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

271–280 of 338 posts

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

#271

Post by lxgr »

avar wrote: post #239
miki123211 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "known nonsense", but not for the reason you think. There's a small risk of your phone connecting to some random carrier located in whatever country you're currently flying over. For some smaller / third-world countries, this can be quite expensive, cents-per-megabyte isn't unheard of.

Every time this is brought up people come out of the woodworks with post-hoc rationale for this rule that has no basis in historical fact. This comment is good example. Why would the FAA and other aviation regulatory agencies care about your phone bill?

I completely agree on GPs statement being absurd post-hoc rationale, but interestingly, this rule is actually coming from the FCC, not the FAA [1], with the FAA only indicating support for it [2].

The motivation is supposedly cellphones at high altitudes interfering with far-away cell towers that are reusing the same frequency at a distance that would normally make interference very unlikely, given the radio horizon and everything.

I highly doubt that that would still be an issue modern networks couldn't handle (also given that most other countries don't have a corresponding law on their books, as far as I know), yet here we are.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/22.925

[2] https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...

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

#272

Post by lxgr »

miki123211 wrote: post #265
avar wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time this is brought up people come out of the woodworks with post-hoc rationale for this rule that has no basis in historical fact. This comment is good example. Why would the FAA and other aviation regulatory agencies care about your phone bill?

It's not the reason the rule was implemented, it's not something the FAA cares about, but this doesn't change the fact that it's still a good idea in some cases, rule or no rule.

By that logic, many more things ought to be declared illegal by completely unrelated regulatory bodies. It would be a bit like the FDA banning gambling, or the SEC reinstating prohibition.

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

#273

Post by lxgr »

Symbiote wrote: post #244
ryandrake wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

A "stay in your seat" light would be an improvement.

That's a good point! They even have a design for that on the bathrooms already (and now I wonder if that's always been the case, or if there was a time when people were frantically searching for the seatbelts there when the chime came on :)

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

#274

Post by lxgr »

janalsncm wrote: post #208
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.

Here’s another American perspective: there are tons of videos of crazy turbulence tossing people around the cabin. I don’t want to get tossed around.

Warning fatigue is a real concern, and requiring people to watch videos on the internet should not be a prerequisite for adequate safety.

I've definitely noticed a proliferation of warning notices and signs in the US (and I don't just mean the Californian chemical hazard warnings in the most bizarre/unavoidable locations like a jet bridge), with the really important ones usually reiterated by a human standing next to them, continuously shouting the same instruction, apparently because people don't seem to take them seriously otherwise.

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

#275

Post by istjohn »

xenadu02 wrote: post #236
darkwater wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Obviously, but then the boat and all the objects within it would be experiencing the same gravity acceleration, immediately, at the same time. That is not correct. The airplane experiences this uniformly because the wings transmit the forces to the fuselage. But the contents of the aircraft follow Sir Issac Newton and want to continue their previous motion. If the aircraft experiences high enough negative G then an…

OP was commenting on the analogy of a boat that has the water underneath it suddenly drop away.

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

#276

Post by adamredwoods »

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...

Huh.

>> The study also highlighted a new product, a turbulence nowcast, that combines numerous data sources to produce forecasts that are updated every 15 minutes – providing air carriers, all users of the National Airspace System and the air traffic controllers who support them – timely and critical safety information about locations and severity of potential turbulence. The turbulence nowcast is not yet widely used so the NTSB recommended the FAA and the NWS work together to fully implement its adoption and use in the national airspace system.

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

#277

Post by adamredwoods »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #99
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…

There is no such thing as turbulence detection. And I haven’t heard of automatic avoidance in any airplane I know about. (Unless you’re referring to something like the F-16 ground avoidance system.) There is “wind shear detection” but that relies on the planes weather radar detecting moving columns of water droplets.

Not automatic, but...

https://icao.usmission.gov/air-carrier-turbulence-related-in...

>> The study also highlighted a new product, a turbulence nowcast, that combines numerous data sources to produce forecasts that are updated every 15 minutes – providing air carriers, all users of the National Airspace System and the air traffic controllers who support them – timely and critical safety information about locations and severity of potential turbulence. The turbulence nowcast is not yet widely used so the NTSB recommended the FAA and the NWS work together to fully implement its adoption and use in the national airspace system.

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

#278

Post by vel0city »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #8

Tragic, horrid and going to make a lot of nervous flyers more nervous. I've been through some pretty heavy turbulence in my time, but thankfully nothing this severe. I've been through enough though to know that a lot of people don't take it very seriously. I've been on flights with screaming passengers, and _very_ quiet British Marines, both in reaction to some pretty nasty air, and I'm always surprised that turbulen…

Some even have showers on the plane so you can freshen up before arrival on a long transcontinental flight. Imagine hitting turbulence like this in the shower.

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

#279

Post by consumer451 »

According to the NTSB data, turbulence encounters like this are the leading cause of airline accidents. Turbulence is the leading cause, not flying in a Boeing airframe, or whatever other meme you may have been sold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UYNFthOx1o&t=253s

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

#280

Post by [deleted] »

yurishimo wrote: post #240
vsnf wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most Dutch people don’t wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. As e-bikes are becoming more popular, some older people are opting to wear a helmet since the speed is higher, but many still don’t. It’s not uncommon to see a parent riding around with a kid attached to the bike and neither are wearing a helmet. I think it is kind of a cultural thing as well as convenience. If you ride a bike to the station to catch a trai…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN