undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjameshart1y ago0 comments

The article exists because of several recent high profile CAT incidents.

It cites data from several years ago (before the recent spate of stories) that only talks about increases in CAT-conducive conditions, but says nothing about increases in actual incidents. The article leaves maybe the impression that any recent spike in high profile turbulence events might be a result of the changes in jet stream activity but doesn’t actually provide much justification for that. Other posts on this thread point out that there was no actual increase in reported CAT encounters that correlates with the proposed mechanism so… unclear if the article’s data says much if anything about recent media-reported CAT events.

0 comments

kelnos1y ago

> The article exists because of several recent high profile CAT incidents.

Yes, but the article doesn't claim your narrowing of the scope, that it's mostly just between Europe and Asia.

dmix1y ago

Where did he claim this?

> Most of the recent widely publicized CAT injuries have been on long distance flights between Europe and South Asia.

> Planes taking more circuitous routes ... could be a contributing factor to increasing incidents of dangerous turbulence affecting flights

AlecSchueler1y ago

The whole point of the argument was that changes to routing in the part of the world was contributing to the increases we're seeing. Back the fact that we're seeing increases all over the world suggests that we'd also see increases in Europe/South Asia even without the current conflicts. Therefore it seems like a distraction from the real mystery to focus on it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse