9 ms·

Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

79 points by kiwih 3y ago

Tor3 3y ago
What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The only time I'm not using it is when I'm on the way to and from the bathroom. If I'm seated I'm using the seatbelt.
- infecto 3y ago
  Latam is Chilean. I am not as well traveled in all SA countries but the exposure I have had suggested that seatbelts in cars are fairly optional still, I suspect on a plane you have less incentive.
  - alamortsubite 3y ago
    In BsAs it's common to hop in a cab and find, as a courtesy, that they've tucked the safety belts in-between the seat cushions so you have a comfortable ride.
    - MandieD 3y ago
      Yeah, we tried (and failed) to dig out the buried cab seatbelts in Lima and Cusco.
  - ztetranz 3y ago
    They're optional for adults in cars here in New Hampshire where the official state motto is "Live free or die".
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      NH doesn't get enough credit for how weird it is. Between the state motto, the lack of sales or income tax, and stuff like this seatbelt rule it's like we're talking about a totally different country.
      - notpeter 3y ago
        I also like their Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) record retention period (3 minutes): > Records of number plates read by each LPR shall not be recorded or transmitted anywhere and shall be purged from the system within 3 minutes of their capture in such a manner that they are destroyed and are not recoverable, unless an alarm resulted in an arrest, a citation, or protective custody, or identified a vehicle that was the subject of a missing person or wanted broadcast [...] https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2022/title-xxi/title-261/section-261-75-b/ https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2022/title-xxi/ti...
        pc86 3y ago
        This seems absolutely reasonable. Keep the data about people who have committed or you can reasonably suspect might be committing a crime, get rid of the identifiable information for law-abiding citizens and maybe keep the aggregated metadata. This should be the standard IMO.
      - ztetranz 3y ago
        The other thing about cars in NH is that insurance is optional. I'm not sure what happens if someone legally driving in NH without liability insurance drives over the border into a neighboring state. I asked a lawyer friend once and he mumbled something about interstate commerce making it legal. I'm not how that debate would go when stopped by a cop in MA and asked to show proof of insurance.
        bloomingeek 3y ago
        In my state, the arm pit of America, OKLA, auto insurance is mandatory. However, a certain amount of my fellow citizens treat it as optional.
        rsynnott 3y ago
        > I'm not sure what happens if someone legally driving in NH without liability insurance ... Wait, you don't need _liability insurance_?!
    - stpe 3y ago
      Should it not be ”Live free and die” then?
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      Or, y'know, both, in this case. (Huh; I had no idea there was anywhere left in the developed world where they weren't mandatory.)
  - Staple_Diet 3y ago
    While there was most definitely South Americans on that journey, having made that flight myself I can honestly say it would have been well over 50% Aussies on their way to NZ, Santiago, Buenos Aires etc.
    - infecto 3y ago
      Certainly but I am not suggesting its entirely on the passengers but the culture of safety in a given region. In the US you have a before flight belt check and sometimes mentions during flight. In a lot of other countries I notice that flights are not as concerned about those belt checks.
  - XzAeRosho 3y ago
    I'm from Chile and seatbelt culture is very strong and policed. Most people in the backseats are very used to use their seatbelts, even more so in the front. Intercity buses also have mandatory seatbelts.
    - diego_sandoval 3y ago
      I'm also from Chile, I travel intercity pretty often, and most times, I'm the only person on the bus that I see wearing a seatbelt. It's technically mandatory, but I've traveled like 12 times in the last year, and only twice the assistant has done his nag-round checking that passengers are wearing their seatbelts.
- thelastparadise 3y ago
  My god could you imagine if this happened when you were in the bathroom?
  - wjnc 3y ago
    I'm a worrier about things like these. I always imagined that's why the roof in the bathroom is lower and curved. A lot less room for gaining vertical speed. So you'd be temporarily stuck to the ceiling and perhaps a bit dirtied, but less hurt than getting double struck by first the lockers and then the higher ceiling in the aisle.
    - chrischen 3y ago
      I think the parent is more worried about the dirtied aspect.
    - yodon 3y ago
      The roof in an airplane bathroom is lower and curved because that is the shape of the airplane.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    It's not the worst place actually, you can't pick up too much momentum since the cabin is so small
  - RandomBacon 3y ago
    They should install a gravity switch. A simply contact that uses gravity to either remain normally-open or normally-closed, and then when the opposite is true, automatically flush.
    - InitialLastName 3y ago
      Open question: to what extent does the flush mechanism in airplane toilets rely on the presence of gravity?
      - 3y ago
- koolba 3y ago
  After the recent incidents, I’d love to see zip line style safety lines in planes. When you get up to use the lavatory, you’d connect your carabiner to the aisle ceiling and floor lines to keep you level in case of a sudden movement.
  - odiroot 3y ago
    Now imagine your neck catching this zipline.
  - beAbU 3y ago
    I think you can forget about using the loo succesfully if you can't even walk down the aisle without incident...
    - bloomingeek 3y ago
      This is a great point, I've often wondered why there are no seat belts on airplane toilets. Yes, there would be many obstacles to overcome (please, no course jokes) but there have been several times when I was using the facilities on a plane and turbulence ensued and I almost panicked thinking about all the possible bad things that could happen.
  - HL33tibCe7 3y ago
    This idea wouldn’t actually solve most of the biggest problems during turbulence, which is people hitting their heads on the ceiling, and people getting hit by luggage falling out of the overhead storage. I think having a cable flying around would actually be dangerous in itself. Wouldn’t want to get it caught around your neck…
    - koolba 3y ago
