OT: Turbulence

[MaroonBells]

I was on a flight into Denver a number of years ago that dropped 1000 feet during approach.  Everybody was buckled in so no injuries.  It scared the crap out of everybody.  Lots of screaming and crying.  We actually made the Denver news.  I fly all the time so usually don't even notice turbulence...but I noticed that one..

Multiply that times six and that's how much the Singapore flight dropped. 

Because of the mountains, moderate turbulence is a pretty regular thing flying into Denver, but I haven't experienced anything that goes beyond what it's like riding in the back of a pickup on a road strewn with potholes. But I have a pilot friend who says that the skies above Denver are some of the most challenging.

[badgervike]

Multiply that times six and that's how much the Singapore flight dropped. 

Because of the mountains, moderate turbulence is a pretty regular thing flying into Denver, but I haven't experienced anything that goes beyond what it's like riding in the back of a pickup on a road strewn with potholes. But I have a pilot friend who says that the skies above Denver are some of the most challenging.

Yea...I've been into DIA and Stapleton prior at least 100 times so well aware of the normal turbulence into Denver.  It normally doesn't even phase me.   I've had people kiss the ground in front of me after flights because of turbulence...that I didn't even register as bad.   The Singapore flight at least nosed down.  We literally dropped out of the sky just like dropping something off a high platform and all of a sudden stopped dropping.  There was a lot of screaming going on.

[StickierBuns]

Multiply that times six and that's how much the Singapore flight dropped. 

Because of the mountains, moderate turbulence is a pretty regular thing flying into Denver, but I haven't experienced anything that goes beyond what it's like riding in the back of a pickup on a road strewn with potholes. But I have a pilot friend who says that the skies above Denver are some of the most challenging.

The flight from Denver to Colorado Springs was always known as the "Vomit Comet".....

[JimmyinSD]

the best turbulence i have experienced was also flying into Denver, small plane got jacked around pretty good, me and a US Marshall just laughed because there wasnt a damn thing we could do but wait and see how it ended, a few others experienced other emotions.

[badgervike]

The flight from Denver to Colorado Springs was always known as the "Vomit Comet".....

As bad as that airport in Aspen that seems to be about 100 feet long?  I don't know how long it actually is..but you bump and bounce and come into that short mountainous runway at a steep altitude with the brakes on hard immediately.

[MaroonBells]

The flight from Denver to Colorado Springs was always known as the "Vomit Comet".....

I believe it. I did that flight a few months ago, which might seem odd considering it's an hour drive. But the weather was so bad in Denver on our return trip from Hawaii, the plane ended up circling for about an hour and had to divert to the Springs to refuel.

[VikingOracle]

You guys really didn't think I had studies to back this up?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...694-x#Abs1

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...23gl103814

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...21-00036-y

https://time.com/6980525/singapore-airli...d-injured/  "A study by Reading University published in 2023 said that clear air turbulence, which is invisible, had increased with climate change."



https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...17GL074618

https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/05/...aking-it-w

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/turbulence...-1.7209671 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65844901

It is actually really shocking to me is my post resulting in a FFS.  Do people really think climate change might not result in more turbulence?

[badgervike]

You guys really didn't think I had studies to back this up?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...694-x#Abs1

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...23gl103814

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...21-00036-y

https://time.com/6980525/singapore-airli...d-injured/  "A study by Reading University published in 2023 said that clear air turbulence, which is invisible, had increased with climate change."



https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...17GL074618

https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/05/...aking-it-w

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/turbulence...-1.7209671 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65844901

It is actually really shocking to me is my post resulting in a FFS.  Do people really think climate change might not result in more turbulence?

So...we shouldn't actually use the data on severe turbulence injuries as reported by the NTSB?   Got it.  There's some problems in your "science".  Most of it refers to the same "study".  First of all, anybody that thinks they can calculate / predict turbulence in years 2050 through 2080 should be discounted as with many of the other weather projections which don't come to fruition.  The 55% "increase" in severe turbulence events is all tied to the year 1979.  As you can see from the NTSB data I posted, there is a lot of variability from year to year.  I'll dig around for the data but I'm going to guess 1979 was a low year for severe turbulence events.  Let's take a look at it the other direction.  If I cherry pick the data from the NTSB reporting in years 1998 to 2013, you'll find a decrease of 86% between those reporting years (22 vs 3).  So..given the first year in that reporting and the last year, I could say that turbulence was down by 86% knowing full well that isn't indicative of the facts.  As I said, the data is variable but consistent throughout the years 1998 to 2021.  

Every year we get projections of the worst situation ever...tornadoes, hurricanes, heat, ocean levels etc.  yet more often than not those projections are wrong.  

As we sit here today, the Artic Ice Pack is just inside the 43 year Interdecile range...meaning the gloom and doom of the settled science hasn't been as drastic as projected.  



Be a good shepherd of the environment, it's the only one we have.  But let's not pretend we know everything about climate change and that all these unrealized projections come from settled science.  No science is ever settled.  It just incorporates information known at the time.

