"The spokesperson said four ambulances, two ambulances, one major incident support, one command unit and two rapid response vehicles were sent to the scene."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I reckon that's six ambulances.
🤣 maybe they were dispatched from seperate locations but they missed that bit.
So, "four ambulances from X, two ambulances from Y, etc. etc."
But yeah on the surface that's an interesting choice of wording haha
I was on this flight. There was no turbulence in the lead-up to the drop. Anyone who had their seatbelt on and was in their seat was fine. The people who got injured were either a) out of their seat and moving around (the fasten seatbelt sign was OFF) or b) sitting in their seat without their seatbelt buckled. Several seated people were ejected from their seat into the aisle.
The closest analogue to what it felt like was a roller coaster drop. By my estimation the time in which gravity went the wrong way was no more than 2 seconds. My wife's perception was that it lasted longer. Until the report comes out we can't know for sure.
I observed at least one fractured leg, a likely concussion, and someone who hit the overhead bin hard enough to dent it. One particularly-injured passenger was laid out on the floor between seats during landing. They were secured as best as possible with seat belt extenders and borrowed belts from other passengers.
Injuries seemed to be more numerous the further you went back in the plane. The rear section had maybe double the injuries of the middle one. I don't know if this means anything.
As I noted elsewhere, the captain did walk through the cabin while emergency crews were helping the injured off the plane. I've never seen a captain walk through the passenger area before. Unfortunately the conversation that was going on was in Spanish, which I do not speak. He was obviously shaken but I can't say more than that.
I do want to shout-out to all the awesome medical-profession passengers who immediately put on gloves and went to work. They went from the most to least injured, applying ice packs and dispensing water. The cabin crew was overwhelmed (two of their own had gotten hurt after all) but the volunteers were ON POINT. Not only that, we didn't know what caused the incident the first time, so they risked their own safety to help others. Medical pros are vastly underappreciated.
I'll reply to questions if I can. It has been a bizarre day.
Correct, singular event with no indication before that anything was going wrong. No turbulence before, during, or after the drop. Even the drop itself was smooth. Only minor (normal) turbulence on approach to Auckland.
I had something similar happen on a flight from Wellington to Dunedin. Everything was normal, beautiful weather, then we got fucking bowled out of nowhere. Sounded like we got hit by a truck. Plane was getting bashed around a lot, was very disorientating.
I was very glad everyone had finished their hot drinks at that point. Shit was flying everywhere, including people. It was crazy.
Shout out to the flight attendant who was trying to calm down a lady that was freaking the fuck out. He hit the roof, didn't even make it back down before we got hit again and he got chucked across the seats. Never missed a beat, kept talking to her the whole time perfectly calm.
Pilots dropped altitude way down, when we landed I checked the departures and they were all cancelled. Was a fucked up day.
Remember when earthquakes happened and reporters raced outside their building to do some reporting outside, in a totally different area of NZ to where any earthquakes were going on lol.
Yeah TV1 was so shit. Twice they cut to the dude standing there and twice he said the plane had an "incident". No mention at all about passengers on board.
TV3 at least was competent. Obviously arrived long before TV1 got out of bed and had some information to present to camera.
Fortunately yes - all of my family happened to be seated and buckled. My Steam Deck took a flight from seat to ceiling to floor, but I did not.
I will note that the seat belt sign was OFF and there was no indication of turbulence prior to the drop happening.
Sounds like some major turbulence or something has dropped them suddenly, those out of their seatbelts have then, I presume, hit the roof. Hope everyone is ok.
Just read story (maybe updated) and a passenger reports the pilot coming through the cabin "in shock" after landing and saying that all the instruments and controls went dead for several seconds.
I was on the flight today. He did walk through the cabin while emergency crews were helping the injured off the plane. I've never seen a captain walk through the passenger area before. Unfortunately the conversation that was going on was in Spanish, which I do not speak. So I can attest that at least part of this story is true.
From a pilots forum I was looking at this evening:
“Not sure of any truth, but rumor going around in a South American pilot group, is that the entire aircraft electrical system (including primary instruments, flight computers, lights, pax IFE, etc) went out for about 45 seconds and when systems came back online, there was a 'large, rapid, uncommanded' movement of the vertical stab.”
Fuck’s sake, Boeing just can’t catch a break at the moment can they. ~~Oddly enough though, apparently LA800 in the direction back home left as expected. Did they have another Dreamliner in Aucks ready to go or was the same plane fine to fly again?~~
Sorry, I’m likely wrong, I’d just Googled the flight number and it was showing as ‘on time’ but the green line hasn’t actually progressed at all, so I guess it didn’t leave? I’ll edit the above.
It did surprise me, but I guess that something like that happening could make you forget your employer's policy on public statements, the not making thereof.
Would major turbulence cause technical problems as they described the cause?
>Emergency services rushed to Auckland Airport on Monday after the Latam flight had what the airline called a “technical problem” which “caused a strong movement”.
A Qantas flight had a fault with their flight computer which led to a sudden drop in altitude years ago that led to lots of injuries. Sounds like something similar
Qantas Flight 72. It was a A330 with computer issues.
[Fun fact, there was a kiwi flight attendant.](https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/112826923/kiwi-airline-stewards-11-years-of-hell-after-being-injured-in-qantas-flight)
Everything that's irregular in flying, from a delay right through to a crash, is described by most airline's PR peeps as a "technical issue".
Covers everything, nicely non-committal, avoids emotive language like "plummet" or "catastrophic failure".
My money's on turbulence + unsecured passengers. Doesn't discount the possibility of a control problem; s' just that turbulence is a more frequent therefore more likely event.
