<p>航空专家表示，即使是最先进的飞机雷达系统也无法完全探测高空湍流，因为国泰航空正在调查上周从布里斯班飞往香港的一次事件，该事件导致 10 人受伤。国泰航空于周二透露，已启动调查，原因是有人呼吁对传达给机组人员的天气预报以及飞行员的反应速度进行审查。执行 CX156 航班的空客 A350-900 飞机在周六降落前约两个小时遭遇严重湍流。颠簸发生在经济舱的早餐服务期间，导致四名乘客和六名未系安全带的机组成员受伤，餐车翻倒，氧气面罩被激活。一名乘客表示，下降的高度持续了约两秒，形容这种经历就像 “从高空塔自由落体”，大家尖叫着，松散的物品在空中飞舞。该事件发生在新加坡运输安全调查局发布关于新加坡航空 321 号航班在 2024 年 5 月遭遇缅甸上空严重湍流的最终报告几天后。报告显示，飞机的天气雷达可能存在探测恶劣天气条件不足的问题，这可能导致飞行员飞入湍流中，造成一人死亡，79 名乘客和机组成员受伤。代表在事件中受伤的新加坡航空乘客的澳大利亚卡特·卡普纳律师事务所的彼得·卡特表示，航空公司往往过于依赖 “不可预见的清空湍流” 辩护。他说：“在这两起事件中，机组人员肯定会收到预报，指示他们计划航线上的雷暴可能性，并且在经过已知对流活动的地方时应该保持高度警惕。” 卡特呼吁对传达给国泰航班的天气预报以及驾驶舱机组的反应速度进行调查。他表示，根据 1999 年《蒙特利尔公约》，乘客有权获得严格的赔偿，针对证明的身体伤害，最高可达 26 万澳元（185,350 美元），如果确定存在操作失误，则没有上限。对此，国泰发言人表示：“我们正在收集更多事实，以更好地了解情况，在此阶段得出任何过早的结论是不合适的。我们的客户和机组的安全指导着我们做出的每一个决定。” 他补充说，飞机降落后，医疗人员登机帮助少数报告感到不适的乘客和机组成员。“他们得到了最高水平的照顾。我们将继续跟进并提供必要的帮助，” 发言人说。当地行业人士驳斥了事件因机组失误而引发的说法，指出航空技术的固有限制。香港工程师学会航空分部副主席温志宁表示，标准机载天气雷达在很大程度上依赖于湿度探测，使得高空清空湍流几乎不可见。“即使有先进的天气预报、飞行员反馈和机载雷达，也根本无法绝对准确地预测湍流的确切发生时间，” 他说。“除非飞行员故意飞入一个巨大、明显可见的暴风云中，高空湍流几乎总是突然发生。” 香港专业航空飞行员协会主席张景龙也警告在正式调查完成之前不要指责，指出全球气候变化正在使标准航线变得更加不稳定。“越来越多的科学证据表明，湍流，特别是清空湍流，随着气候变化变得更加频繁和严重，” 他说。张补充说，对流雷暴系统经常突破 40,000 英尺的高度，直接与标准商业巡航高度相交。“航空运营的整个目的就是风险管理，利用天气预报、机载天气雷达、前方飞机的报告、空中交通信息和飞行员报告尽可能降低风险，” 他指出。“像 A350 这样的现代飞机能力极强，但它们仍在变化的气候中运营。” 他说，与快速发展的天气系统相关的一些湍流可能在视觉上并不明显，给机组人员很少的警告。近年来发生了类似事件。2024 年 7 月，一架欧洲航空的航班在大西洋上遭遇严重湍流，导致飞机突然下降，至少 40 名未系安全带的乘客受伤。2022 年 12 月，一架夏威夷航空的航班在檀香山附近遭遇严重湍流，当时一朵暴风云迅速在飞机前方形成，导致 36 人受伤。张指出，湍流引发的伤害几乎总是因为乘客或机组在此时没有系好安全带，强调保持安全带系紧是重要的预防措施，而不是形式主义。温也呼应了他的观点，指出虽然机组成员由于工作原因不可能始终系好安全带，但乘客的规则是绝对的。“对于乘客来说，老生常谈的建议仍然是最好的：在座位上时，随时保持安全带系紧。”</p>

国泰航空

<p>国泰航空正在调查一起涉及严重颠簸的事件，该事件发生在从布里斯班飞往香港的 CX156 航班上，导致 10 人受伤。专家指出，先进的雷达系统无法完全探测高空颠簸，这使得安全措施变得复杂。对天气预报和飞行员反应的调查呼声日益高涨，乘客受伤的法律责任问题也随之而来。业内人士强调颠簸的不可预测性，尤其是在气候变化加剧其频率和严重性的背景下，呼吁在调查结束之前谨慎归责</p>

<p>Even the most advanced aircraft radar systems cannot fully detect high-altitude turbulence, aviation experts have said, as Cathay Pacific Airways investigates an incident that injured 10 people on a Hong Kong-bound flight from Brisbane last week. Hong Kong’s flag carrier revealed on Tuesday that it had launched the probe following calls for an inquiry into the weather forecast relayed to the flight crew and how quickly the pilots responded. The Airbus A350-900 aircraft operating flight CX156 from the Australian city was hit by severe turbulence about two hours before landing on Saturday. The jolt occurred during breakfast service in the economy cabin, injuring four passengers and six unbuckled crew members as food trolleys overturned and oxygen masks deployed. A passenger said the drop in altitude lasted about two seconds, describing the experience as feeling like “free-falling from a drop tower” as everyone screamed and loose items flew through the air. The incident occurred days after Singapore’s Transport Safety Investigation Bureau released its final report into Singapore Airlines flight 321’s encounter with severe turbulence over Myanmar in May 2024. The report revealed that possible