      > This idea wouldn’t actually solve most of the biggest problems during turbulence, which is people hitting their heads on the ceiling, … It’s two cable lines, one on the ceiling and one on the floor. Each would be separately attached to the passengers harness so the freedom of movement is only up and down, limited to the amount of slack in the short length that connects the passenger to the plane. > … and people getting hit by luggage falling out of the overhead storage. We can give everyone a hard hat too.
- H8crilA 3y ago
  This. Clear Air Turbulence can strike at any time, and you - as in your body - can get seriously damaged even with moderate turbulence. Few people have ever seen severe or extreme turbulence, including the flight crews, but that can happen as well.
  - loceng 3y ago
    When I was 5 or 6 years old I was flying-sitting with my dad, as passengers, though he was an airline pilot, when we hit a pocket of "dead" air. Meals and drinks were just served. For what was at least 3-5 seconds all of the meal trays floated up, hovered and then thankfully relatively gently settled back down. My dad estimated we dropped 200 feet or so.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      You've, technically, eaten food that was at zero gravity once for a short period of time.
      - loceng 3y ago
        Hehe. Thanks for that perspective.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Free-fall isn't zero-gravity, and anyone who observes the five-second rule has had a similar experience.
        colordrops 3y ago
        Yes it is, didn't Einstein say that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable
        someguyihope 3y ago
        "Zero-g" is different to "zero gravity". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness
- progbits 3y ago
  > What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The terrible UX doesn't help. There is a seatbelt icon on the sign, they announce it as "fasten seatbelt sign", which makes it sound like when it is off you don't have to have it fastened. But it really should be "remain seated" sign. Also some people don't wear seatbelts in cars as some idiotic macho thing. I assume there is no helping those.
  - mianos 3y ago
    It's my understanding this was mid flight and not a situation where the seatbelt sign was lit. I believe the original commenter is suggesting that people wear their seatbelt at all times, if possible, seatbelt sign lit, or not. (Which, as once a very frequent flyer, I do, others don't like to if they don't have to).
    - progbits 3y ago
      Yes I have it fastened all the time too. My point was the fact the "fasten seatbelt sign" was not lit in the middle of the flight makes people think it is OK to not have it fastened. Which isn't true.
      - mianos 3y ago
        Yes, maybe. I was on an international flight last week and they said, over the intercom, that they suggest you keep your seatbelts fastened all the time where possible. Maybe they should play some in flight video of one of these events.
  - pc86 3y ago
    Every single flight I've ever been on except LATAM says to keep your seatbelt fastened when seated even when the seatbelt sign is off. UX isn't the issue, people ignoring common sense things like "maybe my seatbelt should be on when I'm flying through the air at 500mph" is.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    There are also cases when you should not be wearing a seatbelt -- if you have just got on a plane and it's still being refilled the seatbelt sign is off and sometimes the crew will tell you not to put your seatbelt on while it's being refilled.
- benjaminwootton 3y ago
  It definitely seems like the wise thing to do. There are enough reports of these events even if your risk of being caught up in one is low.
- beAbU 3y ago
  I was under the impression that seatbelts are basically mandatory at all times. On my recent turkish airlines flight the safety video requested you put it on and leave it on, ans the staff would come by and ask you to put your seatbelt on, even when theres no turbulence. The "seat belt" indicator light should actually be changed to "dont get up and walk around"
  - HL33tibCe7 3y ago
    On the half dozen (European) airlines I’ve flown, it’s always been “seatbelts are recommended at all times”. Never a requirement.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      Surely required on takeoff/landing?
      - zerkten 3y ago
        Absolutely at takeoff, but the emphasis is often missing for the remainder of your time onboard. It's noticeable when crew add extra reminders. I've never looked for stats on these incidents involving clear air turbulence. The impression I got as a European was that this was a transatlantic and transpacific problem. It's obviously not, but those were the incidents reported on.
        Tor3 3y ago
        There are occasionally "air holes" happening near my local airport. A friend onboard a particularly severe one told me that the captain said that they'd "fallen" some 160 meters. I also have another friend who, a long time ago, didn't use the seatbelt on a domestic flight - sudden turbulence made him hit his head and injure his neck badly. That's very dangerous. Personally the "worst" I've seen was just enough to break wine bottles in the overhead in front of me. Flight attendants gave out blankets for all of us nearby, as protection for dripping wine..
        3y ago
- rsynnott 3y ago
  They have signs showing when you need to wear seatbelts, so when the seatbelt light goes out, well, what are people _supposed_ to think? I have noticed that it does seem to have gotten more common to just leave them on for the duration of the flight, in the last couple of decades.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- qwertox 3y ago
  I think the seatbelt-sign is outdated. Somehow it should be made clear that if a sign is on, it is not allowed to stand up and move around, and the general rule is that the seatbelt must be locked while sitting.
  - chrisweekly 3y ago
    In my 5 decades of flying regularly (US-based flights), this is made crystal clear by flight attendants and repeated PA announcements.
    - gomox 3y ago
      It needs to be safe and clear by design, not confusing to the point where systematic PA announcements are needed to clarify the fact that "seat belt sign is off" actually means "you should wear your seatbelt".
      - pc86 3y ago
        And maybe on new planes they'll change the iconography (which would probably require FAA rules to be rewritten), but let's not downplay the role of just having common sense.
      - Tor3 3y ago
        Nowadays what they announce on European and Europe-Asian flights (the ones I have any recent experience with) is that, when the seat belt sign is turned off there's always an immediate announcement which says something like "The captain has now switched off the seat belt sign, however it is recommended to use the seat belt whenever seated".
- lm28469 3y ago
