9 ms·

Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

79 points by kiwih 3y ago

aurizon 3y ago
The plane transited from an air stream (of whatever velocity/vector) into one descending vertically at high speed = instant down elevator = passengers in free fall as plane descends = impact roof hard/soft. Soon exit the stream and get used to it = fall down hard from 7-8 feet in random attitude. Down is the worst, a vertical up = pressed into seat and already standing. Pilot might have had a warning or inkling = faster seat belts/sit. In a down acceleration like this all loose objects are affected = missiles, a laptop can hit you hard. Back in the old days, they called these 'air pockets' - lacking velocity they were less dangerous than these occurrences at modern speeds where planes are going at 500-600 miles/hour and the transition is virtually instantaneous.
- djtango 3y ago
  Thanks for providing your perspective - Why don't we hear about these as often? Is there tech to avoid these air pockets? Was there some kind of negligence involved or should I be more cautious on planes about leaving my loose belongings lying around?
  - telesilla 3y ago
    Aside from the fact that this was not turbulence-related: my understanding is that other airlines in the area inform each other about turbulence they experience, as it cannot be detected reliably. A flight from Chile to New Zealand probably has very little air traffic to keep other pilots informed about the state of winds.
    - everfrustrated 3y ago
      While Latam airline, flight was actually Sydney-Auckland
    - brabel 3y ago
      The incident happened while still on the Sydney to Auckland leg of the trip, which is not as lonely (but yeah, still not a whole lot of planes going each way).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- sp332 3y ago
  The article says it was a technical problem. The pilot said he lost instrumentation.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    A passenger says the pilot says that. I’d wait for further details before firmly concluding that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Tor3 3y ago
What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The only time I'm not using it is when I'm on the way to and from the bathroom. If I'm seated I'm using the seatbelt.
- thelastparadise 3y ago
  My god could you imagine if this happened when you were in the bathroom?
  - wjnc 3y ago
    I'm a worrier about things like these. I always imagined that's why the roof in the bathroom is lower and curved. A lot less room for gaining vertical speed. So you'd be temporarily stuck to the ceiling and perhaps a bit dirtied, but less hurt than getting double struck by first the lockers and then the higher ceiling in the aisle.
    - chrischen 3y ago
      I think the parent is more worried about the dirtied aspect.
    - yodon 3y ago
      The roof in an airplane bathroom is lower and curved because that is the shape of the airplane.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    It's not the worst place actually, you can't pick up too much momentum since the cabin is so small
  - RandomBacon 3y ago
    They should install a gravity switch. A simply contact that uses gravity to either remain normally-open or normally-closed, and then when the opposite is true, automatically flush.
fabian2k 3y ago
This seems to be attributed to a technical problem and not turbulence so far. Probably should be a bit skeptical about any explanation this early, but I'm wondering which systems would be powerful enough to cause something like this. For example, would a pilot be able to manually fly the airplane and cause this kind of incident? Or would the control surfaces of the plane be able to cause this assuming that any safety limits that restrict movement were not working?
- H8crilA 3y ago
  It's very easy to get to slightly below 0g by just pushing on the stick or yoke, and that would be enough to cause what the passengers describe here. You could even get well below 0g. Almost all turbulence of the sort that you can experience in flight are not even 10% of the durability limits of the airframe. EDIT: I was also thinking about "well why should the airplane allow the pilot for such movements then?". And I think a good analogy is the brakes in your car - they do allow for maximum breaking, yet when was the last time you actually pushed it to the max? (And note that this is 100% speculation, I just wanted to highlight that the pilot can cause such negative acceleration on their own)
  - xattt 3y ago
    What about flight laws/flight control modes that prevent this thing from happening? Unless the aircraft was flying in a degraded state, these limits are supposed to prevent the aircraft from suffering damage during flight.
    - Vecr 3y ago
      It's a Boeing, that's not really how it works. What airplane refuses to let you do negative gs anyway?
      - p_l 3y ago
        Both 777 and 787 are full fly by wire, with the latter being unstable without computer help due to trimming of control surface sizes for greater fuel efficiency.
johnny_canuck 3y ago
Reminds me of this Air Canada flight years ago where the pilot confused Venus with an oncoming plane. https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pilot/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pil...
- mangamadaiyan 3y ago
  It isn't all that far-fetched, really. Venus is the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon. ... as to _how_ bright it can be - I was once in an area with dark skies, setting up my telescope just before sunset. After dark, I was taking in the beauty of the Cigar Galaxy and then looked up and behind from the scope. My eyes were assaulted by a bright light on the top of the hill behind, and I was cursing the idiot who had turned that light on, when I realized that it was Jupiter, freshly risen above the hill. Jupiter is not as bright as Venus. On that night, Venus, had it been visible, would've been blindingly brilliant. Flying 10 Km above the ground, with no light pollution, I'm not surprised that the Pilot mistook Venus for an aircraft headlight. Edit: clarity
  - cdelsolar 3y ago
    It always shocks me how bright Venus is. A few months ago I was wondering what the hell that blinding light was, and even though I’m an amateur astronomer I was sure it had to be something artificial. My star app told me it was Venus, and i decided to see it in my telescope for the first time. So I lugged out the 4-inch refractor and no matter what I could not manage to make out its shape. It was supposed to be a crescent but there was too much glare. Next time I’ll try it with the moon filter :)