issues with the aircraft’s weather radar under-detecting inclement conditions might have led pilots to fly into it, resulting in one death and injuries to 79 passengers and crew members. Peter Carter, director of Australian-based Carter Capner Law, who represents Singapore Airlines passengers injured in the incident, argued that carriers often relied too heavily on the “unforeseeable clear-air turbulence” defence. “Aircrews in both events would surely have received forecasts indicating the likelihood of thunderstorms on their planned route and ought to have been hypervigilant while transiting places of known convective activity,” he said. Carter called for an inquiry into the forecast relayed to the Cathay flight and how quickly the cockpit crew responded. He said that under the Montreal Convention 1999, an international agreement, passengers were entitled to strict compensation for proven bodily injuries up to A$260,000 (US$185,350) regardless of airline fault, with no upper limit if operational negligence was established. In response, a Cathay spokesman said: “We are in the process of gathering more facts to better understand the circumstances, and it would not be appropriate to draw any premature conclusions at this stage. “The safety of our customers and crew guides every decision we make.” He added that medical personnel boarded the aircraft after it landed to help a small number of passengers and crew who reported feeling unwell. “They were provided with the utmost level of care. We will continue to follow up and provide the necessary assistance,” the spokesman said. Local industry figures dismissed suggestions the incident arose from crew negligence, pointing to the inherent limitations of aviation technology. Warren Chim Wing-nin, deputy chairman of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers’ aircraft division, said standard on-board weather radar relied heavily on moisture detection, leaving high-altitude clear-air turbulence virtually invisible. “Even with advanced weather forecasts, pilot feedback and on-board radar, it is simply impossible to predict the exact timing of turbulence with absolute accuracy,” he said. “Unless a pilot intentionally flies into a massive, clearly visible storm cloud, high-altitude turbulence is almost always a sudden occurrence.” Steven Cheung King-lung, chairman of the Hong Kong Professional Airline Pilots Association, also warned against pointing fingers before a formal inquiry was completed, noting that global climate shifts were actively making standard flight paths more volatile. “There is increasing scientific evidence that turbulence, particularly clear-air turbulence, is becoming more frequent and more severe as the climate changes,” he said. Cheung added that convective thunderstorm systems regularly breached altitudes above 40,000 feet, directly intersecting standard commercial cruising levels. “The whole purpose of airline operations is risk