  Probably the same reason people don't use seatbelts in buses, I'm very often the only one wearing a seatbelt when I travel by bus I've seen aftermath videos and photos, I'm not taking my chances
  - enlyth 3y ago
    Interesting, I've never seen a bus with seat belts
    - Aardwolf 3y ago
      The first few rows of seats sometimes have those, but not all the rows after that
    - flohofwoe 3y ago
      In Germany at least it depends on the type of bus. Long distance / travel busses (Google translates it to "coach") are required to have seatbelts, regular "city busses" don't.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      As a general rule, buses that go on motorways (ie intercity, mostly) tend to have them; others usually don't.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      Not in city buses, but flixbuses, school buses, &c.| These: https://www.usabuscharter.com/uploads/4/3/6/1/43615417/setra5_orig.jpg https://www.usabuscharter.com/uploads/4/3/6/1/43615417/setra...
    - Tor3 3y ago
      In my town only the intercity ones used to have them, but these days all the city buses have them too. I don't mind using the seatbelt, but their design isn't optimal - they're hard to put on, particularly if you're wearing a large jacket. A lot of fumbling is required.
- jgalt212 3y ago
  What I don't get is why they serve hot coffee on planes with these ever present risks.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
    The coffee is generally not hot enough to cause burns, especially given that you will be drinking it immediately upon serving.
    - jgalt212 3y ago
      That hasn't been my experience. I mean it's not McDonald's hot, but it's hot enough to cause damaage.
- numpad0 3y ago
  I wear masks in public and I use seatbelts on airplanes, but that's not the shortest path to the boss ape of the town status, and I would guess a lot of people care more about that than their own life.
- ta1243 3y ago
  Bathroom, stretching legs, getting something from overhead locker, and of course the cabin crew. I could see at least 20 people at a given time doing one of those things.
- dreamcompiler 3y ago
  Same here, but most passengers don't understand the issue. They think turbulence means "a bumpy flight" when it really means "you will -- without warning -- be slammed against the ceiling and then against the floor, and then against the ceiling again for good measure."
aurizon 3y ago
The plane transited from an air stream (of whatever velocity/vector) into one descending vertically at high speed = instant down elevator = passengers in free fall as plane descends = impact roof hard/soft. Soon exit the stream and get used to it = fall down hard from 7-8 feet in random attitude. Down is the worst, a vertical up = pressed into seat and already standing. Pilot might have had a warning or inkling = faster seat belts/sit. In a down acceleration like this all loose objects are affected = missiles, a laptop can hit you hard. Back in the old days, they called these 'air pockets' - lacking velocity they were less dangerous than these occurrences at modern speeds where planes are going at 500-600 miles/hour and the transition is virtually instantaneous.
- djtango 3y ago
  Thanks for providing your perspective - Why don't we hear about these as often? Is there tech to avoid these air pockets? Was there some kind of negligence involved or should I be more cautious on planes about leaving my loose belongings lying around?
  - telesilla 3y ago
    Aside from the fact that this was not turbulence-related: my understanding is that other airlines in the area inform each other about turbulence they experience, as it cannot be detected reliably. A flight from Chile to New Zealand probably has very little air traffic to keep other pilots informed about the state of winds.
    - everfrustrated 3y ago
      While Latam airline, flight was actually Sydney-Auckland
    - brabel 3y ago
      The incident happened while still on the Sydney to Auckland leg of the trip, which is not as lonely (but yeah, still not a whole lot of planes going each way).
    - deleted 3y ago
fabian2k 3y ago
This seems to be attributed to a technical problem and not turbulence so far. Probably should be a bit skeptical about any explanation this early, but I'm wondering which systems would be powerful enough to cause something like this. For example, would a pilot be able to manually fly the airplane and cause this kind of incident? Or would the control surfaces of the plane be able to cause this assuming that any safety limits that restrict movement were not working?
- H8crilA 3y ago
  It's very easy to get to slightly below 0g by just pushing on the stick or yoke, and that would be enough to cause what the passengers describe here. You could even get well below 0g. Almost all turbulence of the sort that you can experience in flight are not even 10% of the durability limits of the airframe. EDIT: I was also thinking about "well why should the airplane allow the pilot for such movements then?". And I think a good analogy is the brakes in your car - they do allow for maximum breaking, yet when was the last time you actually pushed it to the max? (And note that this is 100% speculation, I just wanted to highlight that the pilot can cause such negative acceleration on their own)
  - xattt 3y ago
    What about flight laws/flight control modes that prevent this thing from happening? Unless the aircraft was flying in a degraded state, these limits are supposed to prevent the aircraft from suffering damage during flight.
    - Vecr 3y ago
      It's a Boeing, that's not really how it works. What airplane refuses to let you do negative gs anyway?
      - p_l 3y ago
        Both 777 and 787 are full fly by wire, with the latter being unstable without computer help due to trimming of control surface sizes for greater fuel efficiency.
johnny_canuck 3y ago
Reminds me of this Air Canada flight years ago where the pilot confused Venus with an oncoming plane. https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pilot/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pil...
- mangamadaiyan 3y ago
  It isn't all that far-fetched, really. Venus is the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon. ... as to _how_ bright it can be - I was once in an area with dark skies, setting up my telescope just before sunset. After dark, I was taking in the beauty of the Cigar Galaxy and then looked up and behind from the scope. My eyes were assaulted by a bright light on the top of the hill behind, and I was cursing the idiot who had turned that light on, when I realized that it was Jupiter, freshly risen above the hill. Jupiter is not as bright as Venus. On that night, Venus, had it been visible, would've been blindingly brilliant. Flying 10 Km above the ground, with no light pollution, I'm not surprised that the Pilot mistook Venus for an aircraft headlight. Edit: clarity
  - cdelsolar 3y ago
