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.

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.

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.)

I think it should be required industry-wide. If you are seated, seatbelts must be worn and no loitering standing up. It is the case in most countries seatbelts must be worn while terrestrial vehicles are in motion.

I recall a very specific emirates turbulence experience which was hours of relatively mild medium bumps over Iran. The bumps weren’t as notable as much as the duration was. Seatbelts always for me too!

and the belt can be loosen up so you will not notice it that is there.

I always find it amusing that the moment the seat-belts light goes off everyone unbuckles across the plane

thanks for changing my life!

> 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.

A great tip I heard long ago for nervous flyers - whenever their is turbulence, look at the flight staff. If they're going about business as usual and look otherwise relaxed, which is almost always the case, you've got nothing to worry about. Consider them turbulence experts, and if the experts aren't concerned you don't need to be either.

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 in constant fear of the end that cannot be avoided anyways without even meaningfully changing the timeline of that end.

I wonder whether on average it's less risky on transatlantic flights to spend as much time out of your seat going to the bathroom, standing around, and stretching as possible vs. as much time buckled in as possible.

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.

>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.

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.

This, I always have my seat belt fastened unless I really don’t need to be in my seat. On very long flights I will get up for a few minutes each hour but once I’m in my seat my belt is on.

> Tragic, horrid and going to make a lot of nervous flyers more nervous.

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.

Some even have showers on the plane so you can freshen up before arrival on a long transcontinental flight. Imagine hitting turbulence like this in the shower.

How do you even cross a road with that approach to risk?

Getting full of coffee due to small air drop, has cured me to never have anything again that isn't inside of a closed bottle.

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

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

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.

It has gotten better. I, perhaps erroneously, attribute it to better communication between flights/ATC, improved understanding of wind shear, and better forecast models.

Some things never change, though. Front Range of Colorado on a summer afternoon? Gonna be at least a few bumps.

I travelled a lot by plane back when I was working in Luxembourg going back and forth from Italy.

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...

One thing that I experienced is that planes before flew at lower altitude, so I believe there was more turbulence overall.

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.

Seems relatively constant according to this graph: https://icao.usmission.gov/air-carrier-turbulence-related-in...

We spent an extra 20 minutes on the tarmac at O'Hare last week whilst they replotted around a major thunderstorm over Canada.

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.

I’d guess better routing around weather.

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?

Nah, I remember this as well. I seem to recall many flights having bags in the seat pockets in case you had to throw up.

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.

According to a study reported by the BBC, it should be getting worse thanks to climate change: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65844901

Probably biased memory and better weather radar allowing planes to avoid turbulence more often.

It may actually be improved radar tech, so finding smooth air is easier

I thought that the aircraft had LiDAR on the front of them as a way to avoid incoming turbulence. I could be wrong.

Why didn't they reference the study by title and author names? Who conducted the study? How can we fact check it?

This is bad journalism.

https://news.agu.org/press-release/flights-worldwide-face-in... A new study published online in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, has calculated that climate change will significantly increase the amount of severe turbulence worldwide by 2050–2080. Severe turbulence involves forces stronger than gravity, and is strong enough to throw people and luggage around an aircraft cabin.

You're assuming things are inelastic and won't 'bounce'. Pretend you're walking down the aisle:

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.

Air moves and the plane will move with it, subject to inertia.

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.

Free-fall, or really slightly negative G's, will lift you up out of your seat more or less gently. It won't hurt you.

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.

Same question here. I suppose that it also hurts (maybe even more?) on the way down because once the wings gain lift, you experience g + lift + your momentum going down ?

The downdraft could actually make the plane accelerate downwards faster than free fall (even just for a second or so), hence everything unattached hitting the ceiling

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.

> Yet, i dont understand how turbulence makes a plane fall 6000 ft in 3min

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.

> unless the automated (turbulence?) avoidance system engaged

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 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.

AV herald is reporting that the person who died had a heart attack.

> 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.

https://avherald.com/h?article=518e5d47&opt=0

It looks like the 73-year old did die of heart attack.

I am confident that authorities (and insurance companies), will want to apportion blame.

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.

I don't know this case, but there were many cases before that:

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.

The seatbelt sign instructs passengers not to move around the cabin, not to fasten their seatbelt. Seatbelts should be fastened at all times when passengers are seated, as the flight staff reminds us before each and every flight.

Yeah, to get a sense of rarity there are 800m passengers in flight to/from and within the US annually

I think they would have just brought you another. They unclip from the seat very easily (in a safe way of course)

You can do it with lasers, see this paper and references. Seems like small trials have been initiated since 2017 but no widespread use or FAA approval yet.

https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Meeting%20Procee...

https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-jaxa-turbulence-lidar-las...

The weather radar is tuned to detect water vapour. No water vapour no way to detect the wind/turbulence

Sibling comment from thedrbrian explains it very well while it is unlikely to see clear air turbulence (CAT) with our current weather radars.

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

Why would the 777 be clickbait? 737 maybe.

The bar is truly low is we're congratulating the media that.

Kids today believe everything that happened before they were born doesn't exist.

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.

I'm flying LHR -> MEL on Friday on Singapore Airlines (on a 777 actually for LHR -> SIN).

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.

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

Maybe passengers would buckle their belts at all times, however cabin crew is the most vulnerable during meal service. Also, are the pilots required to wear belts at all times?

2,000 fpm sounds like the pilot changing flight level to evade the turbulence, not the turbulence itself.

That's a well-known thing. Turbulence injuries come from being launched into the ceiling of the plane due to negative Gs. It's why the seatbelt is important - to restrain you to your seat.

Yes, though the planes are also designed with this in mind and have tolerances to compensate and handle it.

I think it’s more “what benefit is there to not having your seatbelt buckled that justifies and increased risk of death?”

73 years old, and died of a heart attack. I don't see that as 'turbulence death'.

No. Passengers often experience things as "a big drop" while no such thing happened.

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.

And close the overhead luggage compartments when you're done getting something out.

Instead of just walking around, drink lots of water and then go to the bathroom, and rinse and repeat (it also works if you don't enjoy your job office).

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.

[dead]