Live data from Hacker News

One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence

bbc.com

171–180 of 338 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree with this. The seatbelt light is as anachronistic as the no-smoking light. They should just keep it on at all times. People obviously are still incorrectly interpreting "seatbelt light off" as "I should take my seatbelt off now."

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

#173
post #82
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.

i do in fact wear safety glasses when frying stuff and oil is splattering but you're right that most don't

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

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you even cross a road with that approach to risk?

By looking both ways and therefore mitigating the risk through reducing the likelihood of being killed while crossing the road by oncoming traffic. The risk mitigation technique for dealing with severe turbulence which frequently injures people, and only rarely kills people (thankfully), is to keep your seatbelt loosely fastened, and get out of your seat only when you need to. The fact this is considered absurd by so…

> The fact this is considered absurd by some replies here is a fascinating insight, TBH.

I always thought there were relatively few people with this mentality, that a simple and trivial precaution is totally unacceptable and infringes on their entire life. Then COVID hit and we all saw just how many people would not even lift a pinky finger to help mitigate risk for themselves and others. I don't understand it, either. Do y'all just go out and jump off cliffs every day because you're free to do it?

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

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly a quick search can't find any hit for people dying by choking on a airplane bar. A few hits for turbulence though.

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

Yes, but 6000 people don't choke eating olives at an airplane bar.

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

#176
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.

Why even allow people to go to places on their own (whether car or EV or public transport) without the written consent of the state?

be careful on that slope, you might slip and get hurt!

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with this. The seatbelt light is as anachronistic as the no-smoking light. They should just keep it on at all times. People obviously are still incorrectly interpreting "seatbelt light off" as "I should take my seatbelt off now."

The seatbelt sign tells you whether or not you are allowed to get up and move around. Unlike the no-smoking light it has actual informational content.

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, fo…

The seatbelt light nowadays is mostly a don’t move around sign.

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

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> [..] in response to your use of ignorance as a defense for ignoring airplane crew instructions. Unless I come from an alternate universe - most people wear their seatbelt during take-off and landing and when the seatbelt light comes on. I wear mine through most of the flight but I only started doing this fairly recently because I learned more about turbulence. I'm not defending ignorance at all. I'm simply describi…

If they spent the time to describe all of the rare-yet-possible ways a person could die on an airliner, the thing would never leave the gate.

At some level, take their mandated-by-regulations word for it? -- these regs are written in blood, and they say to buckle your belt, not only when the sign is lighted, but also any time when seated at your seat.

Boeing has done a good job of reminding us of some non-turbulence reasons to buckle up. You might also get sucked out of an unsecured exit door plug on a 737. :) I haven't heard that one mentioned in a safety brief yet.

In the pilot circles I frequent, the joke about seatbelts is that it helps accident investigators more easily count the deceased among the wreckage. So there's some YOLO fuel for your next trip. This was a freak occurrence. It's sad and it sucks. The injuries to passengers were likely preventable -- less so the cabin crew. New word is that the fatality was a cardiac event -- no belt buckle helps anyone there.

Post reply on HN