    It always shocks me how bright Venus is. A few months ago I was wondering what the hell that blinding light was, and even though I’m an amateur astronomer I was sure it had to be something artificial. My star app told me it was Venus, and i decided to see it in my telescope for the first time. So I lugged out the 4-inch refractor and no matter what I could not manage to make out its shape. It was supposed to be a crescent but there was too much glare. Next time I’ll try it with the moon filter :)
    - mangamadaiyan 3y ago
      Out of curiosity, what eyepiece were you using?
nomilk 3y ago
For anyone else wondering, the plane was a > Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner (Boeing, but not the 737 Max that has been in the headlines the past few years) Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injured-by-strong-movement-on-boeing-787-9-dreamliner https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injur...
- ulfw 3y ago
  As if the 787 was any better. Just see the history of issues and reports about manufacturing.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    Dreamliners have been flying for 13+ years now with zero hull loss accidents or fatalities. There were some teething issues with fuel leaks and batteries, but AFAICT those have long since been ironed out.
    - p_l 3y ago
      And an issue where if not regularly rebooted, preferably with staggered (by days) reboots, they lose all power, including instrumentation and controls, after 248 days of uptime. Additionally an Airworthiness Directive from 2020 requires, at least in europe, to reboot more often than 51 days due to stale data in common core system, with various network packets being dropped and system showing incorrect data to pilots.
      - abadpoli 3y ago
        The Airbus A350 has almost the exact same issue, but requiring a reboot after only 148 _hours_ or the avionics shut off.
        p_l 3y ago
        Not exact same issue, but one with similar symptoms to the "reboot every 51 days" one for 787. Reading deeper, I'm more worried about how there's no patch for the Boeing issue still, at least I can't find one in FAA AD database, I assumed there would be one already... (the affected A350 had a software patch available at the time AD for "reboot before 148 hours" was issued)
jwildeboer 3y ago
Not turbulence related. Plane (Boeing 787-9) lost instrumentation according to the captain, followed by rapid loss of altitude. When instrumentation came back, flight continued to a safe landing. 12 people were sent to hospital. S always, see avherald.com for the most reliable, non-speculative info.
- telesilla 3y ago
  Link: https://avherald.com/h?article=51601631&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=51601631&opt=0
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- alamortsubite 3y ago
  Let's rephrase that as, this is the story as relayed by one of the passengers to RNZ. If non-speculative info is what you're after, perhaps it's better to wait for the official report.
  - jwildeboer 3y ago
    The captain has been quoted with that info of loss of instrumentation and that is on the avherald page. Avherald is quite known for only handing out vetted information, so I do trust this to be true.
    - iamtheworstdev 3y ago
      From what I've read - a person is claiming the captain said. The captain himself hasn't explicitly admitted to anything yet.
      - CoastalCoder 3y ago
        There's always a judgement call regarding how skeptical to be about others' claims. Sounds like you and GP are just drawing the line at different places.
smcl 3y ago
Interestingly, this flight (Sydney-Santiago, via Auckland) is one of a few that many flat-earthers insist does not exist, since it contradicts a theory they have. They'd plot the paths of long-distance flights on a polar azimuthal equidistant projection of earth[0], and note that some one-stop flights look like a straight line on this projection. But those which don't look like a straight line (i.e. that suggest they're wrong) are dismissed as nonexistant, and part of the greater globe earth conspiracy. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projecti...
- SirHound 3y ago
  Maybe this was the flight passing through the necessary (government funded) wormhole
  - smcl 3y ago
    Or maybe this is a high profile incident planned to keep the globe-head charade going! It is notable that the flight didn't actually go to Santiago in the end ...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- brabel 3y ago
  I flew many times between South America and NZ/Australia (and once from LA to Sydney, one of the longest flights you can get), including this exact flight, and find that's hilarious.
  - smcl 3y ago
    Yeah I've known someone (a family, actually) who did the same. In case you want a bit of light entertainment, the video where I learned about this is here - don't worry it's debunking flat earth, not in favour it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFsOoKAHZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFsOoKAHZg
- 3y ago
627467 3y ago
"major banks 2008: too big to fail" "Boeing: too big to be grounded"
peter7012 3y ago
We had the same incident around 2007-2008 with China Airlines. The scary point that it happened almost the same place, from Taiwan to Bali about 1 hour before the landing.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  Aliens?
- harshbutfair 3y ago
  Hardly "almost the same place", it's ~6500km away.
- Jamie9912 3y ago
  Taiwan to Bali is nowhere near New Zealand
p_l 3y ago
Pure speculation, but why I'm reminded of the instruction to reboot your 787 regularly, preferably with staggered reboots of the electric buses?
itsthecourier 3y ago
Reminds me of that time a japanese flight had a steep turbulence, a passenger hit the ceiling and died. 12 injured into the ceiling in this flight, kind of looks like a check of who was and wasn't wearing the belt
Schroedingers2c 3y ago
It's remarkable how almost every serious incident due to equipment errors in the past few months involves a Boeing aircraft rather than an Airbus.
sandworm101 3y ago
I don't understand why so many people refuse to wear seatbelts unless demanded. Had everyone been buckled in I doubt anyone would have been injured. You are in a metal tube doing almost the speed of sound tens of thousands of feet in the air. Keep the belt on. If you have to get up, keep a hand on something. An airliner cannot pull serious negative gs. You aren't going to be "pinned" to the ceiling. But you should hold to something solid just in case things get a little floaty for a few seconds. Most longtime fliers have witnessed their drinks lift of their trays. The floating doesn't hurt. The issue is when things stop floating and come crashing down.
fortran77 3y ago
This is why you keep your seat belt fastened whenever you're sitting down.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

