> "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 at all times, ever since I went through some rough turbulences on my way to Dubai (layover)
On some routes you see lots of loose seatbelts (Middle East, Africa). On European flights, everyone has the seatbelt on for the entire flight.
Might not be great for my thumbs in that kind of situation though...
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.
Look at that one for example, the few people who had belt will most likely be fine, on the other hand people without belts got thrown around like ragdolls and many died: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldfgEJpIgKM&rco=1
I always find it amusing that the moment the seat-belts light goes off everyone unbuckles across the plane
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 turbulence surprises people. It's part of flying.
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? Air pockets are horrific, and there is nothing pilots can do to avoid unexpected ones. One minute you can be sipping your vodka martini, the next you can be thrown around to the point you're hitting the ceiling and then the floor within a couple of seconds of each other, and hard, hard enough to kill you.
Even on transatlantic flights (LHR to SFO or LAX is normal for me), I'm only getting out of my seat if I absolutely 100% have to go to the bathroom, and then I'm going to reduce time not buckled in to absolute minimum.
The answer is that you're far more likely to choke on an olive at the bar than die due to turbulence.
Because that's what happened on my last flight. I didn't panic, I just felt sick.
There are reasonable measures those around you can take to ensure that falling objects don't crash into you from the sky, or that the bridge you're on does not collapse as you're driving over it. The risk is mitigated by reducing likelihood and impact.
There is nothing a pilot can do to avoid an air pocket. There is little mitigation possible.
Using PPE is not about living in fear, it's about taking appropriate precautions.
Of course not, because all of those scenarios are extremely high effort for low reward.
Wearing a seatbelt on an airplane is very low effort and takes a few seconds at most.
Your examples are in no way comparable to putting on a seatbelt.
This is the type of fallacious thinking that gets people in trouble: Instead of discussing the issue at hand, they try to substitute a ridiculous, exaggerated alternative scenario and argue against that instead.
You don't have to look very deep to see why your example scenarios, which take enormous amounts of time and effort, are pure strawman arguments in the context of a simple discussion about seatbelts.
There's a second fallacy wherein people try to argue an "all or nothing" perspective: They list out exaggerated things that they can't/won't do (like looking in the sky all the time) and then try to make the claim that because they can't do all of those exaggerated things, they shouldn't be expected to do any safety-related thing. It's another fallacious argument tactic.
I don't fear death, for I will be dead. I fear unexpected inconvenience
My guess is lethal turbulence is so rare, and things like deep-vein thrombosis are so common compare to that rarity, that it's not even close.
No, just not pusillanimous about it, given the odds.
I suspect those would be… unpopular. At least some airlines banned hardcover books during takeoff and landing for a time.
Fascinating; an exemplar of both toxic masculinity and grandiloquence in a single word.
Wear your seatbelt, wear your seatbelt, wear your seatbelt.
They literally say that several times during pre-flight briefing video. That no-one pays attention to.
I'd place a wager most of the injuries on this flight were seated but unbelted people, and not those going to the toilet.
The risk mitigation technique for dealing with severe turbulence which frequently injures people, and only rarely kills people (thankfully), is to keep your seatbelt loosely fastened, and get out of your seat only when you need to.
The fact this is considered absurd by some replies here is a fascinating insight, TBH.
When crossing a road one has more input to judge the risk by looking in both directions, seeing potentially oncoming cars and estimating their speed.
In the plane you have no way as a passenger to know when it's more or less likely that turbulences are flown through or how heavy they would be.
Some First Class Suites cabins even have actual showers in them!
Has anyone else experienced this or is my memory just faulty?
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.
Some things never change, though. Front Range of Colorado on a summer afternoon? Gonna be at least a few bumps.
I'll always remember Luxair's tiny Bombardier DHC-8-400 [0], lot of turbulence on those every single time, I guess because they are so small compared to other planes. I had the impression that they could be easily thrown around in the sky, and don't get me started on the noise of those propellers! The combination of the two made it quite the experience.
[0]: https://airlinesfleet.com/luxair-fleet-bombardier-dash-8-q40...
When you are going over the alps, that extra altitude can really help.
Also I remember in the late 80s going right through a storm while in mid flight during a long flight. That hasn't happened to me in the last 15 years. And I flight around 8 times a year.
