4 ms·
Yeah he's right, Guardian and BBC are garbage. Check the actual data from the people who would know. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS210
by qcnguy 1y ago
Yeah he's right, Guardian and BBC are garbage. Check the actual data from the people who would know.
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101....
Page 34. They have a graph. "After normalizing the data by annual flight hours, there was no obvious trend over time for turbulence-related Part 121 accidents during this [30 year] period."
BBC article is citing some academics doing a modeling exercise. They never learn. Academics can prove the sky is green if they're allowed to play with R for long enough. That paper isn't measuring actual turbulence, they try to derive it from physical models, but their models must suck because they draw a totally different conclusion to the real world experience of accident investigators. Evidence > academic theories.
- dagmx 1y agoThat report refers to accidents caused by turbulence not incidents of turbulence though.
- genewitch 1y agothe "accident" refers to title 14 part 121 of the CFR, where an accident is after disembark with the intent to fly and before landing where a person is "seriously injured or killed" per 49 CFR section 830.2 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VIII/part-830/subpart-A/section-830.2 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VII...); and it's any injury where hospitalization is required for more than 48 hours, or a fracture of any bone except simple fractures of fingers, toes, nose. it does not mean "crash", although a crash would be included. Specifically, bouncing off the ceiling and fracturing your arm or whatever would count as an accident per the definition. it's completely valid as a refutation of the bbc article.