scared themselves. They should be praised for the safety landing
Seatbelts should always be be fastened, for the whole duration of the flight.
The question will be if this happen, are you will be allowed to use the restroom facilities in the future
Imagine Boeing 777, such a huge aircraft got hit, that was deadly
According to witnesses on the SQ flight, the passengers who went to the restroom were the ones most hurt during the turbulence. I had a few bad experiences myself during travel while I was in the restroom when the aircraft hit turbulence. There are signs in the toilet asking you to return to your seats.
Passengers were NOT "launched into the air" @7:15 - being unattached to the aircraft by seat belts, when the aircraft dropped out from under them the unattached passengers obeyed Newton's First Law and kept moving at the same speed and direction as before the aircraft dropped until the dropping aircraft smashed its ceiling into their heads, changing their direction of motion to once again match that of the aircraft.
"launched into the air" is not a technical term, but there is air inside the cabin, and passengers could very much be "launched" into it or made "airborne" inside of the cabin.
You're a pedant, and a bad one at that.
@@syncmonismdon't deny him his moment .
@@syncmonism Merriam-Webster defines "launch" as "to put into operation or set in motion" .. the passengers were not set in motion they were already in motion, and maintained that motion .. it was the aircraft that changed direction abruptly. There are no alternative "facts" a fact is a truth. Period. Sticks and stones can't hide your ignorance.
…because climate??
It’s a bit ironic since plane flight burns huge amounts of fuel.
We had big storms before the invention of the wheel ffs, not everything is pollution related
This is why I am that guy that will remind you to keep your seat belt on.
The complete ignorance some people have on planes, be less selfish and this could have been less of a disaster.
For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Keep your seatbelts on unless you’re going to the bathroom or disembarking.
No the jet was pushed down by by the air faster than you could fall! That is why people appeared to float into the roof. Seat belts have been used for decades this is not related to climate!
Sadly, turbulence can be deadly
That was why some passengers escape without any injury
While 30+1 was injured
Few of them seriously injured
When I flew back in the 70’s all we carried on board was a small briefcase with some books
I once took off in a plane in New Zealand (in the summer of 2001) where the Italian contingent in our tour group was so caught-up in a group conversation that they refused to sit down for take-off. Since it was a small plane (like 100 seats) carrying only our tour group and the Italians would not take their sits, the plane took off with them standing up.
Kid you not. I was there.
It’s rare to fly out of your seat due to turbulence, but it’s still a wise idea and I keep my seatbelt on even if the sign is not on for it.
It sounds to me like what you're trying to say is that in the future, we won't be allowed to take our seatbelts off on the plane..
The man who passed away died because of a heart attack. How does wearing a seatbelt stop a heart attack in turbulence? This is such deceptive headlining.
The terror is enough to cause someone with heart issue to have immediate heart attack. Thd adrenaline rush causes it.
If it was not for the incident he may not have had a heart attack because extreme stress can help to bring a heart attack on quickly .
🤦
STOP !!! with the misinformation about 6000 feet. That was a normal descent to land. The turbulence lasted about 7 seconds and the plane went up 100 feet and then down 300 feet suddenly ; that's why people who did not wear seatbelt hit their heads. 2000 FEET PER MINUTE IS A NORMAL DESCENT RATE FOR LANDING
Every pilot knows Bay of Bengal very severe turbulence no passengers were allowed to move or walk around . The pilots did not give the warnings and the cabin crews served breakfast passing this area. Imagine the food trolleys flew up and hit those passengers. For frequent flyers passing thru this area pilots will inform to seat and buckled up
How can you be in a plane plummeting to the ground and potentially dying and still think about taking video footage on your phone. Strange world we live in today.
It wasn't "plummeting", that was a normal descent rate after the turbulence
Reminds of the 'Key and Peele turbulence' skit.
Which airlines?
You should be belted in at all times unless you are getting up for the toilet etc. You can even wear it somewhat loosely but still secure. You'll get a good jerk but you won't hit your head on the ceiling.
I do admit to be the type of passengers that will unbuckle when the seatbelt sign is off or when meals are served. However I have never complained if the seatbelt sign remains on for what I perceive as "a very long time". This unfortunate accident obviously will make me be a lot more cautious next time.
I always wear my seatbelt, but I might loosen it up some. While it is wise to do so I think turbulence to the point where someone gets slammed onto the ceiling is pretty rare though safe travels!😊
There will be a lot of concussions and some serious head injuries.
pilot saved the plane from crashing
Yes, luckily they were never passed out. Under manual control, anything can happen
Definitely not Boeing fault seatbelts would’ve saved so many only one would’ve been hurt from that falling piece
Does it really matter for what brand of jetliner ?
What happened to the guy in restroom?
He had bad injuries.
I flew AA once and that pilot hit every damn bump in the sky from Texas to Georgia!
What occured to me is that I haven't seen videos from inside the flight as it happened. I suppose the turbulence occured in an instant that no one was able to hit record. Or something is missing?
You honestly need video evidence of everything??? 🙄
No it was sudden, I imagine it would be like trying to get your phone out to record while you were falling off a cliff
Makes you wonder 🤔🤔🤔
@@notoriousresearcher The plane might have security cameras on it. That would actually make sense if it did, but I wouldn't be suprised if they don't have any, or only have one at each entrance and one in the cockpit.
6000ft? In meters?
People get up even with the seatbelt light on. Flight Attendants don’t bother trying to get them back in the seats.
But even with the seatbelt light you have keep the seatbelt on even when seated.
That’s why seatbelts are super important to fasten. People 🙄
“some of other poor people were doing the somersaults” idk why it made me chuckles. i dont think its the appropriate expressions but ok 😂
The Boeing 777-300ER actually has some carbon fibre applications to it, like in the tailplane and other few strategic parts, but not largely as the 787. So, there is some truth in what the expert is saying, folks.
NO, they weren't launched toward the ceiling as the title of the clickbait thumbnail describes. The producer got the physics all wrong. The plane suddenly & very quickly lost altitude and unattached items were quickly "left behind". TD
The guy said quote " some poor ppl walking around ended up doing somersault " lol ... i mean what does he mean by poor ppl? Thats bizarre
my question is, the fight has all data related to the weather conditions. is that not possible to get notification before we face the turbulance, and based on that the pilot might take the decison
They knew of the bad weather, but pockets of turbulence can form is fractions of a second inside said weather. Real time localized prediction of turbulence is waaaaay out of our league with current technology. Would require an ammount of sensors and computing power bordering omniscience.
@@rafael_lana Yes you are right. When i was travelling once, before the start of the fight the pilot informs the passengers about the weather of the target destination. As you said, prediction of localized weather is not still available is sad thing. We are in the era of technological height like going mars, moon, building space station, and many other innovations and still we could not solve these problems. MH370 and many other airlines which we lost still not found.
What will happen if you are in restroom in this case? Can you hold on something to be safe?
There might be a bar to helped stabilize the elderly or handicapped, although at similar force it could dislocate one’s shoulder 🤔 better than dying though
According to witnesses on the SQ flight, they were the ones most hurt during the turbulence when they were stuck in their toilets. I had a few bad experiences myself in travel while I was in the toilet when the aircraft hit turbulence. There are signs in the toilet asking you to return to your seats.
Those not wearing belts got run into by a 777
Who records weather? Or what records weather? Cuz i cant imagine someone sitting just recording the sky atmosphere... and to be able to see something thats invisible amazing...
What's the reason for calling it a "Boeing 777", when it's a Singapore Airlines flight... The fact that it's a Boeing 777 has absolutely*nothing to do with turbulence!*
It appears that you are just feeding the "Boeing feeding frenzy" in the press, disappointing for DW!
777 has advanced weather Radar the plane automatically when it enters a turbulence location and possibly the pilot and copilot fall asleep, so it is unable to avoid turbulence location
Were there carry-on bags that caused injuries?
Yeah, keep your seat belt on. Just poop on the blanket, but keep your seat belt on and enjoy the smell. Especially on a 13-hour flight.
There's a reason why they tell you to keep your seatbelt on. Fly Airbus if you can, otherwise just listen to the staff.
Approximate time line from director of aerial radio control of Thailand
2.49 p,m, (GMT+7) the plane faced the incident (drop from the turbulence) around Irrawaddi area of Myanmar
Pilots made contact to Myanma radio control
10 minutes later, Myanma radio control made contact to Thai radio control and told the pilots wanna have emergency landing at Bangkok due to medical emergency,
3,05 p.m. Thai radio control navugated the landing and told other flights to hold,
3.52 p.m, the plane landed and revacuation operation was started.
So, in Europe, where everything is metric, we still use feet for aviation?
they always remind passengers to put the seatbelts tied at all time...but some just want to stand---or roam around...and this happen---
Great headline. Making it sound like the plane didn't have seatbelts 👍
Flying First Class in a private suite is not as much fun, when belted down. I will take my chances!
.
Dropping 1.5km is a brutality 😅
In 3-4 minutes. That's a normal descent rate.
Do they put cushioning on the ceiling? Would that even help?
Its better to have your seat belt and avoid slaming your head/neck in the first place, cushion or not.
Remember, every additional item adds weight and constricts your breathing space
At least it's all smooth and no edges with very minimal right angles. The fact the one death appears to be a heart attack and not from blunt force seems to be a testament to the internal design.
They've got bubble wrap allover the ceiling.
What role did the plane play here? It was a Boeing after all
The media nowadays:
"hard landing" = crash
"turbulence" - Nose dive
5 minutes to drop 6,000 feet 😳😳😳
Seatbelts are there for a reason, they do say wear them while seated although not mandatory (yet), it's tough if you are going to toilet or returning.
Gaz UK
It’s mandatory during an air turbulence, and when taking off and when landing. That’s what the seat belt signs are for. It’s not a suggestion. They turn off when not needed
Why does that only happen to other people? My flights are always boring.
*RIP to the Seatbelt can be OFF sign*
My violin in the hull? I would rather hitchhike to my destination!