>> 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.
My recollection of bad turbulence is that same as yours - a flight to Seattle in '98 was the last time I can remember bad turbulence.
Also, I recall worse turbulence over land and smoother over the ocean. I’m assuming that’s just random luck and not a real thing?
Going 100 miles out of your way for weather at a point that's 100 miles from the airport is a big diversion. Going 100 miles laterally out of your way at the midpoint of a 2500nm trip is about an 8 nm deviation (4nm out and 4nm back).
Luckily with better predictive modeling most flights can avoid these rough patches now. There’s even some apps you can download to see the turbulence forecasts and pilot report maps.
> Moderate turbulence increased by 37%, and light turbulence increased by 17% during this period. Other flight routes over the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, and the South Atlantic also significantly increased.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2023/11/20/more-cl...
So are we just avoiding the storms? Or are “clear air” turbulence situations decreasing?
This is bad journalism.
https://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~williams/publications/2017GL0...
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
One second of higher-g: you compensate and your legs push harder against the ground. One second of weightlessness: the extra force you were pushing against launches you up, you lose footing and tumble. One second of higher-g: your flailing body is thrown against the ground from the average height of a few feet times the increased gravity. Ow.
Think of the air like water. (Air has fluid dynamics.)If the water suddenly drops away from a boat, the boat isn’t going to magically hover above the water.
But when the aircraft regains lift, which can happen rapidly in turbulent conditions, you will accelerate downward relative to the cabin. And the plane is design-tested to something like 5G. It can hurt you very badly.
I don't think most people realise how violent turbulence can be or how badly things can go. In my last flight, someone on my row removed the seatbelt as soon the light went out and then when we landed, before we exited the runway. Like, why? If it bothers you that much, don't wear it too tight... but at least wear it.
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 in the 1st place. Yet, at the same time, the rate of descent may have been necessary to keep control of the plane.
So many questions
That's because it didn't, and armchair experts are breathlessly reporting on a completely normal (if even a bit slow) descent from cruising altitude to a lower altitude as part of their arrival into Bangkok.
There is no such thing. Civilian airliners don't have any automatic avoidance systems - they can only notify the pilots when there's a windshear (drastic wind change), another plane very close by, terrain close by, etc. But it's only (very strong) warnings, and it's impossible to detect/predict turbulence.
There is “wind shear detection” but that relies on the planes weather radar detecting moving columns of water droplets.
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.
> Authorities in Bangkok reported a British citizen (73) on board died as result of a heart attack
Also reporting that
> a second person may have succumbed to the injuries in hospital.
Edit: nm, another post has it
1. Was there any warning for the turbulence? A lot can be picked up by radar but not all and it depends on what equipment the airplane has although Singapore Airlines isn't known for skimping on equipment like that.
2. Was the seat belt sign on? Was the passenger wearing their seat belt?
Basically, was the airline at fault? Was the crew at fault? Was the pasesnger at fault? Or was it just an freak accident? This will take time to answer.
However, I want to just stress: while there are some known poor conditions tech can help pilots avoid (for example, thunder storms - pilots avoid those clouds for good reason), there are many types of turbulence which can not be predicted or detected by ground or air based systems.
We are all individually responsible for our behaviour on the aircraft. Regardless of the seatbelt sign status, keep it fastened when seated. If it's lit, stay seated. If it isn't, minimise the time you're not seated. Yes, it's not great on long haul, but the difference between smooth air and being thrown around by an air pocket is seconds. This severity is thankfully very rare, but that doesn't mean any of us should not consider it a risk when deciding how to behave in a plane cabin.
In general this isn't how airline investigations actually work. They instead use the concept of "just cause" meaning that the assumption is that the system failed, and that any mistake is the child of many parents, none whom are at fault on their own. This is why flying is so safe, no one in the entire system is afraid to report failures or mistakes because the assumption is to get better, not to punish why something is bad.
There may be a single final failure but why did was the system set up to allow that to happen at all in the first place is the question. In this case there will certainly be investigations at every level from the flight crew and cabin crew training, to their sleep schedule, to the forecasts, to the flight path planning, to the policies around passengers moving around the cabin, to even how the plane was balanced on passenger and cargo loading. There's going to be a combination of factors no doubt, but no one's going to get fired (some individuals may resign or retire from the stress of handling such a situation, which no one would fault them for). Singapore just got voted the #1 airline in the world, they will take this as seriously as if the entire plane went down.
