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

291–300 of 338 posts

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

#291

Post by throwaway2037 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #218
RestlessMind wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually that seems very Japanese in a weird way - they might be trusting themselves and everyone else to follow rules precisely, thus avoiding all the accidents and obviating the need for seatbelts.

Is driving actually kind of easy in Japan for this reason? I’ve never had a car while there. It’s wild how different Japan and China are despite being neighbors. I can’t think of a European neighbor pair that is so different.

I can: Germany and (European) Russia. They are about the same distance as Tokyo to Shanghai. They have wildly different driving cultures! Also, China is the size of a continent. Did you drive in all the different regions? I doubt it. Do what region are you extrapolating from?

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

#292

Post by throwaway2037 »

lxgr wrote: post #274
janalsncm wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is a "jet bridge"?

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

#293

Post by Johnythree »

DrNosferatu wrote: post #32

I wonder if there’s data to assert what’s more dangerous in the long term: Stay absolutely seated and fastened for the whole flight; VS. Stay absolutely seated and fastened for the whole flight with a few breaks to walk around and stretch your legs. PS: Yes, sitting without fastening your seatbelt is just plain stupid.

The alternative is to do the standard sitting exercises intended to avoid DVT.

eg wiggle your toes, flex your leg muscles, rock your feet, etc.

All you need do is avoid pinch points which block blood flow.

These are routinely taught to solders on point duty, pilots on long flights, patients confined to bed,etc.

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

#294

Post by throwaway2037 »

mayd wrote: post #286

For all the pontificating in this thread about the need to follow safety advice regarding the wearing of seat belts (and bicycle helmets!) at all times, please note the following from the BBC report: > the London-Singapore flight suffered a sudden drop as a meal service was under way. Meal service is probably the single most vulnerable moment to encounter turbulence. How many of the safety-first-at-all-times brigade…

You don't need to be "tightly strapped". Loosely strapped is good enough. On long haul flights, I see lots of people doing that.

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

#295

Post by harnsit »

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…

thanks for changing my life!

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

#296

Post by AlotOfReading »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #292
lxgr wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is a "jet bridge"?

It's the enclosed, moveable walkway you go through between the airport gate and the plane.

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

#297

Post by cedilla »

schmookeeg wrote: post #180
andybak wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [..] 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…

People who follow all safety instructions endure fewer light injuries, severe injuries and fatalities. Pilots who joke about seatbelts are just an example of professionals being hilariously wrong (or sardonic) about a topic adjacent to their expertise. Or they were just joking about their usefullness in an uncontrolled crash landing, which is extremely rare.

In this case, a seat belt would have likely saved the person - heavily injuring yourself is quite traumatic (tautologically) which increases the risk of cardiac events. In any case, injuries due to turbulence are extremely common as far as injuries in airliners go.

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

#298

Post by optiomal_isgood »

mayd wrote: post #286

For all the pontificating in this thread about the need to follow safety advice regarding the wearing of seat belts (and bicycle helmets!) at all times, please note the following from the BBC report: > the London-Singapore flight suffered a sudden drop as a meal service was under way. Meal service is probably the single most vulnerable moment to encounter turbulence. How many of the safety-first-at-all-times brigade…

I always eat with the seatbelt fastened. Why do you need to remove it? Considering the reduced leg space these days, the tray table is relatively within reach.

Besides, I do a 12h route at least once a year, and yes I always have them on unless I'm stretching my legs or going to the toilet because that's the safety recommendation—not because I like it—I don't get your point.

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

#299

Post by darkwater »

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…

Still not convinced. The plane is both carrying you tangentially to the Earth surface (to simplify) and sustaining you against gravity. If a turbulence just makes disappear the sustain against gravity, the wings, the fuselage and everything inside will start free-falling at the same time, effectively being a reduced gravity system. This is what happens in the ISS and there is actually a NASA aircraft (Vomit Comet [1]) that does that on purpose. OTOH if the aircraft suddenly goes down faster than 1G, let's say 2G, and you are not tied to anything, you will experience a 1G acceleration towards the roof, because you are "just" falling at 1G.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft

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

#300

Post by darkwater »

xenadu02 wrote: post #238
darkwater wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you should hurt your butt, not your head as described in the article, no? I still think that if you get your head against the oxygen masks it's because the plane accelerated a lot downwards.

When the airplane experiences high negative G you get propelled upwards at 9.8m/s/s times the negative G. A -1G force cancels the constant +1G force gravity exerts resulting in free-fall or floating. If the negative G force is higher than 1G you are now accelerating upwards relative to the fuselage. A -2.5G event "pulls" you upward 1.5x harder than falling and you absolutely can die from falling down due to head inju…

Exactly, but this is what I'm saying from the beginning :)

EDIT: to clarify, my initial doubt/question was about what actually is the cause for the force that, during a turbulence, makes the plane fall at >1G and thus making you hit the ceiling if you are not tied to the seat?

Post reply on HN