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

91–100 of 338 posts

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

#91

Post by crazytony »

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?

Radar, planning software and routing have all gotten much, much better in the last decade.

I believe even as late as 2007 or 2008, ATC was limited in the deviations it could do due to the track system still in use in certain areas. Once the ARTCC/TRACONs were updated, ATC in the US now has way more capability and capacity to re-route traffic around storms. I forget when the last ARTCC refresh/rebuild happened.

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

#92

Post by pennomi »

denkmoon wrote: post #65
PaulRobinson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't understand risk mitigation, or think it's someone else's job - even when, in the case of turbulence the professionals are telling you there is absolutely nothing they can do about it - then eventually you're just going to end up getting injured or killed by something that could be avoided. Yes, death by turbulence is rare, but there are dozens of serious injuries a year caused by turbulence in US air spa…

Accepting risk and believing it doesn’t apply to you are two vastly different things. I take it you don’t fly? How about driving? There is assumedly some line you draw for acceptable vs unacceptable risk I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here or what you’re suggesting we should do

It’s a cost-benefit relationship. Since wearing a seatbelt is such a minor inconvenience (you’re already sitting in that seat), it’s an obvious thing to do even though the risk is exceedingly rare.

In a hypothetical case where a seatbelt cost an extra $100 to use, then the cost would probably not be worth the benefit.

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

#93

Post by bergen »

denkmoon wrote: post #65
PaulRobinson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't understand risk mitigation, or think it's someone else's job - even when, in the case of turbulence the professionals are telling you there is absolutely nothing they can do about it - then eventually you're just going to end up getting injured or killed by something that could be avoided. Yes, death by turbulence is rare, but there are dozens of serious injuries a year caused by turbulence in US air spa…

Accepting risk and believing it doesn’t apply to you are two vastly different things. I take it you don’t fly? How about driving? There is assumedly some line you draw for acceptable vs unacceptable risk I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here or what you’re suggesting we should do

Use a seatbelt most of the time in a plane is his suggestion, which really isn't hidden. I for one take the suggestion and will do so, because there is no inconvience, but the OP clearly stated that you're supposed make your own decisions.

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

#94

Post by darkwater »

Horrible news.

Speaking of the physics involved, I was thinking: if it's just free fall, caused by gravity and no air sustaining the wings, this should not happen, right? Some random Quora answer says that it's because during turbulence there is actually air pressing wings down and accelerating them down faster than gravity, and that's why you hit the ceiling. Intuitively that makes sense but, can anyone confirm?

Edit: because if it was just free-falling you should be in a micro-gravity environment

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

#95

Post by shlant »

yawpitch wrote: post #51
coldtea wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a reason why you're advised to keep your seatbelt fastened when seated. I simply don't understand some cabins that have cocktail bars in them - are you absolutely crazy? No, just not pusillanimous about it, given the odds.

> No, just not pusillanimous about it, given the odds. Fascinating; an exemplar of both toxic masculinity and grandiloquence in a single word.

>toxic masculinity

Would love an explanation of how you got here

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

#96

Post by marcinzm »

jna_sh wrote: post #58
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…

Why do you perceive wearing a seatbelt on a flight and minimising time out of a seat as such a high cost/inconvenience? I hear this line of thought a lot, particularly nowadays around masking to avoid COVID, and I’m always intrigued by this idea that avoiding this tiny act that barely impacts you is somehow sticking a big middle finger up to fear

Because there's millions of those tiny acts and I doubt you've read the risk analysis of each one to decide which fifty thousand to follow. But if you actually do consider them rationally and act on them then cool. Most people who say what you do however don't but rather act based on an irrational perception of risks usually due to things like media attention or misclassifying lack of control as risk.

I've met people who actually and rationally consider all the potential risks and I respect them. It's also an exhausting life to lead from my observation.

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

#97

Post by pfdietz »

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…

It's also so if a window fails you don't get sucked all the way out (although you can still be killed if you're sucked partially out, as happened on a Southwest Airlines flight to an unfortunate passenger.)

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

#98

Post by Intermernet »

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…

I recently flew ANA and they advise all passengers to keep their seatbelts on at all times when seated. It seems like simple advice. I do the same thing when I'm driving. I don't find it uncomfortable in the slightest, even sleeping. Maybe others have a different experience, but turbulence isn't that rare. I've had serious turbulence on many flights. Probably the worst was final approach / landing in Frankfurt with perfectly blue skies. The atmosphere does weird things.

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

#99

Post by kayodelycaon »

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.

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

#100

Post by bergen »

portaouflop wrote: post #89
gpderetta wrote: post #38

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

The frequency of "eating stuff" should be a multiple of "being on a plane" I would assume
Post reply on HN