management, using weather forecasts, on board weather radar, reports from preceding aircraft, air traffic information and pilot reports to reduce the risk as much as possible,” he noted. “Modern aircraft such as the A350 are extremely capable, but they are still operating in a changing atmosphere.” He said some turbulence associated with rapidly developing weather systems might not be visually obvious, giving crews little warning. Similar incidents have occurred in recent years. In July 2024, an Air Europa flight hit severe turbulence over the Atlantic Ocean, causing the plane to drop suddenly and injuring at least 40 unbuckled passengers. In December 2022, a Hawaiian Airlines flight hit severe turbulence near Honolulu when a storm cloud rapidly developed in front of the plane, injuring 36 people. Cheung noted that injuries arising from turbulence almost always occurred because passengers or crew were not strapped in at the time, stressing that keeping seat belts fastened was a vital precaution, not a formality. Chim echoed his comments, noting that while it was impossible for crew members to always remain buckled up due to their duties, the rule for passengers was absolute. “For passengers, the old cliched advice remains the best: keep your seat belt fastened at any and all times when you are in your seat.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>航空专家表示，即使是最先进的飞机雷达系统也无法完全探测高空湍流，因为国泰航空正在调查上周从布里斯班飞往香港的一次事件，该事件导致 10 人受伤。国泰航空于周二透露，已启动调查，原因是有人呼吁对传达给机组人员的天气预报以及飞行员的反应速度进行审查。执行 CX156 航班的空客 A350-900 飞机在周六降落前约两个小时遭遇严重湍流。颠簸发生在经济舱的早餐服务期间，导致四名乘客和六名未系安全带的机组成员受伤，餐车翻倒，氧气面罩被激活。一名乘客表示，下降的高度持续了约两秒，形容这种经历就像 “从高空塔自由落体”，大家尖叫着，松散的物品在空中飞舞。该事件发生在新加坡运输安全调查局发布关于新加坡航空 321 号航班在 2024 年 5 月遭遇缅甸上空严重湍流的最终报告几天后。报告显示，飞机的天气雷达可能存在探测恶劣天气条件不足的问题，这可能导致飞行员飞入湍流中，造成一人死亡，79 名乘客和机组成员受伤。代表在事件中受伤的新加坡航空乘客的澳大利亚卡特·卡普纳律师事务所的彼得·卡特表示，航空公司往往过于依赖 “不可预见的清空湍流” 辩护。他说：“在这两起事件中，机组人员肯定会收到预报，指示他们计划航线上的雷暴可能性，并且在经过已知对流活动的地方时应该保持高度警惕。” 卡特呼吁对传达给国泰航班的天气预报以及驾驶舱机组的反应速度进行调查。他表示，根据 1999 年《蒙特利尔公约》，乘客有权获得严格的赔偿，针对证明的身体伤害，最高可达 26 万澳元（185,350 美元），如果确定存在操作失误，则没有上限。对此，国泰发言人表示：“我们正在收集更多事实，以更好地了解情况，在此阶段得出任何过早的结论是不合适的。我们的客户和机组的安全指导着我们做出的每一个决定。” 他补充说，飞机降落后，医疗人员登机帮助少数报告感到不适的乘客和机组成员。“他们得到了最高水平的照顾。我们将继续跟进并提供必要的帮助，” 发言人说。当地行业人士驳斥了事件因机组失误而引发的说法，指出航空技术的固有限制。香港工程师学会航空分部副主席温志宁表示，标准机载天气雷达在很大程度上依赖于湿度探测，使得高空清空湍流几乎不可见。“即使有先进的天气预报、飞行员反馈和机载雷达，也根本无法绝对准确地预测湍流的确切发生时间，” 他说。“除非飞行员故意飞入一个巨大、明显可见的暴风云中，高空湍流几乎总是突然发生。” 香港专业航空飞行员协会主席张景龙也警告在正式调查完成之前不要指责，指出全球气候变化正在使标准航线变得更加不稳定。“越来越多的科学证据表明，湍流，特别是清空湍流，随着气候变化变得更加频繁和严重，” 他说。张补充说，对流雷暴系统经常突破 40,000 英尺的高度，直接与标准商业巡航高度相交。“航空运营的整个目的就是风险管理，利用天气预报、机载天气雷达、前方飞机的报告、空中交通信息和飞行员报告尽可能降低风险，” 他指出。“像 A350 这样的现代飞机能力极强，但它们仍在变化的气候中运营。” 他说，与快速发展的天气系统相关的一些湍流可能在视觉上并不明显，给机组人员很少的警告。近年来发生了类似事件。2024 年 7 月，一架欧洲航空的航班在大西洋上遭遇严重湍流，导致飞机突然下降，至少 40 名未系安全带的乘客受伤。2022 年 12 月，一架夏威夷航空的航班在檀香山附近遭遇严重湍流，当时一朵暴风云迅速在飞机前方形成，导致 36 人受伤。张指出，湍流引发的伤害几乎总是因为乘客或机组在此时没有系好安全带，强调保持安全带系紧是重要的预防措施，而不是形式主义。温也呼应了他的观点，指出虽然机组成员由于工作原因不可能始终系好安全带，但乘客的规则是绝对的。“对于乘客来说，老生常谈的建议仍然是最好的：在座位上时，随时保持安全带系紧。”</p>
</div>

专家指出，高空湍流难以发现，国泰航空正在调查这一事件