    - mangamadaiyan 3y ago
      Out of curiosity, what eyepiece were you using?
nomilk 3y ago
For anyone else wondering, the plane was a > Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner (Boeing, but not the 737 Max that has been in the headlines the past few years) Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injured-by-strong-movement-on-boeing-787-9-dreamliner https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injur...
- ulfw 3y ago
  As if the 787 was any better. Just see the history of issues and reports about manufacturing.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    Dreamliners have been flying for 13+ years now with zero hull loss accidents or fatalities. There were some teething issues with fuel leaks and batteries, but AFAICT those have long since been ironed out.
    - p_l 3y ago
      And an issue where if not regularly rebooted, preferably with staggered (by days) reboots, they lose all power, including instrumentation and controls, after 248 days of uptime. Additionally an Airworthiness Directive from 2020 requires, at least in europe, to reboot more often than 51 days due to stale data in common core system, with various network packets being dropped and system showing incorrect data to pilots.
      - abadpoli 3y ago
        The Airbus A350 has almost the exact same issue, but requiring a reboot after only 148 _hours_ or the avionics shut off.
        p_l 3y ago
        Not exact same issue, but one with similar symptoms to the "reboot every 51 days" one for 787. Reading deeper, I'm more worried about how there's no patch for the Boeing issue still, at least I can't find one in FAA AD database, I assumed there would be one already... (the affected A350 had a software patch available at the time AD for "reboot before 148 hours" was issued)
jwildeboer 3y ago
Not turbulence related. Plane (Boeing 787-9) lost instrumentation according to the captain, followed by rapid loss of altitude. When instrumentation came back, flight continued to a safe landing. 12 people were sent to hospital. S always, see avherald.com for the most reliable, non-speculative info.
- alamortsubite 3y ago
  Let's rephrase that as, this is the story as relayed by one of the passengers to RNZ. If non-speculative info is what you're after, perhaps it's better to wait for the official report.
  - jwildeboer 3y ago
    The captain has been quoted with that info of loss of instrumentation and that is on the avherald page. Avherald is quite known for only handing out vetted information, so I do trust this to be true.
    - iamtheworstdev 3y ago
      From what I've read - a person is claiming the captain said. The captain himself hasn't explicitly admitted to anything yet.
      - CoastalCoder 3y ago
        There's always a judgement call regarding how skeptical to be about others' claims. Sounds like you and GP are just drawing the line at different places.
      - jwildeboer 3y ago
        This is what avherald writes in their report (as of now, 2024-03-11 14:20 CET): "The captain later said they had briefly lost their instrumentation, then it came back all of the sudden."
- telesilla 3y ago
smcl 3y ago
Interestingly, this flight (Sydney-Santiago, via Auckland) is one of a few that many flat-earthers insist does not exist, since it contradicts a theory they have. They'd plot the paths of long-distance flights on a polar azimuthal equidistant projection of earth[0], and note that some one-stop flights look like a straight line on this projection. But those which don't look like a straight line (i.e. that suggest they're wrong) are dismissed as nonexistant, and part of the greater globe earth conspiracy. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projecti...
- SirHound 3y ago
  Maybe this was the flight passing through the necessary (government funded) wormhole
  - smcl 3y ago
    Or maybe this is a high profile incident planned to keep the globe-head charade going! It is notable that the flight didn't actually go to Santiago in the end ...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- brabel 3y ago
  I flew many times between South America and NZ/Australia (and once from LA to Sydney, one of the longest flights you can get), including this exact flight, and find that's hilarious.
  - smcl 3y ago
    Yeah I've known someone (a family, actually) who did the same. In case you want a bit of light entertainment, the video where I learned about this is here - don't worry it's debunking flat earth, not in favour it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFsOoKAHZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFsOoKAHZg
- 3y ago
627467 3y ago
"major banks 2008: too big to fail" "Boeing: too big to be grounded"
peter7012 3y ago
We had the same incident around 2007-2008 with China Airlines. The scary point that it happened almost the same place, from Taiwan to Bali about 1 hour before the landing.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  Aliens?
- harshbutfair 3y ago
  Hardly "almost the same place", it's ~6500km away.
- Jamie9912 3y ago
  Taiwan to Bali is nowhere near New Zealand
p_l 3y ago
Pure speculation, but why I'm reminded of the instruction to reboot your 787 regularly, preferably with staggered reboots of the electric buses?
itsthecourier 3y ago
Reminds me of that time a japanese flight had a steep turbulence, a passenger hit the ceiling and died. 12 injured into the ceiling in this flight, kind of looks like a check of who was and wasn't wearing the belt
Schroedingers2c 3y ago
It's remarkable how almost every serious incident due to equipment errors in the past few months involves a Boeing aircraft rather than an Airbus.
sandworm101 3y ago
I don't understand why so many people refuse to wear seatbelts unless demanded. Had everyone been buckled in I doubt anyone would have been injured. You are in a metal tube doing almost the speed of sound tens of thousands of feet in the air. Keep the belt on. If you have to get up, keep a hand on something. An airliner cannot pull serious negative gs. You aren't going to be "pinned" to the ceiling. But you should hold to something solid just in case things get a little floaty for a few seconds. Most longtime fliers have witnessed their drinks lift of their trays. The floating doesn't hurt. The issue is when things stop floating and come crashing down.
fortran77 3y ago
This is why you keep your seat belt fastened whenever you're sitting down.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

