SAA A343 over Malaysia on Jul 16th 2014, severe turbulence injures 21

Last Update: October 8, 2017 / 17:17:01 GMT/Zulu time

Bookmark this article

Photo of SAA South African Airways ZS-SXA, Airbus A340-300 — SAA South African Airways ZS-SXA, Airbus A340-300 (Photo credit: redlegsfan21 / Flickr / License: CC by-sa)

Incident Facts

Date of incident
Jul 16, 2014

Classification
Accident

Airline
SAA South African Airways

Flight number
SA-286

Departure
Johannesburg, South Africa

Destination
Hong Kong, China

Aircraft Registration
ZS-SXA

Aircraft Type
Airbus A340-300

ICAO Type Designator
A343

A SAA South African Airways Airbus A340-300, registration ZS-SXA performing flight SA-286 (dep Jul 15th) from Johannesburg (South Africa) to Hong Kong (China) with 166 passengers and 13 crew, was enroute at FL370 over Malaysia when the aircraft encountered severe turbulence causing injuries to 18 passengers and 3 crew. The aircraft continued to Hong Kong for a safe landing about 4 hours later. Four occupants received serious injuries, 17 minor injuries, all were taken to hospitals.

The airline reported the aircraft encountered turbulence in the airspace around Kuala Lumpur. Of the 165 passengers on board 25 received injuries as well as 3 members of the crew.

Hong Kong Police reported 25 occupants were injured, two of them seriously. One of the serious injuries is a neck injury.

Passengers reported they were asleep when the aircraft encountered the turbulence near Singapore (Singapore). Most of the injured impacted the ceiling of the cabin receiving head injuries.

On Aug 12th 2014 the French BEA reported in their weekly bulletin that 178 people were on board of the aircraft, 20 passengers and 3 cabin crew received minor injuries when the aircraft encountered turbulence and negative G-forces at FL370 in Kuala Lumpur Airspace causing passengers to hit their heads on the overhead panels.

On Feb 7th 2017 South Africa's Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) reported in an interim report stating that 230 passengers and 13 crew were on board. The aircraft was enroute at FL370 in Malaysian Airspace, no clouds were visible ahead, there was bright sun, the sun shades were down, the weather radar painted no returns. The captain was taking his rest and was in his bunk, pilot P2 had just left the cockpit for a toilet break, when pilot P3 felt the onset of a turbulence, immediately activated the fasten seat belt signs while the turbulence increased and P3 felt weightless only held in his seat by the lap strap, there was sound like rain, however, P3 could not make out the source of the sound. The pilot therefore engaged engine anti-ice. An overspeed alert activated, P3 checked the speed setting which was still okay, the speed trend vector however showed a still increasing speed, then the turbulence stopped and the overspeed warning ceased. P3 estimated the turbulence lasted for about 3-5 seconds. P2 returned to the cockpit and was briefed on what happened and how P3 had managed. The purser reported there was damage in the cabin and there were injuries. The crew discussed the risk management and decided to continue to destination, where they requested priority and medical services to attend the aircraft. The captain returned to the cockpit and agreed with the decisions.

The SACAA reported the Quick Access Recorder showed vertical accelerations between +1.6G and -0.5G. The autopilot remained engaged throughout the event.

On Oct 7th 2017 the SACAA released their final report concluding the probable cause of the accident was:

The sudden severe clear air turbulence followed by negative G forces encountered, during cruise flight, caused 3 cabin crew-members and eighteen passengers being injured as they were not seated nor restrained at the time when the incident occurred.

The SACAA now reported 166 passengers and 13 crew on board, 2 cabin crew and two passengers received serious, another cabin crew and 16 passengers received minor injuries.

The SACAA reported that according to satellite images there were no significant clouds in the area, only non-significant high level clouds, there were no cumulonimbus cloud present at all.

The SACAA analysed:

Flight data that was obtained from the FDR indicated that the aircraft was adversely affected by the clear air turbulence with vertical accelerations that reached peaks of +1.6g and – 0.5g over a period of eight (8) seconds. The energy was sufficient to initiate a significant attitude change in the vertical plane that resulted in the displacement of the two cabin crew members at the rear galley. According to an interview with the pilot flying, it would appear that the turbulence had much more profound effect in the aft section of the aircraft as they did not find it to be anything out of the norm in the cockpit at the time.

The 1st officer (P3) concluded that as he switched on the engine anti-ice, the over-speed warning sounded. He then pulled the speed knob to select the speed which was still normal. The speed trend vector increased to the limit which triggered the warning, and then the turbulence stopped. This is not consistent with facts, and in particular with the flight data recordings, since the speed did not exceed MMO 0.86, no red warning, no master caution, no master warning were recorded. It is likely that the audio-alert reported by the crew was actually a c-chord that was indicating a deviation in altitude from the flight path. Indeed, the alert triggers when the aircraft deviates for more than 200ft of the selected altitude. The A/C was flying at FL370, therefore the deviation would correspond to an altitude of 37200ft. Such a deviation occurred between GMT 01.12.46 and 01.12.57. An extract of the alert description and of the flight data recordings is provided in attachment. The altitude alert is not recorded in the flight data recordings which confirms the consistency of this hypothesis that may be confirmed by the crew.

The 1st Officer reported that the over-speed warning triggered. This is not consistent with facts, and in particular with the flight data recordings, since no red warning, no master caution, no master warning were recorded. It is likely that the audio-alert reported by the crew was actually a chord that was indicating a deviation in altitude from the flight path. An extract of the alert description and of the flight data recordings is provided in attachment. The altitude alert is not recorded in the flight data recordings which confirm the consistency of this hypothesis.