[VikingOracle]

Actually Badger, I give you props on actually posting facts to support your argument unlike your cohorts who go right to the personal insults.  I looked at the NTSB report as I found what you posted to be interesting.  The problem I had in that report was that it was not about whether there is or is not more turbulence (or the cause, if so) but how best to mitigate injuries caused by turbulence.  From the report, it is clear the NTSB has been proposing things for decades to prevent inflight injuries, some have been implemented, some have not.  I assume the fact that the incidence of injuries has somewhat been impacted by the safety recommendations implemented in the past decade.  However, as that report did not address whether past safety changes has in fact reduced injuries, it is hard to really rely on the # of injuries as reflecting the incidence of turbulence.  Additionally, bigger, newer planes are better designed to handle turbulence and minimize passenger injury (https://monroeaerospace.com/blog/why-big...urbulence/) and your facts do not take into account the improvement in and the growth in size of commercial airplanes.  But again, I highly respect that you posted actual facts.  BTW, I think I posted 4 separate studies and a bunch of articles that cite those articles (though principally the Reading study) -- they are not all posting to a single scientific article).  I do welcome you finding and posting a scientific article that refutes these 4 scientific articles).

I think you and I can also agree that JimmyinSD's statement, "if it was indeed being experienced more, I would guess it is a due to more confidence in the aircraft's abilities to handle flying through weather instead of around it" is simply wrong.  As I am sure you noted, many of NTSB's recommendations related to sharing of information by airlines, etc. in order for plane en route to avoid turbulence.  For instance, in 1998, NTSB recommended that the airlines re-emphasize the importance of reporting turbulence so other flights could avoid it (NTSB 98A-98-105) and this was actually implemented by the FAA in 2002.  In fact, I am guessing (but have no study to support this) that airlines are much better able to avoid turbulence than they were even a decade ago.

I also want to note as to tornadoes, I think we can agree that the science does not support that climate change increases their frequency.  In fact, climate change may suppress tornadoes.  https://education.nationalgeographic.org...onnection/

Also, please note, I only said climate change was a "possible" cause of increased turbulence -- I would hope that you would agree that is a reasonable thing to say -- unless you think it is impossible that there is an actual increase in turbulence.  If so, you may want to review this: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...23gl103814.

Again, I respect the way to countered my statement (which I did not find to be controversial when posted though naive of me not to think the term "climate change" would not be triggering).  I did not wish to engage in an argument and I apologize if I offended other posters here by saying that something was a possible cause.

[badgervike]

Actually Badger, I give you props on actually posting facts to support your argument unlike your cohorts who go right to the personal insults.  I looked at the NTSB report as I found what you posted to be interesting.  The problem I had in that report was that it was not about whether there is or is not more turbulence (or the cause, if so) but how best to mitigate injuries caused by turbulence.  From the report, it is clear the NTSB has been proposing things for decades to prevent inflight injuries, some have been implemented, some have not.  I assume the fact that the incidence of injuries has somewhat been impacted by the safety recommendations implemented in the past decade.  However, as that report did not address whether past safety changes has in fact reduced injuries, it is hard to really rely on the # of injuries as reflecting the incidence of turbulence.  Additionally, bigger, newer planes are better designed to handle turbulence and minimize passenger injury (https://monroeaerospace.com/blog/why-big...urbulence/) and your facts do not take into account the improvement in and the growth in size of commercial airplanes.  But again, I highly respect that you posted actual facts.  BTW, I think I posted 4 separate studies and a bunch of articles that cite those articles (though principally the Reading study) -- they are not all posting to a single scientific article).  I do welcome you finding and posting a scientific article that refutes these 4 scientific articles).

I think you and I can also agree that JimmyinSD's statement, "if it was indeed being experienced more, I would guess it is a due to more confidence in the aircraft's abilities to handle flying through weather instead of around it" is simply wrong.  As I am sure you noted, many of NTSB's recommendations related to sharing of information by airlines, etc. in order for plane en route to avoid turbulence.  For instance, in 1998, NTSB recommended that the airlines re-emphasize the importance of reporting turbulence so other flights could avoid it (NTSB 98A-98-105) and this was actually implemented by the FAA in 2002.  In fact, I am guessing (but have no study to support this) that airlines are much better able to avoid turbulence than they were even a decade ago.

I also want to note as to tornadoes, I think we can agree that the science does not support that climate change increases their frequency.  In fact, climate change may suppress tornadoes.  https://education.nationalgeographic.org...onnection/

Also, please note, I only said climate change was a "possible" cause of increased turbulence -- I would hope that you would agree that is a reasonable thing to say -- unless you think it is impossible that there is an actual increase in turbulence.  If so, you may want to review this: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...23gl103814.

Again, I respect the way to countered my statement (which I did not find to be controversial when posted though naive of me not to think the term "climate change" would not be triggering).  I did not wish to engage in an argument and I apologize if I offended other posters here by saying that something was a possible cause.

We're all good Oracle.  I think healthy respectful conversation is a good thing.  I was simply reacting to yet another weather phenomenon linked to "possible" Climate Change.  That was certainly the assumptions behind that study with it's projections well out to 2080.  We had tornadoes and severe weather last night here in Madison....and the corresponding pleas for addressing Climate Change this morning from the local news outlets (we're heavy duty Team Blue in these parts).  As you are aware, virtually every weather event comes with the litany of Climate Change proclamations.  

One note, I actually think planes are getting smaller / lighter in aggregate in the US.  Certainly, new planes are using lighter titanium structures and fly by wire technology to reduce weight and increase fuel efficiency.  Many of the US carriers have also significantly increased reliance on smaller commuter jets / routes versus the traditional hub and spoke routes and larger planes.  That would make them more susceptible to turbulence and mitigate some of the other improvements in identifying turbulent areas.