Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
A mid-air incident on a LATAM Boeing 787-9 flying from Sydney to Auckland, in which dozens of passengers were injured after a sudden altitude change, has prompted scrutiny of whether the cause was turbulence or a technical failure such as a brief loss of instrumentation. Commenters explore how easily negative G-forces can be induced, debate Boeing’s safety record and fly-by-wire protections, and highlight how poor seatbelt habits and confusing “seatbelt sign” UX contribute to injuries. Many argue passengers should keep belts fastened whenever seated, given the risk of unexpected clear-air turbulence or control anomalies.
Likely Cause and Technical Aspects
- Early reports are conflicting: some commenters assumed severe turbulence/“air pocket”; others note the article and passenger quotes indicating a “technical problem” and loss of instrumentation.
- Aviation enthusiasts point to reports (e.g., avherald) that the captain said instruments briefly failed, then returned, followed by rapid vertical movement.
- Some speculate about failures in systems like ADIRU or avionics software bugs (e.g., known 787 reboot-related issues), but this is explicitly framed as speculation pending an official report.
- Debate on whether large jets can themselves generate such vertical accelerations: some argue only turbulence can, others note pilots can induce negative/positive G via aggressive pitch changes, within structural limits.
Seatbelts, Passenger Behavior, and UX
- Strong consensus that passengers should keep seatbelts fastened whenever seated, regardless of the sign.
- Multiple anecdotes of injuries from turbulence when people were unbelted.
- Several argue the “fasten seatbelt” sign is poor UX; off-state is interpreted as “safe to unbuckle,” whereas airlines often verbally say “keep it fastened while seated.”
- Cultural differences are discussed (car and bus seatbelt usage in South America, Europe, US, New Hampshire) and how they may influence behavior on planes.
Cabin Safety Ideas and Edge Cases
- Concerns about being in the lavatory during sudden vertical drops; some think the confined space may limit injury, others focus on hygiene risks.
- Suggestions like zipline-style harnesses in the aisle or seatbelts in toilets meet pushback over practicality, tripping/strangulation risk, and limited benefit.
- Serving hot coffee is questioned given turbulence risk.
Aircraft Type and Boeing Debate
- Plane identified as a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner.
- Some defend the 787’s safety record (no hull-loss accidents, “one of the best airliners”), while others highlight its manufacturing and software issues as evidence Boeing quality has degraded.
- Broader criticism that many recent high-profile equipment incidents involve Boeing, with quips about Boeing being “too big to be grounded.”
Physics, Turbulence, and Related Asides
- Discussion of “air pockets,” clear-air turbulence, and free-fall vs “zero gravity,” including analogies to parabolic flights.
- References to past incidents (an Air Canada pilot mistaking Venus for an aircraft, violent maneuvers to foil hijackings) and a light-hearted detour into flat-Earth conspiracies about this specific route.