Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 338 posts

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#101

Post by pfdietz »

dailykoder wrote: post #76
rob74 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup... I still don't understand why people decide to not put on their seatbelt while being seated. It's not like you have a lot more freedom of movement without the seatbelt? And it might just save your life in events like this one.

What's not to understand about this? Airplanes are just super f'in safe and most people just think that nothing will ever happen to them, because rarely anything happens. Things do happen, but walking around the plane is cooler

People aren't killed on airline flight very often. Usually no more than once.

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#102

Post by portaouflop »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #55
pooper wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point, make self driving cars cheap enough (under USD 20k new for a decent electric car with self driving) and I'll gladly support a complete ban on humans driving on public roads if that means the self driving cars can coordinate and drive better.

If you're making such a major change to the infrastructure, replace the roads with train tracks, and the cars with electric trains. It'll be cheaper and safer. Cars that can only be driven by computers in controlled conditions defeat most of the point of having cars (i.e., mobility for people unable to use public transport).

The point of cars is to provide mobility for the disabled?I would guess we would have a lot less cars around if that were the case, at least in the city (no idea how it is in the US, I heard you can’t even walk there in some places so )

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#103

Post by ghaff »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #75
PaulRobinson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm talking about risk mitigation, not control.

So let's say the media started a campaign promoting wearing a helmet all the time. The anti-helmet people would be painted as reckless, feckless, and generally deplorable. All the celebrities would endorse wearing a helmet at all times. There would be New York Times editorials about "those people". Questions: Is this still about risk mitigation? If yes, are you at risk now? Why don't you wear your bike helmet at work…

Well, and in fact, helmet wearing at least in the US has become normalized in situations where no one other than competing athletes wore helmets for things like skiing or casual biking a few decades ago. Today you stand out by not doing so. Heck. Professional hockey players didn’t use to wear helmets.

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#104

Post by kayodelycaon »

darkwater wrote: post #94

Horrible news. Speaking of the physics involved, I was thinking: if it's just free fall, caused by gravity and no air sustaining the wings, this should not happen, right? Some random Quora answer says that it's because during turbulence there is actually air pressing wings down and accelerating them down faster than gravity, and that's why you hit the ceiling. Intuitively that makes sense but, can anyone confirm? Edi…

Air moves and the plane will move with it, subject to inertia.

Think of the air like water. (Air has fluid dynamics.)If the water suddenly drops away from a boat, the boat isn’t going to magically hover above the water.

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#105

Post by portaouflop »

shlant wrote: post #95
yawpitch wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, just not pusillanimous about it, given the odds. Fascinating; an exemplar of both toxic masculinity and grandiloquence in a single word.

>toxic masculinity Would love an explanation of how you got here

I guess because it’s a snobby way of saying “they weren’t pussies about it”

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#106

Post by wizzwizz4 »

portaouflop wrote: post #102
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're making such a major change to the infrastructure, replace the roads with train tracks, and the cars with electric trains. It'll be cheaper and safer. Cars that can only be driven by computers in controlled conditions defeat most of the point of having cars (i.e., mobility for people unable to use public transport).

The point of cars is to provide mobility for the disabled?I would guess we would have a lot less cars around if that were the case, at least in the city (no idea how it is in the US, I heard you can’t even walk there in some places so )

Given how wasteful they are, that's the only good justification for cars. But per the social model of disability (https://www.scope.org.uk/social-model-of-disability):

> The model says that people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment or difference. Barriers can be physical, like buildings not having accessible toilets. Or they can be caused by people's attitudes to difference, like assuming disabled people can't do certain things.

in areas without usable public transport, everyone has this "disability". Individual action can't make public transport magically appear: only policy changes can do that. (Or anarchically setting up your own public transport, I suppose, but that'll probably get you arrested in America.)

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#107

Post by fnord77 »

olalonde wrote: post #87
voisin wrote: post #26

I haven’t experienced much turbulence in maybe 15 years, whereas I remember in the 90s I experienced tons of turbulence in almost every flight. I am not sure if this is something modern airliners have been designed to deal with or avoid, or not. Has anyone else experienced this or is my memory just faulty?

Seems relatively constant according to this graph: https://icao.usmission.gov/air-carrier-turbulence-related-in...

that graph doesn't show severity

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#108

Post by portaouflop »

bergen wrote: post #100
portaouflop wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 6000 people choke to death in the US every year. A couple hundred died during turbulences in the last 20 years. Data on olives/airline bars is inconclusive

The frequency of "eating stuff" should be a multiple of "being on a plane" I would assume

statistic is hard :(

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#109

Post by Intermernet »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #75
PaulRobinson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm talking about risk mitigation, not control.

So let's say the media started a campaign promoting wearing a helmet all the time. The anti-helmet people would be painted as reckless, feckless, and generally deplorable. All the celebrities would endorse wearing a helmet at all times. There would be New York Times editorials about "those people". Questions: Is this still about risk mitigation? If yes, are you at risk now? Why don't you wear your bike helmet at work…

A smart, independently minded person, would do the following risk analysis:

- Planes fly through the atmosphere in varying conditions. - The conditions that lead to uncomfortable or dangerous turbulence are not at all uncommon. - These conditions are unpredictable and have little warning. - Wearing a seatbelt is a very minor inconvenience, and will protect me from the worst of the harms that can come from common turbulence. - I will wear a seatbelt.

This doesn't seem complex.

The argument about bike helmets, although nuanced, should have nothing to do with celebrities wearing them or not.

Re: One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

#110

Post by luuurker »

Sad about the injured and especially the dead person.

I don't think most people realise how violent turbulence can be or how badly things can go. In my last flight, someone on my row removed the seatbelt as soon the light went out and then when we landed, before we exited the runway. Like, why? If it bothers you that much, don't wear it too tight... but at least wear it.

Post reply on HN