79 points by kiwih 3y ago

The plane transited from an air stream (of whatever velocity/vector) into one descending vertically at high speed = instant down elevator = passengers in free fall as plane descends = impact roof hard/soft. Soon exit the stream and get used to it = fall down hard from 7-8 feet in random attitude. Down is the worst, a vertical up = pressed into seat and already standing. Pilot might have had a warning or inkling = faster seat belts/sit. In a down acceleration like this all loose objects are affected = missiles, a laptop can hit you hard. Back in the old days, they called these 'air pockets' - lacking velocity they were less dangerous than these occurrences at modern speeds where planes are going at 500-600 miles/hour and the transition is virtually instantaneous.

djtango 3y ago
Thanks for providing your perspective - Why don't we hear about these as often? Is there tech to avoid these air pockets? Was there some kind of negligence involved or should I be more cautious on planes about leaving my loose belongings lying around?
- telesilla 3y ago
  Aside from the fact that this was not turbulence-related: my understanding is that other airlines in the area inform each other about turbulence they experience, as it cannot be detected reliably. A flight from Chile to New Zealand probably has very little air traffic to keep other pilots informed about the state of winds.
  - everfrustrated 3y ago
    While Latam airline, flight was actually Sydney-Auckland
  - brabel 3y ago
    The incident happened while still on the Sydney to Auckland leg of the trip, which is not as lonely (but yeah, still not a whole lot of planes going each way).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
sp332 3y ago
The article says it was a technical problem. The pilot said he lost instrumentation.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  A passenger says the pilot says that. I’d wait for further details before firmly concluding that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Tor3 3y ago

What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The only time I'm not using it is when I'm on the way to and from the bathroom. If I'm seated I'm using the seatbelt.