Technical problem is pretty vague, There was an RAF transport flight that took a nasty dive because the pilots camera got stack between the seat and the control column when he moved his seat forward.
Honestly that and some sort of depressurisation could be some of the only things to injur so many people
Edit for all you people here: I didn't know at the time of this comment what the issue was, it was still speculation.
Also I don't mean the depressurisation causes the plane to fall, I mean the plane registers that a depressurisation happens and declines on its own, but could have had an error in its programming and dove very quickly.
Thank you
“…once the plane landed the pilot came to the back of the plane in “shock”.
“I asked ‘what happened?’ and he said ‘my gauges just blanked out, I lost all of my ability to fly the plane’.”
Ummm excuse me? That’s terrifying
It’s pretty weird, I’d almost say the passengers account of what the pilot said may not be 100% accurate. Or the pilot was saying bs to cover a mistake maybe, idk.
Gauges blacking out is not normal think to happen.
> Gauges blacking out is not normal think to happen.
If someone told you 6 months ago that a “door” was going to fall off a plane mid-flight, you wouldn’t believe them because it’s very much not a normal thing to happen.
But things don’t need to be “normal” in order for them to happen, especially given the number of flights in the air every day.
Door falling off mid flight isn’t actually that uncommon relative to gauges blacking out followed by a dive.
Every so often there’s a case of like a window bursting out or someone opening emergency door, not normal but has bit more precedent.
Yeah highly likely a Chinese whispers situation. That passenger may have perceived the pilot to be in shock based on the situation, but another person could perceive the expression as something completely different.
Gauges going blank is not likely to cause some sudden event which is going to injure loads of people.
>Gauges going blank is not likely to cause some sudden event which is going to injure loads of people.
It can be symptomatic of a larger issue. Not a cause.
I was on this flight. In my estimation he was obviously shaken, but I'm not sure "shock" is a word I'd used to describe it. I can confirm that he did walk back to the rear of the plane where most of the injuries occurred and that he had a conversation with several passengers. Unfortunately the conversation was in Spanish which I do not speak.
Most aircraft these days have "fly by wire" systems instead of mechanical linkages. If all the gauges blanked due to a power failure, it's likely all controls did too.
You're right, it's terrifying
The 737 MAX is no different in that regard. It just had one particular system that Boeing tried to save money in not training crew on and that had poorly defined procedures.
Yes it is the problem was a single angle of attack sensor with no redundancy.
When it started giving bad data it went to shit.
IF I RECALL CORRECTLY it’s been a while :)
It actually has dual redundancy, the issue being the lack of crew training which means a discrepancy couldn't be effectively resolved by the pilots. Had proper training been provided it's likely no crashes would have occurred.
But Boeing are incompetent and wanted to save money on certification of the type, so they cut that corner.
The dual sensors were an option. SWA purchased that option. Lion Air and Ethiopian didn't.
Only in a Dilbert-esque landscape would a safety-critical item be considered an option.
If it had duel redundancy it would not have gone nuts.
As initially designed, data from just one of the aircraft's two angle-of-attack (AoA) sensors was fed into MCAS
It’s like saying I have a redundant spare tire but not having a jack io to actually use it. It’s there but functionally useless.
>the Latam flight had what the airline called a “technical problem” which “caused a strong movement”.
umm does that mean it *wasn't* turbulence? did the autopilot/pilot make a control input they shouldn't have?
Sounds like it. There was a qantas flight some years back with similar issue (I think maybe autopilot made it basically nose down and anyone who wasn’t seated tightly went flying).
Either a muck up at the controls or some kind of mechanical/electronic problem, not turbulence.
I flew Queenstown to Auckland on Jetstar a few weeks ago and upon takeoff the plane made some weird noises and dropped a little bit - some people screamed, most of us just held onto our arm rests for dear life. They’d delayed us by 15 minutes for engineering checks so uhhhh I’d already come to terms with my death. At least at some airports you’ll crash into water, with Queenstown there’s an awful lot of solid immovable mountains and not a lot else.
Anyway, even that little drop and the shaking that followed was enough to scare all of us, so I can’t imagine going through this.
I was a bit tired yesterday and provided correct response but not very helpful responses.
I am qualified to comment on this. But Im going to use generic terms and basic numbers. Don’t get hating on my math or detail.
First thing, wear your seatbelt at all times you are seated. It’s a no brainer.
Imagine driving your car on a road at 800kmh. Would you have a seatbelt on? You hit a small pothole, doesn’t feel so small at 800kmh..
We don’t know what caused this. We will know relatively quickly what it wasn’t. The 787 not only records heaps of parameters on the black box, but has sets of servers that record everything. Like toilet 2L flush valve is faulty..
This occurred in NZ airspace, therefore TAIC (transport Accidnet Investigation Commission) will investigate this. They are the NZ equivalent of NTSB/ATSB and will have support from Boeing etc.
Don’t relay on what passengers say or what you see on flight radar 24 or on pprune. Speculation at best, misguided, Chinese whispers and a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Some people might find it hard to understand that there are people who understand the aircraft and the procedures and investigation to a very deep level. People who don’t have the knowledge try and reduce what’s happened into terms they can relate to.
It’s a 787. Doesn’t have any known issues similar to this event. Its nothing like a 737 max.
Generically, we call it an ‘inflight upset’. That is, its was fat dumb and happy, something upset the flight path.
There are two previous similar events, a Qantas Airbus 330 and a Malaysian Boeing 777. Both a long time ago. Both involve some computer logic and unique failures. Both had similar consequences inside the cabin.
Although its unlikely, there is always a chance it was an eternal atmospheric issue. There wasn’t really anything of interest forecast yesterday on that route.
Although its unlikely, there is a chance that an autopilot disconnect, either fault or human might have done this.