79 points by kiwih 3y ago

Tor3 3y ago

What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The only time I'm not using it is when I'm on the way to and from the bathroom. If I'm seated I'm using the seatbelt.

infecto 3y ago
Latam is Chilean. I am not as well traveled in all SA countries but the exposure I have had suggested that seatbelts in cars are fairly optional still, I suspect on a plane you have less incentive.
- alamortsubite 3y ago
  In BsAs it's common to hop in a cab and find, as a courtesy, that they've tucked the safety belts in-between the seat cushions so you have a comfortable ride.
  - MandieD 3y ago
    Yeah, we tried (and failed) to dig out the buried cab seatbelts in Lima and Cusco.
- ztetranz 3y ago
  They're optional for adults in cars here in New Hampshire where the official state motto is "Live free or die".
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    NH doesn't get enough credit for how weird it is. Between the state motto, the lack of sales or income tax, and stuff like this seatbelt rule it's like we're talking about a totally different country.
    - notpeter 3y ago
      I also like their Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) record retention period (3 minutes): > Records of number plates read by each LPR shall not be recorded or transmitted anywhere and shall be purged from the system within 3 minutes of their capture in such a manner that they are destroyed and are not recoverable, unless an alarm resulted in an arrest, a citation, or protective custody, or identified a vehicle that was the subject of a missing person or wanted broadcast [...] https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2022/title-xxi/title-261/section-261-75-b/ https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2022/title-xxi/ti...
      - pc86 3y ago
        This seems absolutely reasonable. Keep the data about people who have committed or you can reasonably suspect might be committing a crime, get rid of the identifiable information for law-abiding citizens and maybe keep the aggregated metadata. This should be the standard IMO.
    - ztetranz 3y ago
      The other thing about cars in NH is that insurance is optional. I'm not sure what happens if someone legally driving in NH without liability insurance drives over the border into a neighboring state. I asked a lawyer friend once and he mumbled something about interstate commerce making it legal. I'm not how that debate would go when stopped by a cop in MA and asked to show proof of insurance.
      - bloomingeek 3y ago
        In my state, the arm pit of America, OKLA, auto insurance is mandatory. However, a certain amount of my fellow citizens treat it as optional.
      - rsynnott 3y ago
        > I'm not sure what happens if someone legally driving in NH without liability insurance ... Wait, you don't need _liability insurance_?!
  - stpe 3y ago
    Should it not be ”Live free and die” then?
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Or, y'know, both, in this case. (Huh; I had no idea there was anywhere left in the developed world where they weren't mandatory.)
- Staple_Diet 3y ago
  While there was most definitely South Americans on that journey, having made that flight myself I can honestly say it would have been well over 50% Aussies on their way to NZ, Santiago, Buenos Aires etc.
  - infecto 3y ago
    Certainly but I am not suggesting its entirely on the passengers but the culture of safety in a given region. In the US you have a before flight belt check and sometimes mentions during flight. In a lot of other countries I notice that flights are not as concerned about those belt checks.
- XzAeRosho 3y ago
  I'm from Chile and seatbelt culture is very strong and policed. Most people in the backseats are very used to use their seatbelts, even more so in the front. Intercity buses also have mandatory seatbelts.
  - diego_sandoval 3y ago
    I'm also from Chile, I travel intercity pretty often, and most times, I'm the only person on the bus that I see wearing a seatbelt. It's technically mandatory, but I've traveled like 12 times in the last year, and only twice the assistant has done his nag-round checking that passengers are wearing their seatbelts.
thelastparadise 3y ago
My god could you imagine if this happened when you were in the bathroom?
- wjnc 3y ago
  I'm a worrier about things like these. I always imagined that's why the roof in the bathroom is lower and curved. A lot less room for gaining vertical speed. So you'd be temporarily stuck to the ceiling and perhaps a bit dirtied, but less hurt than getting double struck by first the lockers and then the higher ceiling in the aisle.
  - chrischen 3y ago
    I think the parent is more worried about the dirtied aspect.
  - yodon 3y ago
    The roof in an airplane bathroom is lower and curved because that is the shape of the airplane.
- lm28469 3y ago
  It's not the worst place actually, you can't pick up too much momentum since the cabin is so small
- RandomBacon 3y ago
  They should install a gravity switch. A simply contact that uses gravity to either remain normally-open or normally-closed, and then when the opposite is true, automatically flush.
  - InitialLastName 3y ago
    Open question: to what extent does the flush mechanism in airplane toilets rely on the presence of gravity?
    - 3y ago
koolba 3y ago
After the recent incidents, I’d love to see zip line style safety lines in planes. When you get up to use the lavatory, you’d connect your carabiner to the aisle ceiling and floor lines to keep you level in case of a sudden movement.
- odiroot 3y ago
  Now imagine your neck catching this zipline.
- beAbU 3y ago
  I think you can forget about using the loo succesfully if you can't even walk down the aisle without incident...
  - bloomingeek 3y ago
    This is a great point, I've often wondered why there are no seat belts on airplane toilets. Yes, there would be many obstacles to overcome (please, no course jokes) but there have been several times when I was using the facilities on a plane and turbulence ensued and I almost panicked thinking about all the possible bad things that could happen.
- HL33tibCe7 3y ago
  This idea wouldn’t actually solve most of the biggest problems during turbulence, which is people hitting their heads on the ceiling, and people getting hit by luggage falling out of the overhead storage. I think having a cable flying around would actually be dangerous in itself. Wouldn’t want to get it caught around your neck…
  - koolba 3y ago
    > This idea wouldn’t actually solve most of the biggest problems during turbulence, which is people hitting their heads on the ceiling, … It’s two cable lines, one on the ceiling and one on the floor. Each would be separately attached to the passengers harness so the freedom of movement is only up and down, limited to the amount of slack in the short length that connects the passenger to the plane. > … and people getting hit by luggage falling out of the overhead storage. We can give everyone a hard hat too.
H8crilA 3y ago
This. Clear Air Turbulence can strike at any time, and you - as in your body - can get seriously damaged even with moderate turbulence. Few people have ever seen severe or extreme turbulence, including the flight crews, but that can happen as well.
- loceng 3y ago
  When I was 5 or 6 years old I was flying-sitting with my dad, as passengers, though he was an airline pilot, when we hit a pocket of "dead" air. Meals and drinks were just served. For what was at least 3-5 seconds all of the meal trays floated up, hovered and then thankfully relatively gently settled back down. My dad estimated we dropped 200 feet or so.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    You've, technically, eaten food that was at zero gravity once for a short period of time.
    - loceng 3y ago
