Is Turbulence Getting Worse?
Sarah Steegar April 05, 2016
Recently, you may have read stories about diverted flights and flight attendant injuries due to severe turbulence. Sometimes these stories are reported in the media, and other times I’ll read about them posted in online flight attendant groups. Is turbulence getting worse?
Turbulence and crew injuries seem to have become a much bigger issue over the course of my flying career. We hear many more internal and first-hand stories of terrible injuries, and these days my company stresses telling cabin crew to sit when we feel unsafe due to aircraft movement regardless of whether the sign has been illuminated.
It seems logical that turbulence would be on the rise given the relationship between climate change and stormy weather, which seems to be present more frequently and/or in more severe events. However, fearful flyers will be happy to note that statistics do not show an actual rise in injuries (at least not yet). You can see for yourself that the FAA fact sheet on turbulence, which lists injuries between 2002-2013, shows patches of heightened numbers but no general upward trend.
Of course, it may take more years of tracking for trends emerge, and it should be noted that the statistics track injuries, not events, as airlines are only required to report the former and/or aircraft damage. Still, none of that changes the fact that as of today we have no real evidence of increased turbulence. So, why does it sometimes seem otherwise?
Patrick Smith, author of the blog Ask the Pilot, believes it’s simply due to social media. It is true that word can now spread in a way that wasn’t possible in my early flying days. Via our closed online communities, the amount of information I receive just on internal company events has positively exploded in just the last two or three years. It’s only recently that we have an immediate way to tell 10,000 colleagues first-hand what happened at work today. For the public, social media outlets provide a proportionate rise in access to events-in-progress, so I have to say he’s probably right.
Then there is the rise in airlines’ explicit advice to cabin crew regarding when to strap into our jump seats. It surely reflects a focused effort to cut down on the costs associated with crew injury and the sometimes resulting lawsuits — especially in the case of career-ending injuries and the legalities of my next point.
That is, I have always found it interesting to note how foreign carriers treat the seatbelt sign versus the way U.S. carriers tend to treat it. In my experience, on Asian carriers, if the sign goes on, everyone gets buckled in – including cabin crew. The message is clear and consistent. European flights can vary, but they’re far more like the Asian model than the way the U.S. seems to do it. Here, if the sign goes on, we have to tell passengers to sit down, but we do not necessarily have to ourselves. Much of the time we carry on serving you coffee and Coke.
The modern U.S. airline has softened its assumption that we will continue service if possible to adopt the message that we are to “use our judgment” as to whether it’s safe (in the absence of specific advice or direction from the cockpit). There are some advantages to this approach, sure, but it can put us in a grey area when it comes to getting hurt. If we get injured in turbulence, the company may be great and supportive, or they may say, “Well the sign was on so it was your choice to be up,” and fight you all the way.
The increased focus of my company on turbulence and injury has probably made the occurrence seem more prevalent to me. It simply looks larger in my mind because we talk about it way more regularly than we used to. It’s true, too, that while I hear a lot more stories, I haven’t been in more events myself, and I’ve never been in a serious turbulence event. Yes, I’ve seen a few occurrences where carts jump and everyone is taken by surprise (those are scary enough, thank you), but none that put equipment or people on the ceiling.
However we’re getting the information, the statistics say that a seeming rise in turbulent events is mostly about increased awareness. I’m thrilled if that’s the answer. If it makes people take the dangers seriously, that’s nothing but a positive. So take heart, fearful flyers; it’s mostly in our head. For once, that’s a good thing.
Crew tip: If it’s turbulent and you simply must go to the bathroom, nicely tell any steely-eyed flight attendants you’re aware the seatbelt sign is on and accept responsibility if you get injured. Then it’s in the open that everyone has done their jobs. It doesn’t always work, but it can’t hurt!
[Photo: Getty]
Well, for those of us who started our airline flying back in the days when DC-3s were 'common carriers", today'as turbulence arrives as mere ripples compared to that common on any summer afternoon aloft across MdAmerica. Seat belts? Buckle up when you board; unbuckling only for trip to the john or other evolutions. Flying in various ac operated by Uncle Sam, often at low, altitudes, taught me that lesson. T'is a far better thing to be harshly grabbed by your seat belt, than to collide with the overhead.
JRjustJR - I am aware that the topic is controversial. Doesn't change the observation though. > In general, over-water flights tend to be much smoother than flights over land, due to the lack of mountains.. While the Andes and Himalayas do indeed make for some rough air - have you ever crossed the Pacific North to South or flown into Japan? > And when you read social media from US pax who want to sue the airlines for anything and everything.. Well as I said that is one of the two reasons why they leave it on all the time. The other one is they can't be bothered to make an effort to prevent those zones. For me the final evidence were announcements on SQ - that in 3 hours we would encounter bad weather - and the polar opposite on QF that due to today's weather pattern they would fly a very different route and we would arrive 15 minutes late ... at the beginning of on time departure. So tell me who takes turbulence seriously.
Weero, The simple truth is that when specifically notified that you are on board, the QF pilots are authorized to spend thousands of dollars of jet fuel in order to deliberately change course to avoid flying you through the most turbulent air. (Satire) In general, over-water flights tend to be much smoother than flights over land, due to the lack of mountains and solar thermal effects. Could it be that more of your UA&SQ flights than your Qantas flights are over land? The Flight crews and cabin crews hate turbulence as much as you do, and a large amount of the conversations with ATC are from the pilots trying to find smoother air. And when you read social media from US pax who want to sue the airlines for anything and everything, they sort of have to leave that seatbelt sign on if there is any chance of a 'big bump', or end up in court.
What a pointless article. And as someone else mentioned there is no data that points to a correlation between climate change and stormy weather.
James- you hit the nail on the head. It's almost exclusively the US where you get the seatbelt sign on for extended times even way after any turbulence has hit (I experienced even many a flight where the pilots simply left it on for the entire duration of the flight). So passengers, of course, start ignoring it after a while- to the contrary on Asian and most European carriers, you know that something is really shaky when the sign goes on and therefore happily strap yourself into your seat.