thelastparadise 3y ago
My god could you imagine if this happened when you were in the bathroom?
- wjnc 3y ago
  I'm a worrier about things like these. I always imagined that's why the roof in the bathroom is lower and curved. A lot less room for gaining vertical speed. So you'd be temporarily stuck to the ceiling and perhaps a bit dirtied, but less hurt than getting double struck by first the lockers and then the higher ceiling in the aisle.
  - chrischen 3y ago
    I think the parent is more worried about the dirtied aspect.
  - yodon 3y ago
    The roof in an airplane bathroom is lower and curved because that is the shape of the airplane.
- lm28469 3y ago
  It's not the worst place actually, you can't pick up too much momentum since the cabin is so small
- RandomBacon 3y ago
  They should install a gravity switch. A simply contact that uses gravity to either remain normally-open or normally-closed, and then when the opposite is true, automatically flush.

fabian2k 3y ago

This seems to be attributed to a technical problem and not turbulence so far. Probably should be a bit skeptical about any explanation this early, but I'm wondering which systems would be powerful enough to cause something like this. For example, would a pilot be able to manually fly the airplane and cause this kind of incident? Or would the control surfaces of the plane be able to cause this assuming that any safety limits that restrict movement were not working?

H8crilA 3y ago
It's very easy to get to slightly below 0g by just pushing on the stick or yoke, and that would be enough to cause what the passengers describe here. You could even get well below 0g. Almost all turbulence of the sort that you can experience in flight are not even 10% of the durability limits of the airframe. EDIT: I was also thinking about "well why should the airplane allow the pilot for such movements then?". And I think a good analogy is the brakes in your car - they do allow for maximum breaking, yet when was the last time you actually pushed it to the max? (And note that this is 100% speculation, I just wanted to highlight that the pilot can cause such negative acceleration on their own)
- xattt 3y ago
  What about flight laws/flight control modes that prevent this thing from happening? Unless the aircraft was flying in a degraded state, these limits are supposed to prevent the aircraft from suffering damage during flight.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    It's a Boeing, that's not really how it works. What airplane refuses to let you do negative gs anyway?
    - p_l 3y ago
      Both 777 and 787 are full fly by wire, with the latter being unstable without computer help due to trimming of control surface sizes for greater fuel efficiency.

johnny_canuck 3y ago

Reminds me of this Air Canada flight years ago where the pilot confused Venus with an oncoming plane. https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pilot/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pil...

mangamadaiyan 3y ago
It isn't all that far-fetched, really. Venus is the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon. ... as to _how_ bright it can be - I was once in an area with dark skies, setting up my telescope just before sunset. After dark, I was taking in the beauty of the Cigar Galaxy and then looked up and behind from the scope. My eyes were assaulted by a bright light on the top of the hill behind, and I was cursing the idiot who had turned that light on, when I realized that it was Jupiter, freshly risen above the hill. Jupiter is not as bright as Venus. On that night, Venus, had it been visible, would've been blindingly brilliant. Flying 10 Km above the ground, with no light pollution, I'm not surprised that the Pilot mistook Venus for an aircraft headlight. Edit: clarity
- cdelsolar 3y ago
  It always shocks me how bright Venus is. A few months ago I was wondering what the hell that blinding light was, and even though I’m an amateur astronomer I was sure it had to be something artificial. My star app told me it was Venus, and i decided to see it in my telescope for the first time. So I lugged out the 4-inch refractor and no matter what I could not manage to make out its shape. It was supposed to be a crescent but there was too much glare. Next time I’ll try it with the moon filter :)
  - mangamadaiyan 3y ago
    Out of curiosity, what eyepiece were you using?

nomilk 3y ago

For anyone else wondering, the plane was a > Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner (Boeing, but not the 737 Max that has been in the headlines the past few years) Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injured-by-strong-movement-on-boeing-787-9-dreamliner https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injur...

ulfw 3y ago
As if the 787 was any better. Just see the history of issues and reports about manufacturing.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  Dreamliners have been flying for 13+ years now with zero hull loss accidents or fatalities. There were some teething issues with fuel leaks and batteries, but AFAICT those have long since been ironed out.
  - p_l 3y ago
    And an issue where if not regularly rebooted, preferably with staggered (by days) reboots, they lose all power, including instrumentation and controls, after 248 days of uptime. Additionally an Airworthiness Directive from 2020 requires, at least in europe, to reboot more often than 51 days due to stale data in common core system, with various network packets being dropped and system showing incorrect data to pilots.
    - abadpoli 3y ago
      The Airbus A350 has almost the exact same issue, but requiring a reboot after only 148 _hours_ or the avionics shut off.
      - p_l 3y ago
        Not exact same issue, but one with similar symptoms to the "reboot every 51 days" one for 787. Reading deeper, I'm more worried about how there's no patch for the Boeing issue still, at least I can't find one in FAA AD database, I assumed there would be one already... (the affected A350 had a software patch available at the time AD for "reboot before 148 hours" was issued)

