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

131–140 of 338 posts

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

#131

Post by vsnf »

arnon wrote: post #113
Intermernet wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently flew ANA and they advise all passengers to keep their seatbelts on at all times when seated. It seems like simple advice. I do the same thing when I'm driving. I don't find it uncomfortable in the slightest, even sleeping. Maybe others have a different experience, but turbulence isn't that rare. I've had serious turbulence on many flights. Probably the worst was final approach / landing in Frankfurt with p…

Every single airline says this for the last 15 years at least. On some routes you see lots of loose seatbelts (Middle East, Africa). On European flights, everyone has the seatbelt on for the entire flight.

This behavior is reflected in car attitudes too. Many Japanese drive with a detached seatbelt. Not even the presence of children changes this calculus.

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

#132

Post by maxerickson »

andybak wrote: post #82
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.

I've never seen turbulence like this. And until fairly recently I didn't know it was really possible. So it's a bit like "why don't people wear a welding mask while cooking?" It was never even a risk that I had considered before.

A better analogy is probably having a fire extinguisher in the kitchen.

(Because instead of implying that the safety device is absurd, it implies that some people ignore the obvious)

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

#133

Post by andybak »

dboreham wrote: post #127
andybak wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen turbulence like this. And until fairly recently I didn't know it was really possible. So it's a bit like "why don't people wear a welding mask while cooking?" It was never even a risk that I had considered before.

Guessing you are on the younger side. People my age know to wear the seat belt due to watching coverage of aloha flight 243 in 1988.

No. I'm 53 and I didn't watch anything about that flight. I wasn't watching much TV at that stage of my life.

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

#134

Post by andybak »

entitledas wrote: post #130
andybak wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen turbulence like this. And until fairly recently I didn't know it was really possible. So it's a bit like "why don't people wear a welding mask while cooking?" It was never even a risk that I had considered before.

[flagged]

If you read what I said it was nothing about "not following rules" - what rules did you mean?

And thanks for insulting me when it seems to be an issue with your reading comprehension.

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

#135

Post by krisoft »

voisin wrote: post #53

> Turbulence is most commonly caused by aircraft flying through cloud but there is also "clear air" turbulence which is not visible on a jet's weather radar nor is it possible to predict. Is this actually impossible for some theoretical constraint or have we just not invested in the R&D?

Sibling comment from thedrbrian explains it very well while it is unlikely to see clear air turbulence (CAT) with our current weather radars.

Of course if cost would be not an object we could detect these events. One possible solution would be to fly companion drones ahead of the jet. They could then detect CAT quite easily by just running into them. The spacing is critical with this scheme. If the probe drone is too far ahead you risk CAT developing between it and your plane. If it is too close you won't have enough warning time. If it is even closer you just rammed the drone and that can cause complications in itself.

Another possible option is to use laser backscatter. If you shine a laser forward from the airplane some of it bounces back from microparticles. If you measure the doppler shift of the light bounced back (probably with interferometry) you can tell the projected component of the relative speed of the particles. There is a ton of complications with this. But in theory you could make a "lidar" kind of thing which scans forward from the airplane and measure CATs directly.

Here is a paper from NASA about this possibility from 1968: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80667132.pdf

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

#136

Post by ghaff »

arnon wrote: post #113
Intermernet wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently flew ANA and they advise all passengers to keep their seatbelts on at all times when seated. It seems like simple advice. I do the same thing when I'm driving. I don't find it uncomfortable in the slightest, even sleeping. Maybe others have a different experience, but turbulence isn't that rare. I've had serious turbulence on many flights. Probably the worst was final approach / landing in Frankfurt with p…

Every single airline says this for the last 15 years at least. On some routes you see lots of loose seatbelts (Middle East, Africa). On European flights, everyone has the seatbelt on for the entire flight.

Loose seatbelts are probably fine. That’s what I do. Presumably that keeps me from getting launched into the ceiling. A lap belt is a compromise anyway. Aircraft crew use more as do car drivers for that matter.

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

#137

Post by darkwater »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #104
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.

Obviously, but then the boat and all the objects within it would be experiencing the same gravity acceleration, immediately, at the same time.

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

#138

Post by doctor_eval »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #59

I'll be the first to admit that I held conflicting views: For one, I never thought someone could die from turbulence (besides a medical condition such as heart risk). At the same time, I'm sure certain falls/impacts are quite lethal even in very short distances. Yet, i dont understand how turbulence makes a plane fall 6000 ft in 3min, unless the automated (turbulence?) avoidance system engaged and caused the injury i…

AV herald is reporting that the person who died had a heart attack.

> Authorities in Bangkok reported a British citizen (73) on board died as result of a heart attack

Also reporting that

> a second person may have succumbed to the injuries in hospital.

https://avherald.com/h?article=518e5d47&opt=0

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

#139

Post by dailykoder »

pfdietz wrote: post #101
dailykoder wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, in the end darwinism still works, even tho we try very hard to fight against it.

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

#140

Post by schmookeeg »

andybak wrote: post #116
DHowett wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So it's a bit like "why don't people wear a welding mask while cooking?" Your kitchen does not have staff telling you to make sure you are wearing a welding mask. It may also lack appropriate indicator lamps that tell you when it is a good time to wear your welding mask. It is also not standard practice in all kitchens. It’s actually not like airplane seatbelts at all, where they are ubiquitous and the risks of not…

> Your kitchen does not have staff telling you to make sure you are wearing a welding mask. The advice to wear your seat belt throughout the flight are hardly clear and emphatic. They often make it sound like something they have to say to cover their asses. There's certainly no clear comms around the risk of death and serious injury. I have no idea in this case whether the indicators went on in time but I obviously w…

Yes, they say it to cover their asses -- for the very very rare occasion when an unbelted passenger ends up stuffed into the overhead lighting panel or carry-on baggage compartments. :)

Seat belts in cars also contain several CYA-grade chimes and buzzers. The owner manual may mention risk of injury or death. Likely an airline's contract of carriage contains the same. I suspect both are read as often and as eagerly by their users.

I think the multiple "off tone" messages you're getting are in response to your use of ignorance as a defense for ignoring airplane crew instructions.

Post reply on HN