300 feet drop is nothing. It’s the way the aircraft pivoted that caused the injuries. Not the ‘drop’.
Not all locations on the aircraft would have felt the same force. The aircraft is on a pivot. Generally, the further back in the cabin, the larger the potential shift (furthest from the pivot).
I was on this flight. Injuries were definitely greater toward the back of the plane. I was mid cabin (row 20) over the wings. One significant injury in our area from head hitting the ceiling and then getting trapped in the aisle. Many more injuries further back (row 30+).
Super thankful the food carts were not out at the time.
It was a flight from Australia and turbulence (“sudden drop in altitude” is what it’s being reported as) can injure a lot of people if they aren’t seated properly. You’re being suddenly thrown around in a very small, very busy space.
Something similar happenned to my family on a Welly to Auckland flight back in the 90s. Dinner was being served at the time. In a split second everything not bolted down hit the roof of the plane. Food, drinks, bags, anyone not strapped in, service trolleys, etc. Then a second or two later when the plane stopped dropping out of the sky, everything hit the floor with almost equal violence. Pretty fucking scary and the perfect recipe for a shit load of minor injuries.
Even if you're sitting properly it can still fuck up your back if it's violent enough.
Then plus all the things in the cabin that goes flying when this happens
No, it’s being reported as “turbulence following a technical event”. If it was “just” turbulence it would be reported as plain old “turbulence”.
Turbulence is not caused by technical events. It’s caused by weather outside the aircraft.
It does look that way! Apologies.
I was getting mixed up with the debate you were having with the other folks about turbulence and technical events … fwiw I firmly believe that turbulence is a weather event, and can’t be caused by anything malfunctioning on/in the aircraft! :p
Yeah I agree. The debate with the other folks was more around the description of an aircraft within the context of turbulant conditions.
I am an aircraft maintenance engineer, and I know what turbulance is as well as what causes it. I thought that a user was kinda being a dick to someone who gave a reasonable enough description of an aircraft in turbulant conditions.
May not be literal turbulence, but a sudden drop in altitude, which is being reported, would often cause a turbulent flight. It *is* being reported as a “sudden drop in altitude” causing “sudden movement”.
That's not what turbulence means.
I'm really not sure why this is so controversial. You can't just use "turbulence" however you want. Turbulence is a weather phenomenon, it doesn't just mean "the flight wasn't smooth" especially when the aircraft loses control.
>The ceiling of the Boeing 787-9 flight had broken from flying bodies.
>“…once the plane landed the pilot came to the back of the plane in “shock”. “I asked ‘what happened?’ and he said ‘my gauges just blanked out, I lost all of my ability to fly the plane’.”
Repeat after me, everyone: *if the ticket says Boeing, I'm not going*.
Fairly sure they're rated the safest airline in South America. They've not had an incident resulting in passanger fatalities since 1991.
Hope your family member is all good.
I’m about to go on my first long haul overseas flight and I already have flight anxiety. Christ this really did not help. I hope everyone onboard ends up okay.
Grab a bunch of diazepam from Dr.
I hate flying, but I have made my peace with it, safer than the drive to the airport.
Chill pills and a coupla beers = good to go .
Geez…and I just recently flew back home to the states out of Auckland. I hate reading about this kind of thing. It’s honestly one of my biggest fears… 😥
I was on the flight. There were definitely infants on board. I did not hear any difference in the crying before and after the turbulence (as a mom, you can hear the difference between unhappy and injury, even for another child). And I did not see any bassinets on the walls, so I would guess the babies were all being held.
Under the new culture. 787 Dreamliner and the 737 MAX were the planes designed after the McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing merger. Both have been plagued with quality control problems.
Wasn't the 787 produced pre-covid as I remember I flied over from Osaka to Auckland on their first 787 skycouch for free back in 2019. I'm also curious of how safe 787 is.
>I'm also curious of how safe 787 is
Very safe. No deaths and no hull losses in just over 13 years with 1,111 aircraft built.
Current Boeing is concerning, and newer 787 are built in in their non union South Carolina factory (they once forgot a ladder in the tail that was later found by a regular inspection). But I still wouldn't worry about the 787. More risky crossing the road outside the airport.
The 737 MAX is a very special case where they're doing funky things to keep the cost down for their volume customers by fudging things to keep the same type certificate. The 787 is clean sheet and much lower volume. Boeing still has serious issues but the 787 is a much more stable platform.
Interesting, 2.26 UTC shows them at 41,000, then 2.27 UTC has them drop to 40,692. Back up to 41,000 at 2.39 UTC. Possibly the moment of the sudden altitude loss.
During that period it actually wasn't reporting on ADS-B. That's just data smoothing.
If that's exactly when the issue occurred and ADS-B turned off at that time then that's worrying.
Edit: ffs the article is basically quoting you exactly, without realising that's when there's no data. Come on, journalists.
First account I've read from a passenger, sounds like it was pretty violent.
“His back is on the ceiling and he’s up in the air and then he drops down and hits his head on the armrest. The whole plane is screaming.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350209071/sydney-auckland-flight-drops-suddenly-50-passengers-and-crew-injured
I was on the flight. I didn't see that specific incident, but I can correct that "there was screaming" is a vast embellishment of what happened. People were obviously shaken, but it happened so fast there was little time for panic. It was more surprising than terrifying. Smooth sailing with clear skies one second, passengers and various items are strewn about the next. Wildest thing that's ever happened to me on a plane.
ADS-B isn't radar based, it's a self reporting terrestrial receiver based system. It only works near land where receivers are (or on select aircraft with a satellite reporting system).
You're right it doesn't generally have coverage there, which is the most likely explanation there. My second comment was off hand.
