Singapore Airlines plane dropped 178ft in five seconds, report shows | BBC News

Early investigations into severe turbulence that hit a Singapore Airlines flight last week reveal it dropped around 178ft (54m) over 4.6 seconds.

One British passenger died and dozens more were injured when the London-Singapore flight encountered the turbulence and had to make an emergency landing in Thailand.

Singaporean investigators have extracted data stored in the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder of the aircraft.



#SingaporeAirlines #SingaporeAirlineTurbulence #BBCNews

[karima_MK]

The plane has been stablised. No crash. That is the most important. Turbulences could happen anywhere.

[sirensynapse]

Moral of the story: buckle up; and if the pilot says buckle up, really buckle up!

[MoonThuli]

Saying a rapid change in gravitational force is not correct, the passengers experienced a rapid change in g-force, they're physically distinct terms. The g-force is the perceived weight you experience, which can change if you accelerate up or downwards and it can be positive, zero or negative. Gravitational force is only affected by the mass and distance of the objects involved. Even in a plane you'll never get far enough away from earth to experience a significantly weaker gravitational force, and a gravitational force is always positive. This plane rapidly went from a positive g-force to a negative g-force because it dropped in altitude, which made people accelerate upwards relative to the plane.

[Liamv]

"Rapid change in gravitational force"
Are you kidding me? Gravity didn't change you bunch of muppets. They accelerated vertically due to the plane losing altitude. The plane essentially 'fell out from under them' and those who weren't strapped in, bonked the roof.

[pleiadiblu]

A rapid change in gravitational force???
0:17

[KESF]

178 ft in 5 seconds = 2, 136 ft/min. A normal descent rate for transport category aircraft, no? Acceleration rate is key but let's not make the numbers something they're not.

[gastonpossel]

60*178/5= 2136 ft/min, its in the hot side but within normal range of an airliner's descent rate. I think the relevant number is the maximum acceleration hit by the movement (in negative g's).

[nurazizmaikhiyev]

Gravitational force? Srsly? Go do your physics homework BBC…

[Loxworth]

BBC let's please normalize metrics in video titles - or at the very least, provide both imperial and metric units.

[tahaplh]

Look at the bright side, after all the damage in the cabin roof things hanging down damaged they still managed to land and nothing went wrong with the plane

[Ramy-qltr]

Blame the turbulence. They give the pilots a bad wrap.

[juliopeinado]

The turbulence so strong, It cause the plane to crash into Bangkok. Oh lord. That is awful. I feel bad for all who go through there.

[jontylewis]

No, I don't think the gravitational force changed

[lalainemates]

Let's give a big credit to the pilots because he still manage to landing safely even this air turbulence cause much damage.. We can't avoid accident

[How.Dare.You.]

54m fall in 5s you call a turbulence?!

[graphdatascientist]

I was on that plane too...but I was sleeping and didn't notice

[smythharris]

In August 1987 my flight out of Madrid hit a thermal and rose about 200 feet in a second.

[scottdavidreynolds]

This is still the most confusing news report .48 Gs per second is somewhat noticeable, but not damaging. He would simply feel a little lighter in your seat, but there is not enough geez to lift you out of your seat. What is wrong with this reporting?

[karhukivi]

Some people still believe in !"air pockets"!! Turbulence consists mainly of updrafts and downdrafts as the air is moving rapidly in convection cells due to temperature and humidity differences.

[conchaivn]

Is 178ft in 5 secs so bad? I thought it was nothing for a big airplane..