These findings will then be applied to every major airline and aircraft in the world so that it never happens again. With a few very public recent incidents, any specific type of airline accident tends to happen only once.
"The TSIB is the air, marine and rail accidents and incidents investigation authority in Singapore. Its mission is to promote transport safety through the conduct of independent investigations into air, marine and rail accidents and incidents.
The sole objective of TSIB’s safety investigations is the prevention of transport accidents and incidents. The safety investigations do not seek to apportion blame or liability. Accordingly, TSIB reports should not be used to assign blame or determine liability."
And:
"The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident under these Regulations is the prevention of future accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to apportion blame or liability.
Accordingly, it is inappropriate that [UK] AAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that purpose."
Apportioning blame is how you lose transparency in air accident investigations.
1. No, in most cases it is CAT (clear air turbulence). CB turbulence is easily detected by radar and avoided; CAT doesn't show on radar as there are no clouds involved.
2. No, since it comes without a warning. I mean there are forecasts of CAT, and you also hear what other aircraft report (the ATC takes that into account too), but every now and then someone has to be the first to enter some more shaky air.
Also, in most cases this is at best moderate turbulence (meaning it doesn't really affect the handling of the plane), but that is enough to temporarily get from 1g to 0g or below, and make some passenger fly up in the cabin, then fall down.
Is this actually impossible for some theoretical constraint or have we just not invested in the R&D?
https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Meeting%20Procee...
https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-jaxa-turbulence-lidar-las...
Of course if cost would be not an object we could detect these events. One possible solution would be to fly companion drones ahead of the jet. They could then detect CAT quite easily by just running into them. The spacing is critical with this scheme. If the probe drone is too far ahead you risk CAT developing between it and your plane. If it is too close you won't have enough warning time. If it is even closer you just rammed the drone and that can cause complications in itself.
Another possible option is to use laser backscatter. If you shine a laser forward from the airplane some of it bounces back from microparticles. If you measure the doppler shift of the light bounced back (probably with interferometry) you can tell the projected component of the relative speed of the particles. There is a ton of complications with this. But in theory you could make a "lidar" kind of thing which scans forward from the airplane and measure CATs directly.
Here is a paper from NASA about this possibility from 1968: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80667132.pdf
> 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 could dine while tightly strapped to their seat? And no matter how tightly strapped in you are, you could not avoid being splashed by scalding coffee, as some passengers on the in the report were.
Also, the flight time from London to Singapore is 13 hours and 15 minutes (non-stop). How many of you would stay tightly strapped in at all times for that long?
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.
I tend to keep my seat belt fairly loosly fastened throughout the flight. At least once I've experienced bad turbulence around where this flight had it - enough to make me hold tightly onto things and for service to be stopped. Usually I need a few trips to the bathroom during the flight though and if nothing else, a chance to stretch my legs (20 hours on planes in 24 hours means walking around is important).
Be interesting to see if anything is different on board (either with crew or fellow pax). RIP to the guy who died.
EDIT: It's suggested on aviation forums that unbelted passengers hitting the interior broke the plastic retaining clips holding interior panels, leading to dangling debris.
I know it's not supposed to happen, but there's a slight chance....
In the grand scheme of things, this sounds like a fair punishment for humanity.
Tbh, I do try to keep mine fastened, but generally don’t go anywhere, so as to maximize my safety.
> "[...] very suddenly there was a very dramatic drop [...]"
Nose tipping up, followed by steep drop. Sounds like the plane stalled.
In this case several news sites even claim it dropped 6000ft. But if you read the Avherald report (often a very good source) or look at the ADS-B data, you'll see they descended 6000ft in approximately 10 minutes. So that was just the crew deciding to get out of the turbulence by changing altitude in a normal way.
You don't stall a jet from turbulence unless you're far higher than the maximum allowed altitude or otherwise way outside normal flight parameters.
why was meal service provided when the staff is aware of the weather conditions? the seatbelt sign is usually shown at a slight deterioration of weather, i wonder why they went ahead with this.
thoughts and prayers.
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.
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.