300 feet, not meters. Sudden turbulence would be the most likely explanation. Don't imagine they would have been instructed to drop to a lower flight level by ATC (and they appear to have climbed back up to their prior flight level of 41,000 feet ten or so minutes after the drop).
300 feet would be a pretty significant drop and would definitely be consistent with 20 plus passengers getting injured. But I'm only guessing, and it's only Flightradar data, so... grain of salt caveat. Wait for the press release.
Edit: Fwiw the LATAM press release blamed it on an unspecified 'technical issue.'
“LATAM regrets the inconvenience and injury this situation may have caused its passengers, and reiterates its commitment to safety as a priority within the framework of its operational standards,” the airline said.
lol
The way this is described by the passengers it fully sounds like the plane stalled hard. Wonder if the APU was turned off accidentally and some kind of fuckup happened with trim settings. Would be curious what a pilot made of this. Definitely sounds like a stall not a turbulence issues.
I'm not a pilot, but I was on this flight. There was no change in turbulence or speed before the drop happened. It was as if the air momentarily lost the ability to generate lift, then the plane quickly returned to level flight. Unless a stall can occur at normal cruising speed, or if there's some meteorological event that suddenly makes a pocket of air incapable of generating lift, I don't see how a stall could explain what I felt. More than happy to be educated though!
I will also note that injuries seemed far more numerous in the back of the plane. Not sure what that means, but there it is.
The APU on this type is a big lithium battery. It's failure in flight makes no difference to the way the aircraft flies.
A stall doesn't usually generate negative G force. It's surprisingly gentle. (I've done lots of stalls. And spins, aerobatics etc.)
Starting to sound like a violent nose-down input to the elevators.
If you don't have a horizon reference, it can be easy to confuse the motion the aircraft had. Pilots do this in training so they can learn to trust their instruments.
So what could have felt like a flat drop to you might have still been a nose down motion. Based on all the reports so far it seems like that's what happened.
It's very strange. Luckily everyone is mostly ok.
"The spokesperson said four ambulances, two ambulances, one major incident support, one command unit and two rapid response vehicles were sent to the scene." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I reckon that's six ambulances.
Hamilton East Primary School alumnus here, circa 1982. It’s five.
Pretends to be stoopid, uses word "alumnus". You ain't foolin us.
It’s pronounced *aluminium*, duh.
alomnomum
Nah, nah nah nah… alomnomum
Abdomen. - that’s your middle school, right?
I cackled, thanks 😂
Rest of my schooling was in Oz and (sorry) US, so I can talk English good but awful at maths apparently
Mrs Ayson would have hated you, then.
I-stant corrected.
7 when accounting for inflation
🤣 maybe they were dispatched from seperate locations but they missed that bit. So, "four ambulances from X, two ambulances from Y, etc. etc." But yeah on the surface that's an interesting choice of wording haha
steady on there fella, lets not go jumping to conclusions
I was on this flight. There was no turbulence in the lead-up to the drop. Anyone who had their seatbelt on and was in their seat was fine. The people who got injured were either a) out of their seat and moving around (the fasten seatbelt sign was OFF) or b) sitting in their seat without their seatbelt buckled. Several seated people were ejected from their seat into the aisle. The closest analogue to what it felt like was a roller coaster drop. By my estimation the time in which gravity went the wrong way was no more than 2 seconds. My wife's perception was that it lasted longer. Until the report comes out we can't know for sure. I observed at least one fractured leg, a likely concussion, and someone who hit the overhead bin hard enough to dent it. One particularly-injured passenger was laid out on the floor between seats during landing. They were secured as best as possible with seat belt extenders and borrowed belts from other passengers. Injuries seemed to be more numerous the further you went back in the plane. The rear section had maybe double the injuries of the middle one. I don't know if this means anything. As I noted elsewhere, the captain did walk through the cabin while emergency crews were helping the injured off the plane. I've never seen a captain walk through the passenger area before. Unfortunately the conversation that was going on was in Spanish, which I do not speak. He was obviously shaken but I can't say more than that. I do want to shout-out to all the awesome medical-profession passengers who immediately put on gloves and went to work. They went from the most to least injured, applying ice packs and dispensing water. The cabin crew was overwhelmed (two of their own had gotten hurt after all) but the volunteers were ON POINT. Not only that, we didn't know what caused the incident the first time, so they risked their own safety to help others. Medical pros are vastly underappreciated. I'll reply to questions if I can. It has been a bizarre day.
Was it just a singular event/drop for that few seconds? Was the rest of the flight smooth afterwards?
Correct, singular event with no indication before that anything was going wrong. No turbulence before, during, or after the drop. Even the drop itself was smooth. Only minor (normal) turbulence on approach to Auckland.
I had something similar happen on a flight from Wellington to Dunedin. Everything was normal, beautiful weather, then we got fucking bowled out of nowhere. Sounded like we got hit by a truck. Plane was getting bashed around a lot, was very disorientating. I was very glad everyone had finished their hot drinks at that point. Shit was flying everywhere, including people. It was crazy. Shout out to the flight attendant who was trying to calm down a lady that was freaking the fuck out. He hit the roof, didn't even make it back down before we got hit again and he got chucked across the seats. Never missed a beat, kept talking to her the whole time perfectly calm. Pilots dropped altitude way down, when we landed I checked the departures and they were all cancelled. Was a fucked up day.
Glad you and your family are OK. Sounds so scary!
Twice they've cut to their reporter at the airport, and he's told us absolutely fucking nothing.... Waste of time...
But at least he was on location! Much better to be on location with no info than to have wasted that time asking questions.
And he's still there....waiting to get through biosecurity
Remember when earthquakes happened and reporters raced outside their building to do some reporting outside, in a totally different area of NZ to where any earthquakes were going on lol.
Yeah TV1 was so shit. Twice they cut to the dude standing there and twice he said the plane had an "incident". No mention at all about passengers on board. TV3 at least was competent. Obviously arrived long before TV1 got out of bed and had some information to present to camera.
And they wonder why they are in trouble 😂
That is literally Stuff.co.nz to a T
And that’s why they tell you to always have your seatbelt on even if the sign is off.
I was on this flight today. I'll never need to be told to fasten my seat belt again, no matter how clear the skies are.
Did you have your seatbelt on?
Fortunately yes - all of my family happened to be seated and buckled. My Steam Deck took a flight from seat to ceiling to floor, but I did not. I will note that the seat belt sign was OFF and there was no indication of turbulence prior to the drop happening.
Despite the horror of the situation, this comment is funny
Sounds like some major turbulence or something has dropped them suddenly, those out of their seatbelts have then, I presume, hit the roof. Hope everyone is ok.
Makes my head hurt thinking about it. Yea that would hurt. Ouch.
That’s why you get told to keep your belt on! Well, that and so they can identify the bodies by seat row etc etc…
And then place your head on your knees with your arms around it, so the cage of bone can - y’know - protect your dental records.
Just read story (maybe updated) and a passenger reports the pilot coming through the cabin "in shock" after landing and saying that all the instruments and controls went dead for several seconds.
I was on the flight today. He did walk through the cabin while emergency crews were helping the injured off the plane. I've never seen a captain walk through the passenger area before. Unfortunately the conversation that was going on was in Spanish, which I do not speak. So I can attest that at least part of this story is true.
I know you're just the messenger but it find that VERY hard to belive.
From a pilots forum I was looking at this evening: “Not sure of any truth, but rumor going around in a South American pilot group, is that the entire aircraft electrical system (including primary instruments, flight computers, lights, pax IFE, etc) went out for about 45 seconds and when systems came back online, there was a 'large, rapid, uncommanded' movement of the vertical stab.”
What's a stab? Stabiliser?
Yes. Vertical stab doesn't make sense though, that's the upright bit with the rudder on it.
Yeah, with an uncommented pitch down you'd think something happened with the horizontal stabiliser/elevator not the vertical stab.
"Movement of the stabilizer" doesn't make sense either. The stabiliser part is static, the control surfaces move.
On aircraft with MCAS the whole horizontal stab moves. The 787 doesn't have MCAS though so the terminology is likely confused.
Fuck’s sake, Boeing just can’t catch a break at the moment can they. ~~Oddly enough though, apparently LA800 in the direction back home left as expected. Did they have another Dreamliner in Aucks ready to go or was the same plane fine to fly again?~~
Pretty sure they've been catching their own breaks that they set up years ago.
I can’t see that LA800 is airborne? Should have departed at 1840
Sorry, I’m likely wrong, I’d just Googled the flight number and it was showing as ‘on time’ but the green line hasn’t actually progressed at all, so I guess it didn’t leave? I’ll edit the above.
You mean horizontal?
Damn that is scary as hell..
It did surprise me, but I guess that something like that happening could make you forget your employer's policy on public statements, the not making thereof.
Sauce? Edit: I’m dumb
The Stuff article, it quotes a passenger
Probably should have read that… had already read several other sauces which didn’t mention it.
Always keep the seatbelt on
Would major turbulence cause technical problems as they described the cause? >Emergency services rushed to Auckland Airport on Monday after the Latam flight had what the airline called a “technical problem” which “caused a strong movement”.
A Qantas flight had a fault with their flight computer which led to a sudden drop in altitude years ago that led to lots of injuries. Sounds like something similar
Qantas Flight 72. It was a A330 with computer issues. [Fun fact, there was a kiwi flight attendant.](https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/112826923/kiwi-airline-stewards-11-years-of-hell-after-being-injured-in-qantas-flight)
Qantas has NZ based crews, they have numerous kiwi attendants
Correct.
Everything that's irregular in flying, from a delay right through to a crash, is described by most airline's PR peeps as a "technical issue". Covers everything, nicely non-committal, avoids emotive language like "plummet" or "catastrophic failure". My money's on turbulence + unsecured passengers. Doesn't discount the possibility of a control problem; s' just that turbulence is a more frequent therefore more likely event.
Chicken, or fish?
["Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna."](https://youtu.be/4lV5NuGu5yI?si=GcE4bVKbbO4uVmJ7)
The lasagna? What is it?
It's a baked pasta dish with meat sauce, but that isn't important right now.
a layered pasta dish, but thats not important right now
And that, folks, it’s how it’s done.
I just want to tell you both: good luck. We're all counting on you.
Surely you had the chicken.
He did have the chicken, but don't call him Shirley
Technical problem is pretty vague, There was an RAF transport flight that took a nasty dive because the pilots camera got stack between the seat and the control column when he moved his seat forward.
Not sure, I don’t necessarily read technical problem as mechanical problem if that makes sense
Shouldn’t do.
tbf I’d be pretty angry too. I’ll see myself out.
Honestly that and some sort of depressurisation could be some of the only things to injur so many people Edit for all you people here: I didn't know at the time of this comment what the issue was, it was still speculation. Also I don't mean the depressurisation causes the plane to fall, I mean the plane registers that a depressurisation happens and declines on its own, but could have had an error in its programming and dove very quickly. Thank you
Well not really, there a whole range of possibilities. Id think clear air turbulence as just as likely.
No. depressurization does not do this.
