From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Stephen Tobin
Can the wretched BBC sink any lower?
Passengers have recounted scenes of “absolute terror” when severe turbulence hit their Singapore Airlines flight, launching people and objects across the cabin.
A 73-year-old British man died from a suspected heart attack, while more than 30 people were injured when the London-Singapore flight suffered a sudden drop as a meal service was under way.
Briton Andrew Davis described “awful screaming and what sounded like a thud” in the first few seconds of the incident.
Turbulence is most commonly caused by aircraft flying through cloud, but there is also “clear air” turbulence which is not visible on a jet’s weather radar.
“Injuries from severe turbulence are relatively rare in the context of millions of flights operated,” aviation expert John Strickland told the BBC.
“However, severe turbulence can be dramatic and lead to severe injuries or sadly in this case a fatality.”
Flight crews are also trained in how to respond to turbulence, he said.
“It is not for nothing that airlines recommend keeping seatbelts loosely fastened throughout a flight, be it long or short,” he added.
Aviation journalist Sally Gethin said wearing a seatbelt could be the “difference between life and death”, explaining that anything not bolted down is at risk during severe turbulence.
Research has shown that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8889d7x8j4o
You are utter scum, BBC.
How can any organisation try to play politics with a tragic death like this one?
Paul Homewood followed the above story with this explainer.
Yeah, I remember when flying commercially 120 to 130 years ago that we never had any turbulence. It was always just smooth sailing. But these days, the Big Dog, at 95% of all Greenhouse Gas effects – Water Vapor – must be causing untold damage for commercial flights. Smart people like AlGore always fly private.
https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/1-january-1914/
I’m sure the crashes mentioned were caused by “Climate Change”.
(Along with the Hindenburg less than 30 years later.)
Fly private, and your jet will likely be above most of the weather at 45,000ft. Only in the Tropics do you run much risk of encountering weather at that altitude.
When they say “will make”, what I take that to actually mean is “hasn’t made”.
You can be absolutely certain that if there was any evidence at all that these sorts of conditions were more common they would have said “has made”. “Will make” is the next best thing in their minds.
As regards to the “scientific research” (*modeling – cough,cough) I checked the North Atlantic Oscillation in 1979 and 2020. 1979 was negative. 2020 was positive. What was the correlation between their “probability of turbulence” and the NAO?
Yes, this is the BBC of today.
I don’t suppose, the increase in flights encountering Turbulence, has anything to do with the fact there are a lot more flights today than in the past.
That’s a fair point. The methodology suggests that the data are “latitudinally weighted”. They seem to have used 1979 as the anomaly baseline for incidents; but I don’t currently have time to read it thoroughly.
The paper is here.
Williams (2017) is based on climate models with built-in anthropogenic forcing
Then back to a previous paper..
This is NOT SCIENCE…
… it is glorified computer games with built-in suppositories…
… and is thus, totally meaningless…
Models on models and models from a AGW-cultist cabal group pal-reviewing each other’s work.
vs REALITY
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101.pdf
.
The report is clear – there has been no increase in the frequency of such accidents since 1989:
This is yet another reminder that the leftist media will never miss the chance to attribute one tragedy or another to climate change. Now they’re trying to claim that air turbulence will become more commonplace as a result of climate change. With this type of alarmism, rags like the BBC don’t have to wait for external sources to undermine their credibility; they’re doing it to themselves.
When you’re clutching at straws, you grab all you can.
Blancoliro an airpilot and Youtuber has a good video on this.
He has also a graph over the occurrence of turbulence shown as flat.
I wonder, how many severe CAT cells there are in the atmosphere. For all we know, there may be many of them, and that by chance, occasionally a plane and CAT coincide.
Sad that the man had a heart attack. For many of the others injured, wearing seat belts while sitting down would have prevented most of the injuries. i fly quite a bit. I ALWAYS leave my set belt on when I am sitting down having been in some severe turbulence at the back end of a cyclone 40 years ago. I was belted in then but it created a very strong habit and with a son who is a pilot, I know that CAT is largely unpredictable and certainly untrackable except for reports from other aircraft.
You can prevent yourself from severe injury, but you can’t prevent yourself from stupid!
However it proves modern aircraft are pretty darn safe compared with most other modes of transport. Rather than whinging – and I note some of the chief whingers appear to be unbelted sitting down passengers when this happened – perhaps a bit of gratitude for landing safely might be in order.
I note the demand is already for “compensation”.
I have some sympathy with the compensation calls. It seems the pilot failed to ward the cabin crew of the impending risk, whether through failing to monitor the radar or failing to understand the risk they were running given the radar presentation clearly showing storms. He also failed to consider a course deviation: it seems he could have avoided the high risk area by turning to a more southerly course without greatly increasing his route mileage – but perhaps there were ATC reasons for not doing that: doubtless the enquiry will explore it all.