jwildeboer 3y ago

Not turbulence related. Plane (Boeing 787-9) lost instrumentation according to the captain, followed by rapid loss of altitude. When instrumentation came back, flight continued to a safe landing. 12 people were sent to hospital. S always, see avherald.com for the most reliable, non-speculative info.

alamortsubite 3y ago
Let's rephrase that as, this is the story as relayed by one of the passengers to RNZ. If non-speculative info is what you're after, perhaps it's better to wait for the official report.
- jwildeboer 3y ago
  The captain has been quoted with that info of loss of instrumentation and that is on the avherald page. Avherald is quite known for only handing out vetted information, so I do trust this to be true.
  - iamtheworstdev 3y ago
    From what I've read - a person is claiming the captain said. The captain himself hasn't explicitly admitted to anything yet.
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      There's always a judgement call regarding how skeptical to be about others' claims. Sounds like you and GP are just drawing the line at different places.
    - jwildeboer 3y ago
      This is what avherald writes in their report (as of now, 2024-03-11 14:20 CET): "The captain later said they had briefly lost their instrumentation, then it came back all of the sudden."
telesilla 3y ago

smcl 3y ago

Interestingly, this flight (Sydney-Santiago, via Auckland) is one of a few that many flat-earthers insist does not exist, since it contradicts a theory they have. They'd plot the paths of long-distance flights on a polar azimuthal equidistant projection of earth[0], and note that some one-stop flights look like a straight line on this projection. But those which don't look like a straight line (i.e. that suggest they're wrong) are dismissed as nonexistant, and part of the greater globe earth conspiracy. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projecti...

SirHound 3y ago
Maybe this was the flight passing through the necessary (government funded) wormhole
- smcl 3y ago
  Or maybe this is a high profile incident planned to keep the globe-head charade going! It is notable that the flight didn't actually go to Santiago in the end ...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
brabel 3y ago
I flew many times between South America and NZ/Australia (and once from LA to Sydney, one of the longest flights you can get), including this exact flight, and find that's hilarious.
- smcl 3y ago
  Yeah I've known someone (a family, actually) who did the same. In case you want a bit of light entertainment, the video where I learned about this is here - don't worry it's debunking flat earth, not in favour it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFsOoKAHZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFsOoKAHZg
3y ago

627467 3y ago

"major banks 2008: too big to fail" "Boeing: too big to be grounded"

peter7012 3y ago

We had the same incident around 2007-2008 with China Airlines. The scary point that it happened almost the same place, from Taiwan to Bali about 1 hour before the landing.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
Aliens?
harshbutfair 3y ago
Hardly "almost the same place", it's ~6500km away.
Jamie9912 3y ago
Taiwan to Bali is nowhere near New Zealand

p_l 3y ago

Pure speculation, but why I'm reminded of the instruction to reboot your 787 regularly, preferably with staggered reboots of the electric buses?

itsthecourier 3y ago

Reminds me of that time a japanese flight had a steep turbulence, a passenger hit the ceiling and died. 12 injured into the ceiling in this flight, kind of looks like a check of who was and wasn't wearing the belt

Schroedingers2c 3y ago

It's remarkable how almost every serious incident due to equipment errors in the past few months involves a Boeing aircraft rather than an Airbus.

sandworm101 3y ago

I don't understand why so many people refuse to wear seatbelts unless demanded. Had everyone been buckled in I doubt anyone would have been injured. You are in a metal tube doing almost the speed of sound tens of thousands of feet in the air. Keep the belt on. If you have to get up, keep a hand on something. An airliner cannot pull serious negative gs. You aren't going to be "pinned" to the ceiling. But you should hold to something solid just in case things get a little floaty for a few seconds. Most longtime fliers have witnessed their drinks lift of their trays. The floating doesn't hurt. The issue is when things stop floating and come crashing down.

fortran77 3y ago

This is why you keep your seat belt fastened whenever you're sitting down.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]