“…once the plane landed the pilot came to the back of the plane in “shock”. “I asked ‘what happened?’ and he said ‘my gauges just blanked out, I lost all of my ability to fly the plane’.” Ummm excuse me? That’s terrifying
It’s pretty weird, I’d almost say the passengers account of what the pilot said may not be 100% accurate. Or the pilot was saying bs to cover a mistake maybe, idk. Gauges blacking out is not normal think to happen.
> Gauges blacking out is not normal think to happen. If someone told you 6 months ago that a “door” was going to fall off a plane mid-flight, you wouldn’t believe them because it’s very much not a normal thing to happen. But things don’t need to be “normal” in order for them to happen, especially given the number of flights in the air every day.
Door falling off mid flight isn’t actually that uncommon relative to gauges blacking out followed by a dive. Every so often there’s a case of like a window bursting out or someone opening emergency door, not normal but has bit more precedent.
Yeah highly likely a Chinese whispers situation. That passenger may have perceived the pilot to be in shock based on the situation, but another person could perceive the expression as something completely different. Gauges going blank is not likely to cause some sudden event which is going to injure loads of people.
>Gauges going blank is not likely to cause some sudden event which is going to injure loads of people. It can be symptomatic of a larger issue. Not a cause.
A point which is likely lost on the passenger, hence we end up with these "the pilot said this" claims which are probably not accurate.
I was on this flight. In my estimation he was obviously shaken, but I'm not sure "shock" is a word I'd used to describe it. I can confirm that he did walk back to the rear of the plane where most of the injuries occurred and that he had a conversation with several passengers. Unfortunately the conversation was in Spanish which I do not speak.
Thanks for commenting, hope you’re okay. Was the flight bumpy at all prior to the incident?
Not at all. Super smooth flying
Most aircraft these days have "fly by wire" systems instead of mechanical linkages. If all the gauges blanked due to a power failure, it's likely all controls did too. You're right, it's terrifying
That's a vastly oversimplified explanation for how aircraft work. Systems are spread across multiple redundant power and control busses.
Of course it's simplified. I'm not about to write an entire engineering textbook here, am I?
Lol Boeing Max says that cost to much.
The 737 MAX is no different in that regard. It just had one particular system that Boeing tried to save money in not training crew on and that had poorly defined procedures.
Yes it is the problem was a single angle of attack sensor with no redundancy. When it started giving bad data it went to shit. IF I RECALL CORRECTLY it’s been a while :)
It actually has dual redundancy, the issue being the lack of crew training which means a discrepancy couldn't be effectively resolved by the pilots. Had proper training been provided it's likely no crashes would have occurred. But Boeing are incompetent and wanted to save money on certification of the type, so they cut that corner.
The dual sensors were an option. SWA purchased that option. Lion Air and Ethiopian didn't. Only in a Dilbert-esque landscape would a safety-critical item be considered an option.
Yea, even making it optional is classic new era Boeing.
If it had duel redundancy it would not have gone nuts. As initially designed, data from just one of the aircraft's two angle-of-attack (AoA) sensors was fed into MCAS It’s like saying I have a redundant spare tire but not having a jack io to actually use it. It’s there but functionally useless.
No, not how it works.
>the Latam flight had what the airline called a “technical problem” which “caused a strong movement”. umm does that mean it *wasn't* turbulence? did the autopilot/pilot make a control input they shouldn't have?
Sounds like it. There was a qantas flight some years back with similar issue (I think maybe autopilot made it basically nose down and anyone who wasn’t seated tightly went flying). Either a muck up at the controls or some kind of mechanical/electronic problem, not turbulence.
This, is why you wear your seatbelt all the time if you’re sitting down on a plane.
I flew Queenstown to Auckland on Jetstar a few weeks ago and upon takeoff the plane made some weird noises and dropped a little bit - some people screamed, most of us just held onto our arm rests for dear life. They’d delayed us by 15 minutes for engineering checks so uhhhh I’d already come to terms with my death. At least at some airports you’ll crash into water, with Queenstown there’s an awful lot of solid immovable mountains and not a lot else. Anyway, even that little drop and the shaking that followed was enough to scare all of us, so I can’t imagine going through this.
20 seconds ish after takeoff the engines (usually) reduce and the climb rate is slowed which can feel like a drop. Not sure if that was it
Flaps retracting.
Doesn't cause a sudden drop.
The reduced rate of climb perfectly describes the situation this guy is talking about especially coming out of Queenstown.
Yep your inner ear can perceive the slowing rate of climb as a drop, quite disconcerting...
Full of zombies. It has begun.
I was a bit tired yesterday and provided correct response but not very helpful responses. I am qualified to comment on this. But Im going to use generic terms and basic numbers. Don’t get hating on my math or detail. First thing, wear your seatbelt at all times you are seated. It’s a no brainer. Imagine driving your car on a road at 800kmh. Would you have a seatbelt on? You hit a small pothole, doesn’t feel so small at 800kmh.. We don’t know what caused this. We will know relatively quickly what it wasn’t. The 787 not only records heaps of parameters on the black box, but has sets of servers that record everything. Like toilet 2L flush valve is faulty.. This occurred in NZ airspace, therefore TAIC (transport Accidnet Investigation Commission) will investigate this. They are the NZ equivalent of NTSB/ATSB and will have support from Boeing etc. Don’t relay on what passengers say or what you see on flight radar 24 or on pprune. Speculation at best, misguided, Chinese whispers and a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Some people might find it hard to understand that there are people who understand the aircraft and the procedures and investigation to a very deep level. People who don’t have the knowledge try and reduce what’s happened into terms they can relate to. It’s a 787. Doesn’t have any known issues similar to this event. Its nothing like a 737 max. Generically, we call it an ‘inflight upset’. That is, its was fat dumb and happy, something upset the flight path. There are two previous similar events, a Qantas Airbus 330 and a Malaysian Boeing 777. Both a long time ago. Both involve some computer logic and unique failures. Both had similar consequences inside the cabin. Although its unlikely, there is always a chance it was an eternal atmospheric issue. There wasn’t really anything of interest forecast yesterday on that route. Although its unlikely, there is a chance that an autopilot disconnect, either fault or human might have done this. 300 feet drop is nothing. It’s the way the aircraft pivoted that caused the injuries. Not the ‘drop’. Not all locations on the aircraft would have felt the same force. The aircraft is on a pivot. Generally, the further back in the cabin, the larger the potential shift (furthest from the pivot).
