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

161–170 of 338 posts

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

#161

Post by marze »

marcinzm wrote: post #145
Intermernet wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 turb…

> - These conditions are unpredictable and have little warning Not true at all. The vast vast majority of turbulence incidents are very well predictable. It's not 1930 anymore. > - The conditions that lead to uncomfortable or dangerous turbulence are not at all uncommon. Except your flawed logic in the previous point flows to this point. The question isn't turbulence but unpredictable severe turbulence which is much…

If “the vast majority … are predictable”, why wouldn’t the airline pilot warn the passengers in advance?

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

#162

Post by nick238 »

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…

You're assuming things are inelastic and won't 'bounce'. Pretend you're walking down the aisle:

One second of higher-g: you compensate and your legs push harder against the ground. One second of weightlessness: the extra force you were pushing against launches you up, you lose footing and tumble. One second of higher-g: your flailing body is thrown against the ground from the average height of a few feet times the increased gravity. Ow.

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

#163

Post by ghaff »

dalyons wrote: post #158
etrautmann wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are constantly bombarded with seemingly unnecessary warnings. I frequently assume that these warnings are to insulate a company from legal trouble and not really to protect me. This might be an American perspective.

See: many airlines that still warn to put your phones in airplane mode, despite that being known nonsense for decades

It may still be a good idea because of battery but basically no one cares. Contra early days of smartphones when there near altercations with passengers responding to one last email after the doors closed.

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

#165

Post by maxglute »

pfdietz wrote: post #97
sva_ wrote: post #61

> "So I started bracing for what was happening, and very suddenly there was a very dramatic drop so everyone seated and not wearing seatbelt was launched immediately into the ceiling," 28-year-old student Dzafran Azmir said. > "Some people hit their heads on the baggage cabins overhead and dented it, they hit the places where lights and masks are and broke straight through it." That's why I try to keep my seatbelt on…

It's also so if a window fails you don't get sucked all the way out (although you can still be killed if you're sucked partially out, as happened on a Southwest Airlines flight to an unfortunate passenger.)

I think more people would belt up if they have animations of people cracking necks or getting sucked out of window in the preflight video.

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

#166

Post by lm28469 »

rob74 wrote: post #71
sva_ wrote: post #61

> "So I started bracing for what was happening, and very suddenly there was a very dramatic drop so everyone seated and not wearing seatbelt was launched immediately into the ceiling," 28-year-old student Dzafran Azmir said. > "Some people hit their heads on the baggage cabins overhead and dented it, they hit the places where lights and masks are and broke straight through it." That's why I try to keep my seatbelt on…

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.

Same in buses, every now and then you have deadly accidents, most deaths are due to people not using the belts and getting slammed around. It's one of the most easily avoidable death

Look at that one for example, the few people who had belt will most likely be fine, on the other hand people without belts got thrown around like ragdolls and many died: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldfgEJpIgKM&rco=1

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

#167

Post by lm28469 »

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…

> The advice to wear your seat belt throughout the flight are hardly clear

> Where? Where would I have seen this documentation? I'm 53 and I have no recollection of stumbling across it.

Besides the bright "buckle your belt" sign in front of you and the little leaflet that says "buckle your belt" at arms reach ?

https://www.travelandleisure.com/thmb/K-qKcdwWTPYlcarQsYPkR3...

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

#168

Post by andybak »

lm28469 wrote: post #167
andybak wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The advice to wear your seat belt throughout the flight are hardly clear > Where? Where would I have seen this documentation? I'm 53 and I have no recollection of stumbling across it. Besides the bright "buckle your belt" sign in front of you and the little leaflet that says "buckle your belt" at arms reach ? https://www.travelandleisure.com/thmb/K-qKcdwWTPYlcarQsYPkR3...

You mean the seatbelt light that is sometimes on but mostly off?

There's some weird disconnect in this thread. People seem to be completely misinterpreting me at every step.

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

#169

Post by toss1 »

andybak wrote: post #134
entitledas wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Umm, I also found it to be a remarkably bad analogy.

More accurate would be something like:

"The chef instructor telks us every time we cook this flaming oil dish that can flame over unpredictably at any time so we should wear the welding helmet whenever possible. And I didn't bother and found it surprising."

Seriously, they tell us EVERY TIME ti wear seat belts at all times when seated. They don't do it just to annoy, confuse, or mislead the passengers. The only surprising thing to me is that such deaths are not more frequent. Despite efforts to predict turbulence, the forces at play when flying 600mph are insane in relation to the human body.

We need to respect that, because physics really DGAF about our opinions.

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

#170

Post by ryandrake »

Intermernet wrote: post #129
iLoveOncall wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never been on any airplane where they didn't say you have to keep your seatbelt fastened at all times when seated.

I've been flying for a long time. It's only in the last decade that I've noticed the specific language of "keep your seatbelt fastened even if the light turns off". It's always been a "soft" suggestion, but it's becoming stronger, and repeated. The ANA flight crew in particular were quite adamant about it. This may just be me becoming more aware of it, but, if so, I'm also becoming more aware of more passengers actua…

> It's only in the last decade that I've noticed the specific language of "keep your seatbelt fastened even if the light turns off".

It makes you wonder why they ever even turn off the seatbelt light. Just keep it on the whole time, just like the equally anachronistic no-smoking light.

I feel like the light is just there to mollify the older generations who didn't grow up with mandatory seat belts wearing in cars, fought those laws loudly, and are still bitter that the government makes them take a sensible safety precaution. Are there enough of those people still flying that it makes sense to keep that light in use?

Post reply on HN