      Hehe. Thanks for that perspective.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Free-fall isn't zero-gravity, and anyone who observes the five-second rule has had a similar experience.
      - colordrops 3y ago
        Yes it is, didn't Einstein say that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable
        someguyihope 3y ago
        "Zero-g" is different to "zero gravity". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness
progbits 3y ago
> What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The terrible UX doesn't help. There is a seatbelt icon on the sign, they announce it as "fasten seatbelt sign", which makes it sound like when it is off you don't have to have it fastened. But it really should be "remain seated" sign. Also some people don't wear seatbelts in cars as some idiotic macho thing. I assume there is no helping those.
- mianos 3y ago
  It's my understanding this was mid flight and not a situation where the seatbelt sign was lit. I believe the original commenter is suggesting that people wear their seatbelt at all times, if possible, seatbelt sign lit, or not. (Which, as once a very frequent flyer, I do, others don't like to if they don't have to).
  - progbits 3y ago
    Yes I have it fastened all the time too. My point was the fact the "fasten seatbelt sign" was not lit in the middle of the flight makes people think it is OK to not have it fastened. Which isn't true.
    - mianos 3y ago
      Yes, maybe. I was on an international flight last week and they said, over the intercom, that they suggest you keep your seatbelts fastened all the time where possible. Maybe they should play some in flight video of one of these events.
- pc86 3y ago
  Every single flight I've ever been on except LATAM says to keep your seatbelt fastened when seated even when the seatbelt sign is off. UX isn't the issue, people ignoring common sense things like "maybe my seatbelt should be on when I'm flying through the air at 500mph" is.
- ta1243 3y ago
  There are also cases when you should not be wearing a seatbelt -- if you have just got on a plane and it's still being refilled the seatbelt sign is off and sometimes the crew will tell you not to put your seatbelt on while it's being refilled.
benjaminwootton 3y ago
It definitely seems like the wise thing to do. There are enough reports of these events even if your risk of being caught up in one is low.
beAbU 3y ago
I was under the impression that seatbelts are basically mandatory at all times. On my recent turkish airlines flight the safety video requested you put it on and leave it on, ans the staff would come by and ask you to put your seatbelt on, even when theres no turbulence. The "seat belt" indicator light should actually be changed to "dont get up and walk around"
- HL33tibCe7 3y ago
  On the half dozen (European) airlines I’ve flown, it’s always been “seatbelts are recommended at all times”. Never a requirement.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    Surely required on takeoff/landing?
    - zerkten 3y ago
      Absolutely at takeoff, but the emphasis is often missing for the remainder of your time onboard. It's noticeable when crew add extra reminders. I've never looked for stats on these incidents involving clear air turbulence. The impression I got as a European was that this was a transatlantic and transpacific problem. It's obviously not, but those were the incidents reported on.
      - Tor3 3y ago
        There are occasionally "air holes" happening near my local airport. A friend onboard a particularly severe one told me that the captain said that they'd "fallen" some 160 meters. I also have another friend who, a long time ago, didn't use the seatbelt on a domestic flight - sudden turbulence made him hit his head and injure his neck badly. That's very dangerous. Personally the "worst" I've seen was just enough to break wine bottles in the overhead in front of me. Flight attendants gave out blankets for all of us nearby, as protection for dripping wine..
      - 3y ago
rsynnott 3y ago
They have signs showing when you need to wear seatbelts, so when the seatbelt light goes out, well, what are people _supposed_ to think? I have noticed that it does seem to have gotten more common to just leave them on for the duration of the flight, in the last couple of decades.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
qwertox 3y ago
I think the seatbelt-sign is outdated. Somehow it should be made clear that if a sign is on, it is not allowed to stand up and move around, and the general rule is that the seatbelt must be locked while sitting.
- chrisweekly 3y ago
  In my 5 decades of flying regularly (US-based flights), this is made crystal clear by flight attendants and repeated PA announcements.
  - gomox 3y ago
    It needs to be safe and clear by design, not confusing to the point where systematic PA announcements are needed to clarify the fact that "seat belt sign is off" actually means "you should wear your seatbelt".
    - pc86 3y ago
      And maybe on new planes they'll change the iconography (which would probably require FAA rules to be rewritten), but let's not downplay the role of just having common sense.
    - Tor3 3y ago
      Nowadays what they announce on European and Europe-Asian flights (the ones I have any recent experience with) is that, when the seat belt sign is turned off there's always an immediate announcement which says something like "The captain has now switched off the seat belt sign, however it is recommended to use the seat belt whenever seated".
lm28469 3y ago
Probably the same reason people don't use seatbelts in buses, I'm very often the only one wearing a seatbelt when I travel by bus I've seen aftermath videos and photos, I'm not taking my chances
- enlyth 3y ago
  Interesting, I've never seen a bus with seat belts
  - Aardwolf 3y ago
    The first few rows of seats sometimes have those, but not all the rows after that
  - flohofwoe 3y ago
    In Germany at least it depends on the type of bus. Long distance / travel busses (Google translates it to "coach") are required to have seatbelts, regular "city busses" don't.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    As a general rule, buses that go on motorways (ie intercity, mostly) tend to have them; others usually don't.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    Not in city buses, but flixbuses, school buses, &c.| These: https://www.usabuscharter.com/uploads/4/3/6/1/43615417/setra5_orig.jpg https://www.usabuscharter.com/uploads/4/3/6/1/43615417/setra...
  - Tor3 3y ago
    In my town only the intercity ones used to have them, but these days all the city buses have them too. I don't mind using the seatbelt, but their design isn't optimal - they're hard to put on, particularly if you're wearing a large jacket. A lot of fumbling is required.
jgalt212 3y ago
What I don't get is why they serve hot coffee on planes with these ever present risks.
- ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
  The coffee is generally not hot enough to cause burns, especially given that you will be drinking it immediately upon serving.
  - jgalt212 3y ago
    That hasn't been my experience. I mean it's not McDonald's hot, but it's hot enough to cause damaage.
numpad0 3y ago
I wear masks in public and I use seatbelts on airplanes, but that's not the shortest path to the boss ape of the town status, and I would guess a lot of people care more about that than their own life.
ta1243 3y ago
Bathroom, stretching legs, getting something from overhead locker, and of course the cabin crew. I could see at least 20 people at a given time doing one of those things.
dreamcompiler 3y ago
Same here, but most passengers don't understand the issue. They think turbulence means "a bumpy flight" when it really means "you will -- without warning -- be slammed against the ceiling and then against the floor, and then against the ceiling again for good measure."

