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

Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#21

Post by graemep »

interestica wrote: post #19
mhb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be many things. Did they consider whether the incidence of seat belt wearing has decreased? It doesn't seem that far-fetched that compliance with the directive to fasten seat belts has decreased along with respect for authority.

Interesting! As a continued hypothetical, it's interesting that the "No Smoking" permanently-lit sign is next to the seatbelt one. It's a weird contradiction: by being an electronic illuminated sign in the most prominent area (like a passenger HUD - reserved for critical info) it is given an elevated importance that doesn't really align with user expectation (is it really on the same level as the 'alert' implementati…

I wonder why they have it at all. Every flight I have been on for a very long time is completely no smoking.

I think it may have that effect on the seatbelt sign, but is it greater or less than when the no smoking sign was actually worth checking?

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#22

Post by alexk307 »

dagmx wrote: post #8
the_third_wave wrote: post #6

...and as if on queue the narrative around climate "crisis" is woven into an article about a plane experiencing turbulence: experts say the issue is getting worse in an era of climate crisis . Do publications like the Guardian have narrative quotas they need to achieve?

Would you like to refute their claim? Climate change causing turbulence increase is well acknowledged https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240524-severe-turbulenc...

That paper has nothing to do with the incident in question. You're referencing a BBC article that references a paper stating that Clear Air Turbulence is getting worse [1]

> Turbulence is unpleasant to fly through in an aircraft. Strong turbulence can even injure air passengers and flight attendants. An invisible form called clear-air turbulence

But in the incident in question, the plane flew directly through a convective storm.

[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL10...

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#23

Post by alexk307 »

plucas wrote: post #9
graemep wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian is highly6 ideological. I would have thought the main reason the issue is more common is simply there are far more flights.

This study from the University of Reading found that severe turbulence has indeed increased significantly and measurably over the last 40 years: https://research.reading.ac.uk/research-blog/2023/06/28/avia...

But that's not what the paper says. It says Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) has gotten worse, not all types of turbulence. In this case, the flight flew through a convective storm.

Even so, the paper says there's been a 0.2-0.3% change in CAT:

> The largest increases in both absolute and relative MOG CAT were found over the North Atlantic and continental United States, with statistically significant absolute increases of 0.3% (26 hr) and 0.22% (19 hr), respectively, over the total reanalysis period.

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#24

Post by gosub100 »

dagmx wrote: post #17
gosub100 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you found research contradicting that narrative, it would risk your career and/or would not be published. There is only one way to think, not open discourse. For instance, wildfires. It's definitely climate change because something bad happened. Not classical phenomena about wind currents drying out vegetation. Or increased human development into wild areas, or a century of PUTTING OUT smaller fires, or enviro…

The irony that you are claiming everybody else will not listen to conflicting evidence while not providing any of your own and saying that you won’t believe anything unless it passes your own world view.

The irony is that if the CA forest were logged and the timber used to build homes, the price of housing would be lower, there would be fewer homeless people, more people with jobs, and few or no devastating fires (less CO2, you know, the big bad "greenhouse gas") . But admitting that would be heretical to the pseudo-religion that is leftism. The party profits when suffering increases.

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#25

Post by dagmx »

gosub100 wrote: post #24
dagmx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony that you are claiming everybody else will not listen to conflicting evidence while not providing any of your own and saying that you won’t believe anything unless it passes your own world view.

The irony is that if the CA forest were logged and the timber used to build homes, the price of housing would be lower, there would be fewer homeless people, more people with jobs, and few or no devastating fires (less CO2, you know, the big bad "greenhouse gas") . But admitting that would be heretical to the pseudo-religion that is leftism. The party profits when suffering increases.

I legitimately cannot tell if this is a parody comment or not.

It shows a shocking lack of familiarity with the effects of deforestation, carbon capture, logging rules for sustainability, land ownership for building the houses or even what the bottlenecks for housing currently are.

All to blame the intellectually bereft bogeyman of “leftism” when forests exist in many right wing states, and the right wing currently runs the government and yet even they don’t do what you’re suggesting…

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#26

Post by curt15 »

mhb wrote: post #14
graemep wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian is highly6 ideological. I would have thought the main reason the issue is more common is simply there are far more flights.

Could be many things. Did they consider whether the incidence of seat belt wearing has decreased? It doesn't seem that far-fetched that compliance with the directive to fasten seat belts has decreased along with respect for authority.

Respect for authority has decreased?

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#27

Post by cjrp »

cjrp wrote: post #2

Always wear your seatbelt, even in the cruise.

> Passengers reported they were told one of the flight attendants had suffered a broken rib, another person a fractured leg. The trolleys had been lifted and impacted the cabin ceiling and fell to the floor several times, passengers not wearing their seat belts also hit the cabin ceiling. The crew announced they had lost more than 1000 feet of altitude, they hadn't seen such severe turbulence ever before.

https://avherald.com/h?article=52b0a50c&opt=0

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#28

Post by mhb »

curt15 wrote: post #26
mhb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be many things. Did they consider whether the incidence of seat belt wearing has decreased? It doesn't seem that far-fetched that compliance with the directive to fasten seat belts has decreased along with respect for authority.

Respect for authority has decreased?

yes

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#29

Post by gosub100 »

dagmx wrote: post #25
gosub100 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that if the CA forest were logged and the timber used to build homes, the price of housing would be lower, there would be fewer homeless people, more people with jobs, and few or no devastating fires (less CO2, you know, the big bad "greenhouse gas") . But admitting that would be heretical to the pseudo-religion that is leftism. The party profits when suffering increases.

I legitimately cannot tell if this is a parody comment or not. It shows a shocking lack of familiarity with the effects of deforestation, carbon capture, logging rules for sustainability, land ownership for building the houses or even what the bottlenecks for housing currently are. All to blame the intellectually bereft bogeyman of “leftism” when forests exist in many right wing states, and the right wing currently r…

You didn't address a single thing I said.

Re: Severe turbulence forces Delta A330 to make emergency landing, 25 injured

#30

Post by qcnguy »

dagmx wrote: post #8
the_third_wave wrote: post #6

...and as if on queue the narrative around climate "crisis" is woven into an article about a plane experiencing turbulence: experts say the issue is getting worse in an era of climate crisis . Do publications like the Guardian have narrative quotas they need to achieve?

Would you like to refute their claim? Climate change causing turbulence increase is well acknowledged https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240524-severe-turbulenc...

Yeah he's right, Guardian and BBC are garbage. Check the actual data from the people who would know.

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101....

Page 34. They have a graph. "After normalizing the data by annual flight hours, there was no obvious trend over time for turbulence-related Part 121 accidents during this [30 year] period."

BBC article is citing some academics doing a modeling exercise. They never learn. Academics can prove the sky is green if they're allowed to play with R for long enough. That paper isn't measuring actual turbulence, they try to derive it from physical models, but their models must suck because they draw a totally different conclusion to the real world experience of accident investigators. Evidence > academic theories.

Post reply on HN