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

81–90 of 338 posts

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

#81

Post by gcbirzan »

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…

Descending 6000 feet in 3 minutes is by no means special, that's just journalists being bad. Planes regularly descend at a higher rate, and nobody gets injured. Also, you don't need that high of a fall to have people get injured, a few tens of meters is more than enough, if it happens very suddenly (seconds, not minutes), which is the case with turbulence.

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

#82

Post by andybak »

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.

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.

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

#83

Post by cinntaile »

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…

You should move around pretty often to reduce the risk of blood clots. It's probably a better risk trade-off than trying to stay seated (and buckled-up) at all times besides going to the bathroom.

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

#84

Post by portaouflop »

corobo wrote: post #22
marcinzm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I walk in a city I don't spend my time constantly scanning the sky and every building around me for a potential falling object. Or research the structural history of every bridge I drive over then spend hours avoiding certain ones. Or a hundred other rare things that do kill people but statistically not often. Everyone dies one day and everyone has a single life. I don't see the point of spending that one life i…

A bird shat on my head like 10 years ago and I look up at everything now. Street lights, overhangs, anything a bastard pigeon could be sitting on. I don't fear death, for I will be dead. I fear unexpected inconvenience

I just want to be reborn as a bird to do exactly this all day

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

#86

Post by DHowett »

andybak wrote: post #82
rob74 wrote: 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.

> 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 wearing them are fairly well-documented.

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

#87

Post by olalonde »

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...

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

#88

Post by kalleboo »

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…

> I simply don't understand some cabins that have cocktail bars in them

Some First Class Suites cabins even have actual showers in them!

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

#89

Post by portaouflop »

gpderetta wrote: post #38
closewith wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I simply don't understand some cabins that have cocktail bars in them - are you absolutely crazy? Air pockets are horrific, and there is nothing pilots can do to avoid unexpected ones. The answer is that you're far more likely to choke on an olive at the bar than die due to turbulence.

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

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

#90

Post by rob74 »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #75
PaulRobinson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm talking about risk mitigation, not control.

So let's say the media started a campaign promoting wearing a helmet all the time. The anti-helmet people would be painted as reckless, feckless, and generally deplorable. All the celebrities would endorse wearing a helmet at all times. There would be New York Times editorials about "those people". Questions: Is this still about risk mitigation? If yes, are you at risk now? Why don't you wear your bike helmet at work…

The chance of an airplane hitting major turbulence unexpectedly, while pretty small, are much higher than the chance of some random debris falling from a building while you are passing by. Ultimately it's all weighing the inconvenience against the possible safety improvement: when you are sitting in your seat in a plane, the seatbelt is a very minor inconvenience. Wearing a helmet all the time is a much bigger inconvenience, with a much smaller benefit.
Post reply on HN