aurizon 3y ago

The plane transited from an air stream (of whatever velocity/vector) into one descending vertically at high speed = instant down elevator = passengers in free fall as plane descends = impact roof hard/soft. Soon exit the stream and get used to it = fall down hard from 7-8 feet in random attitude. Down is the worst, a vertical up = pressed into seat and already standing. Pilot might have had a warning or inkling = faster seat belts/sit. In a down acceleration like this all loose objects are affected = missiles, a laptop can hit you hard. Back in the old days, they called these 'air pockets' - lacking velocity they were less dangerous than these occurrences at modern speeds where planes are going at 500-600 miles/hour and the transition is virtually instantaneous.

djtango 3y ago
Thanks for providing your perspective - Why don't we hear about these as often? Is there tech to avoid these air pockets? Was there some kind of negligence involved or should I be more cautious on planes about leaving my loose belongings lying around?
- telesilla 3y ago
  Aside from the fact that this was not turbulence-related: my understanding is that other airlines in the area inform each other about turbulence they experience, as it cannot be detected reliably. A flight from Chile to New Zealand probably has very little air traffic to keep other pilots informed about the state of winds.
  - everfrustrated 3y ago
    While Latam airline, flight was actually Sydney-Auckland
  - brabel 3y ago
    The incident happened while still on the Sydney to Auckland leg of the trip, which is not as lonely (but yeah, still not a whole lot of planes going each way).
  - deleted 3y ago

fabian2k 3y ago

This seems to be attributed to a technical problem and not turbulence so far. Probably should be a bit skeptical about any explanation this early, but I'm wondering which systems would be powerful enough to cause something like this. For example, would a pilot be able to manually fly the airplane and cause this kind of incident? Or would the control surfaces of the plane be able to cause this assuming that any safety limits that restrict movement were not working?

H8crilA 3y ago
It's very easy to get to slightly below 0g by just pushing on the stick or yoke, and that would be enough to cause what the passengers describe here. You could even get well below 0g. Almost all turbulence of the sort that you can experience in flight are not even 10% of the durability limits of the airframe. EDIT: I was also thinking about "well why should the airplane allow the pilot for such movements then?". And I think a good analogy is the brakes in your car - they do allow for maximum breaking, yet when was the last time you actually pushed it to the max? (And note that this is 100% speculation, I just wanted to highlight that the pilot can cause such negative acceleration on their own)
- xattt 3y ago
  What about flight laws/flight control modes that prevent this thing from happening? Unless the aircraft was flying in a degraded state, these limits are supposed to prevent the aircraft from suffering damage during flight.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    It's a Boeing, that's not really how it works. What airplane refuses to let you do negative gs anyway?
    - p_l 3y ago
      Both 777 and 787 are full fly by wire, with the latter being unstable without computer help due to trimming of control surface sizes for greater fuel efficiency.

johnny_canuck 3y ago

Reminds me of this Air Canada flight years ago where the pilot confused Venus with an oncoming plane. https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pilot/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pil...

mangamadaiyan 3y ago
It isn't all that far-fetched, really. Venus is the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon. ... as to _how_ bright it can be - I was once in an area with dark skies, setting up my telescope just before sunset. After dark, I was taking in the beauty of the Cigar Galaxy and then looked up and behind from the scope. My eyes were assaulted by a bright light on the top of the hill behind, and I was cursing the idiot who had turned that light on, when I realized that it was Jupiter, freshly risen above the hill. Jupiter is not as bright as Venus. On that night, Venus, had it been visible, would've been blindingly brilliant. Flying 10 Km above the ground, with no light pollution, I'm not surprised that the Pilot mistook Venus for an aircraft headlight. Edit: clarity
- cdelsolar 3y ago
  It always shocks me how bright Venus is. A few months ago I was wondering what the hell that blinding light was, and even though I’m an amateur astronomer I was sure it had to be something artificial. My star app told me it was Venus, and i decided to see it in my telescope for the first time. So I lugged out the 4-inch refractor and no matter what I could not manage to make out its shape. It was supposed to be a crescent but there was too much glare. Next time I’ll try it with the moon filter :)
  - mangamadaiyan 3y ago
    Out of curiosity, what eyepiece were you using?