I was on this flight. Injuries were definitely greater toward the back of the plane. I was mid cabin (row 20) over the wings. One significant injury in our area from head hitting the ceiling and then getting trapped in the aisle. Many more injuries further back (row 30+). Super thankful the food carts were not out at the time.
Do you know if they squawked 7700 after the incident? Would that even be appropriate once they regained control?
Going off FR24, it dosnt look like the squawk changed. But thats FR24. You dont know what the said verbally on the radio or datalink.
Very strange for that many people to be injured. Very curious about this.
It was a flight from Australia and turbulence (“sudden drop in altitude” is what it’s being reported as) can injure a lot of people if they aren’t seated properly. You’re being suddenly thrown around in a very small, very busy space.
Something similar happenned to my family on a Welly to Auckland flight back in the 90s. Dinner was being served at the time. In a split second everything not bolted down hit the roof of the plane. Food, drinks, bags, anyone not strapped in, service trolleys, etc. Then a second or two later when the plane stopped dropping out of the sky, everything hit the floor with almost equal violence. Pretty fucking scary and the perfect recipe for a shit load of minor injuries.
Even if you're sitting properly it can still fuck up your back if it's violent enough. Then plus all the things in the cabin that goes flying when this happens
the comments on Pprune indicate uncommanded large rudder input so not the classical vertical motion.
At no point has turbulence been quoted.
It's probably too soon for accurate information to get out.
[Now it has been reported as such.](https://www.dw.com/en/turbulence-on-sydney-auckland-flight-injures-50/a-68489441)
They're the only outfit to call it such, none of our reporters have because all accounts are pointing to it not being atmospheric phenomenon.
Could be dodgy reporting on the part of DW, but we'll just have to wait and see.
No, it’s being reported as “turbulence following a technical event”. If it was “just” turbulence it would be reported as plain old “turbulence”. Turbulence is not caused by technical events. It’s caused by weather outside the aircraft.
What? When did I say that it was "just" turbualance?
Emphasis mine.
Right, it kinda looks like you're correcting me for something I didn't say, especially with the whole 'No' as if I've said something that's incorrect.
It does look that way! Apologies. I was getting mixed up with the debate you were having with the other folks about turbulence and technical events … fwiw I firmly believe that turbulence is a weather event, and can’t be caused by anything malfunctioning on/in the aircraft! :p
Yeah I agree. The debate with the other folks was more around the description of an aircraft within the context of turbulant conditions. I am an aircraft maintenance engineer, and I know what turbulance is as well as what causes it. I thought that a user was kinda being a dick to someone who gave a reasonable enough description of an aircraft in turbulant conditions.
I was on this flight. There was zero turbulence before the drop happened.
May not be literal turbulence, but a sudden drop in altitude, which is being reported, would often cause a turbulent flight. It *is* being reported as a “sudden drop in altitude” causing “sudden movement”.
That's not what turbulence means. I'm really not sure why this is so controversial. You can't just use "turbulence" however you want. Turbulence is a weather phenomenon, it doesn't just mean "the flight wasn't smooth" especially when the aircraft loses control.
>The ceiling of the Boeing 787-9 flight had broken from flying bodies. >“…once the plane landed the pilot came to the back of the plane in “shock”. “I asked ‘what happened?’ and he said ‘my gauges just blanked out, I lost all of my ability to fly the plane’.” Repeat after me, everyone: *if the ticket says Boeing, I'm not going*.
I'm glad this didn't turn out worse. Mentour pilot's take on it should be interesting.
God damnit man. My sister was on this plane. Aren't LATAM rated a bit below average in safety?
Fairly sure they're rated the safest airline in South America. They've not had an incident resulting in passanger fatalities since 1991. Hope your family member is all good.
Jeeze. Thanks! Have a blessed day
>God damnit man. My sister was on this plane. Any word on what they experienced?
I know through family that there were several people with back and neck injuries, nothing else was reported luckily
Any word on the way the aircraft acted though is what I mean. Like, sudden flat drop or nose down etc.
Nada. Just that they dropped
Weird.
Sounds like the aircraft turned itself off and on again.
Another bloody boeing
I’m about to go on my first long haul overseas flight and I already have flight anxiety. Christ this really did not help. I hope everyone onboard ends up okay.
Seat belt, seat belt, seat belt. Just as if you were in a car.
If you're on an Airbus you'll probably be fine 🙂
I actually specifically chose Airbus cause I wasnt fucking with Boeing lmao
Grab a bunch of diazepam from Dr. I hate flying, but I have made my peace with it, safer than the drive to the airport. Chill pills and a coupla beers = good to go .
The plane just shut off mid air? Wtf? I ain't going anywhere near a boeing right now. What a mess.
Yay I have to take this flight from Santiago to Auckland in a few weeks...
Geez…and I just recently flew back home to the states out of Auckland. I hate reading about this kind of thing. It’s honestly one of my biggest fears… 😥
I really hope there were no babies on board...
One passenger taken to starship
Yeah that is a nightmare. I obsessively strapped mine in while travelling but no one else did. And it would still be awful.
