11 hours ago
5
SINGAPORE: The investigation findings into the severe turbulence that struck SQ321 in May 2024 leave questions unanswered and could open the door to court action against Singapore Airlines (SIA), legal experts said.
The full report, released on Tuesday (May 19), found that possible issues with the aircraft's weather radar under-detecting inclement weather may have led pilots to fly into it – resulting in injuries to 79 passengers and crew members and one death.
Professor Alan Tan from the National University of Singapore's (NUS) law school said the report raises "huge questions" about why neither the radar system nor the pilots detected the weather disturbances ahead.
The radar manufacturer said it found no evidence of malfunction when tests were conducted after the flight. The pilots, on the other hand, told investigators they did not observe indications of bad weather on the radar prior to the turbulence and believed conditions were clear.
The radar had been reported to experience the same defect on three occasions in the month before the incident. Four other aircraft flew through the same region around the same time and were able to spot and avoid the weather, though they did not follow a similar flight path to SQ321.
Prof Tan said that if a radar malfunction were proven, it would have absolved the pilots.
"However, what is perplexing is that the radar manufacturer has subsequently maintained that it found no evidence of malfunction during the incident," he said.
The only way to resolve this mystery, said Prof Tan, would be for a court to review the evidence and reach its own conclusion.
“In other words, it appears that court litigation is unavoidable,” he said.
Senior Counsel Lok Vi Ming, who represented SIA in the deadly SQ006 crash in Taipei in 2000, said that the investigation report is not meant to apportion blame or liability to any party, but to improve aviation safety.
This is in accordance with the principles set out in Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, which is a treaty which established the foundational legal framework, airspace rules and navigation standards for global civil aviation.
However, Mr Lok said that a court can “draw assistance from or refer to” the investigation findings.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR SIA?
Under the 1999 Montreal Convention, passengers must prove their actual losses. Damages up to S$235,000 (US$183,000) are generally claimable regardless of airline fault.
Beyond that threshold, the airline can avoid liability if it demonstrates the damage was not due to its negligence or wrongful act – or that it was solely caused by a third party, such as an aircraft or component manufacturer, said Prof Tan.
The issue of fault is most consequential for passengers with permanent or serious debilitating injuries, and for the family of the passenger who died.
“These damages will easily exceed the S$235,000 limit, and indeed, could well go into the millions or tens of millions of dollars … particularly if they suffer loss of future earnings from being unable to carry on with their work,” said Prof Tan.
For passengers with light to moderate injuries, Prof Tan said their claims are expected to be straightforward and "likely to have already been settled with the airline".
In June 2024, SIA apologised and said it would offer US$10,000 in compensation to passengers who sustained minor injuries, with monetary offers extended to all 211 passengers.
Mr Lok said that compensation claims arising from this incident could be filed not only in Singapore, but also potentially other jurisdictions as well.
This is because the Montreal Convention allows for claims to be filed in jurisdictions including the airline’s domicile or permanent home, the primary hub of its operations, where the ticket was purchased, the flight destination and the passenger’s residence, subject to certain conditions.
PILOTS TRAINED TO RELY ON INSTRUMENTS
Mr John Tan, lead professional officer of aviation management at the Institution of Engineers Singapore, said the report contains no "conclusive evidence" of a hardware failure.
He said pilots are trained to rely on their instruments, not just visual observation.
“This is probably a situation where they don’t actually have timely information to make a correct decision … they don’t have enough clear warning of what was actually the weather risk ahead,” he said.
“This is different from saying that the pilot made a straightforward error, or one of the hardware components had definitely failed.”
Transport analyst Terence Fan from Singapore Management University agreed, noting that it is difficult for pilots to monitor all conditions across a long flight.
“Because the flight is very long, sometimes you don’t expect the crew to be looking out every minute, because they also have to look at the instrumentation, and they also have to plan the route, so it’s not possible for them to at all times scan everything,” he said.
On the wider implications of weather under-reporting, Mr Tan said a radar that understates risk robs the crew of crucial warning time.
“The fair question is not whether the pilots can predict the exact turbulence, the fair question is whether the system, the entire safety system, has provided enough warning for the pilot to react in a more timely manner.”
He added that while weather radars are generally efficient, they have limits: turbulence, in particular, remains difficult to detect.
“Unfortunately, they won’t actually detect everything out there, particularly in this case of SQ321, it’s actually turbulence, and the technology at this point of time cannot capture turbulence,” he said. “That could potentially be the problem.”
Asst Prof Fan said the airline could not be faulted for missing the earlier radar defects, as their frequency fell below the threshold of three incidents in 10 days and had not resulted in any adverse outcomes.
“So you cannot also fault the airline, because they would have to do this for every flight, for every radar, and that’s a lot of work.”
The investigation findings noted that since the incident, SIA has taken several safety actions, including sending reports of similar radar issues on its Boeing 777 fleet to Boeing and the radar manufacturer.
“Given that this has happened, it certainly makes sense to do a bit more testing,” said Asst Prof Fan.