nomilk 3y ago

For anyone else wondering, the plane was a > Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner (Boeing, but not the 737 Max that has been in the headlines the past few years) Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injured-by-strong-movement-on-boeing-787-9-dreamliner https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injur...

ulfw 3y ago
As if the 787 was any better. Just see the history of issues and reports about manufacturing.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  Dreamliners have been flying for 13+ years now with zero hull loss accidents or fatalities. There were some teething issues with fuel leaks and batteries, but AFAICT those have long since been ironed out.
  - p_l 3y ago
    And an issue where if not regularly rebooted, preferably with staggered (by days) reboots, they lose all power, including instrumentation and controls, after 248 days of uptime. Additionally an Airworthiness Directive from 2020 requires, at least in europe, to reboot more often than 51 days due to stale data in common core system, with various network packets being dropped and system showing incorrect data to pilots.
    - abadpoli 3y ago
      The Airbus A350 has almost the exact same issue, but requiring a reboot after only 148 _hours_ or the avionics shut off.
      - p_l 3y ago
        Not exact same issue, but one with similar symptoms to the "reboot every 51 days" one for 787. Reading deeper, I'm more worried about how there's no patch for the Boeing issue still, at least I can't find one in FAA AD database, I assumed there would be one already... (the affected A350 had a software patch available at the time AD for "reboot before 148 hours" was issued)

jwildeboer 3y ago

Not turbulence related. Plane (Boeing 787-9) lost instrumentation according to the captain, followed by rapid loss of altitude. When instrumentation came back, flight continued to a safe landing. 12 people were sent to hospital. S always, see avherald.com for the most reliable, non-speculative info.

telesilla 3y ago
Link: https://avherald.com/h?article=51601631&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=51601631&opt=0
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
alamortsubite 3y ago
Let's rephrase that as, this is the story as relayed by one of the passengers to RNZ. If non-speculative info is what you're after, perhaps it's better to wait for the official report.
- jwildeboer 3y ago
  The captain has been quoted with that info of loss of instrumentation and that is on the avherald page. Avherald is quite known for only handing out vetted information, so I do trust this to be true.
  - iamtheworstdev 3y ago
    From what I've read - a person is claiming the captain said. The captain himself hasn't explicitly admitted to anything yet.
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      There's always a judgement call regarding how skeptical to be about others' claims. Sounds like you and GP are just drawing the line at different places.

smcl 3y ago

Interestingly, this flight (Sydney-Santiago, via Auckland) is one of a few that many flat-earthers insist does not exist, since it contradicts a theory they have. They'd plot the paths of long-distance flights on a polar azimuthal equidistant projection of earth[0], and note that some one-stop flights look like a straight line on this projection. But those which don't look like a straight line (i.e. that suggest they're wrong) are dismissed as nonexistant, and part of the greater globe earth conspiracy. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projecti...

SirHound 3y ago
Maybe this was the flight passing through the necessary (government funded) wormhole
- smcl 3y ago
  Or maybe this is a high profile incident planned to keep the globe-head charade going! It is notable that the flight didn't actually go to Santiago in the end ...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
brabel 3y ago
I flew many times between South America and NZ/Australia (and once from LA to Sydney, one of the longest flights you can get), including this exact flight, and find that's hilarious.
- smcl 3y ago
  Yeah I've known someone (a family, actually) who did the same. In case you want a bit of light entertainment, the video where I learned about this is here - don't worry it's debunking flat earth, not in favour it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFsOoKAHZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFsOoKAHZg
3y ago

627467 3y ago

"major banks 2008: too big to fail" "Boeing: too big to be grounded"

peter7012 3y ago

We had the same incident around 2007-2008 with China Airlines. The scary point that it happened almost the same place, from Taiwan to Bali about 1 hour before the landing.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
Aliens?
harshbutfair 3y ago
Hardly "almost the same place", it's ~6500km away.
Jamie9912 3y ago
Taiwan to Bali is nowhere near New Zealand

p_l 3y ago

Pure speculation, but why I'm reminded of the instruction to reboot your 787 regularly, preferably with staggered reboots of the electric buses?

itsthecourier 3y ago

Reminds me of that time a japanese flight had a steep turbulence, a passenger hit the ceiling and died. 12 injured into the ceiling in this flight, kind of looks like a check of who was and wasn't wearing the belt

Schroedingers2c 3y ago

It's remarkable how almost every serious incident due to equipment errors in the past few months involves a Boeing aircraft rather than an Airbus.

sandworm101 3y ago

I don't understand why so many people refuse to wear seatbelts unless demanded. Had everyone been buckled in I doubt anyone would have been injured. You are in a metal tube doing almost the speed of sound tens of thousands of feet in the air. Keep the belt on. If you have to get up, keep a hand on something. An airliner cannot pull serious negative gs. You aren't going to be "pinned" to the ceiling. But you should hold to something solid just in case things get a little floaty for a few seconds. Most longtime fliers have witnessed their drinks lift of their trays. The floating doesn't hurt. The issue is when things stop floating and come crashing down.

fortran77 3y ago

This is why you keep your seat belt fastened whenever you're sitting down.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]