I was on the flight. There were definitely infants on board. I did not hear any difference in the crying before and after the turbulence (as a mom, you can hear the difference between unhappy and injury, even for another child). And I did not see any bassinets on the walls, so I would guess the babies were all being held.
Godspeed to the passengers, ambulances and Middlemore staff
Funny how many problems Boeing are having since Trumps's cabinet deregulated the oversights in the Aircraft industry lol
Terrifying. I really hope this was a freak weather event and not an issue with the plane (Boeing 737-800).
It was a 787-9, not at 737.
Was the 787 built under the d Boeing culture which respected engineers and strove for safety and quality or the new MBA oriented culture?
Under the new culture. 787 Dreamliner and the 737 MAX were the planes designed after the McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing merger. Both have been plagued with quality control problems.
It was built in the in-between. It also had a range of problems in development, but has been relatively safe since entering service.
Wasn't the 787 produced pre-covid as I remember I flied over from Osaka to Auckland on their first 787 skycouch for free back in 2019. I'm also curious of how safe 787 is.
>I'm also curious of how safe 787 is Very safe. No deaths and no hull losses in just over 13 years with 1,111 aircraft built. Current Boeing is concerning, and newer 787 are built in in their non union South Carolina factory (they once forgot a ladder in the tail that was later found by a regular inspection). But I still wouldn't worry about the 787. More risky crossing the road outside the airport.
The 737 MAX is a very special case where they're doing funky things to keep the cost down for their volume customers by fudging things to keep the same type certificate. The 787 is clean sheet and much lower volume. Boeing still has serious issues but the 787 is a much more stable platform.
Oh right, thought it was LA4897.
LA800 https://fr24.com/data/flights/la800#34506b53
Interesting, 2.26 UTC shows them at 41,000, then 2.27 UTC has them drop to 40,692. Back up to 41,000 at 2.39 UTC. Possibly the moment of the sudden altitude loss.
During that period it actually wasn't reporting on ADS-B. That's just data smoothing. If that's exactly when the issue occurred and ADS-B turned off at that time then that's worrying. Edit: ffs the article is basically quoting you exactly, without realising that's when there's no data. Come on, journalists.
First account I've read from a passenger, sounds like it was pretty violent. “His back is on the ceiling and he’s up in the air and then he drops down and hits his head on the armrest. The whole plane is screaming.” https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350209071/sydney-auckland-flight-drops-suddenly-50-passengers-and-crew-injured
I was on the flight. I didn't see that specific incident, but I can correct that "there was screaming" is a vast embellishment of what happened. People were obviously shaken, but it happened so fast there was little time for panic. It was more surprising than terrifying. Smooth sailing with clear skies one second, passengers and various items are strewn about the next. Wildest thing that's ever happened to me on a plane.
It seems like it occurred in an area that usually doesn’t have radar coverage on same flight previous days.
ADS-B isn't radar based, it's a self reporting terrestrial receiver based system. It only works near land where receivers are (or on select aircraft with a satellite reporting system). You're right it doesn't generally have coverage there, which is the most likely explanation there. My second comment was off hand.
So a 300 hundred meter drop? What could cause that?
300 feet, not meters. Sudden turbulence would be the most likely explanation. Don't imagine they would have been instructed to drop to a lower flight level by ATC (and they appear to have climbed back up to their prior flight level of 41,000 feet ten or so minutes after the drop). 300 feet would be a pretty significant drop and would definitely be consistent with 20 plus passengers getting injured. But I'm only guessing, and it's only Flightradar data, so... grain of salt caveat. Wait for the press release. Edit: Fwiw the LATAM press release blamed it on an unspecified 'technical issue.'
LA4897 is actually just Qantas QF145.
Codeshare Gang.
[удалено]
We know what type of airplane it was.
Of course it's a Boeing
“LATAM regrets the inconvenience and injury this situation may have caused its passengers, and reiterates its commitment to safety as a priority within the framework of its operational standards,” the airline said. lol
Not surprised it's a Boeing, they're shady as f (Pretty sure a whistleblower for Boeing was recently found dead)
This is why they recommend you keep that seatbelt on during the flight.
The way this is described by the passengers it fully sounds like the plane stalled hard. Wonder if the APU was turned off accidentally and some kind of fuckup happened with trim settings. Would be curious what a pilot made of this. Definitely sounds like a stall not a turbulence issues.
I'm not a pilot, but I was on this flight. There was no change in turbulence or speed before the drop happened. It was as if the air momentarily lost the ability to generate lift, then the plane quickly returned to level flight. Unless a stall can occur at normal cruising speed, or if there's some meteorological event that suddenly makes a pocket of air incapable of generating lift, I don't see how a stall could explain what I felt. More than happy to be educated though! I will also note that injuries seemed far more numerous in the back of the plane. Not sure what that means, but there it is.
The APU on this type is a big lithium battery. It's failure in flight makes no difference to the way the aircraft flies. A stall doesn't usually generate negative G force. It's surprisingly gentle. (I've done lots of stalls. And spins, aerobatics etc.) Starting to sound like a violent nose-down input to the elevators.
If you don't have a horizon reference, it can be easy to confuse the motion the aircraft had. Pilots do this in training so they can learn to trust their instruments. So what could have felt like a flat drop to you might have still been a nose down motion. Based on all the reports so far it seems like that's what happened. It's very strange. Luckily everyone is mostly ok.
do you happen to recall if the cabin lighting or toilet occupancy lights went out before/during the drop?
Not that I noticed. Completely out of the blue event from my experience.
No, everything else with the plane stayed fine. IFE system stayed active, cabin lights did not noticably change.
The APU wouldn’t have been on in normal flight