Turbulence

Turbulence can be a scary thing, but this is what you need to know

A Jet2 pilot has shared what turbulence is really like – and what he wishes passengers understood about it.

Reassuring people that turbulence is “normal”, Josh urged people to stay calm, and it’s nothing to panic about – a key fact he wishes more people knew. He explained in the airline’s Ask a Pilot blog that there are “a few things that’ll really help” nervous flyers stay calm and enjoy their trip, whether they’re heading on a short-haul hop or a longer flight.

But first, what is turbulence? Experts at the Flight Radar 24 explains: “Turbulence is a common yet complex weather phenomenon that affects aviation.

“Broadly speaking, it refers to irregular air movements that cause erratic changes in the altitude and/or attitude of an aircraft. Let’s take a look at the various types of turbulence, their causes, and some notable incidents they have played a part in.”

I’m scared of flying, what can I do?

Answering the question: “I’m a nervous flyer! Can you give me some tips on how to relax and enjoy the flight?” Josh set out practical ways passengers can feel more in control and less anxious in the air.

Josh explained “understanding that turbulence is completely normal” is the first step in dealing with nerves. Planes are designed and rigorously tested to cope with conditions far more severe than anything you’re likely to encounter on a routine journey.

If you are worried, “let the crew know if you’re feeling nervous. The team at Jet2 are incredibly customer-focused, and if you mention it, they’ll do everything they can to reassure you and make the journey as comfortable as possible. This might even include a cockpit visit on the ground before departure, which can really help build confidence.”

The pilot also recommends keeping yourself occupied with distractions such as music, films, podcasts or a good book. This can really help take your mind off the flight and make the time go faster.

He stressed: “Remember, flying is one of the safest forms of transport, with multiple layers of training, technology and procedures all working together to keep you safe. If you have any questions while onboard, just ask a member of our friendly crew who will gladly help you.”

What are the types of turbulence?

Flight Radar explains the types of turbulence that can range from light to extreme. However, it stresses: “Whilst turbulence can feel unsettling, especially to nervous flyers, it is important to emphasise that severe turbulence events are generally quite rare. Pilots carry out an extensive weather brief before a flight which identifies areas of known turbulence en-route, which are avoided if possible.”

Light Turbulence

Light turbulence causes slight and erratic changes in altitude and attitude of the aircraft. Passengers may feel a light strain against their seat belts. There is little or no difficulty in walking for crew members, and unsecured objects may be slightly displaced.

Moderate Turbulence

Moderate turbulence results in changes in altitude and/or attitude that are more intense than light turbulence but the aircraft remains under control at all times. Passengers feel a more definite strain against their seat belts and unsecured objects are dislodged. Walking becomes difficult for crew members.

Severe Turbulence

Severe turbulence causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude, with large variations in airspeed. The aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Passengers are forced violently against their seat belts, and unsecured objects can become airborne. Walking is impossible. Severe turbulence is generally quite rare.

Extreme Turbulence

Extreme turbulence results in the aircraft being tossed about violently, making it practically impossible to control. This category of turbulence may cause structural damage to the aircraft. Severe injuries to passengers and crew are possible if they are not securely fastened. Extreme turbulence is, as named, extremely rare.

As we head into August and look to the fall, two burning questions are front and center when it comes to the Dodgers.

Will they win a third straight World Series championship?

And will the $500-million proposal to ferry fans by gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium remain aloft or crash and burn?

I can’t answer the first question, although I wouldn’t bet against a three-peat.

As for the second question, if I were former Dodgers owner and aerial tram godfather Frank McCourt, I’d fasten my seat belt, because the gondola is about to hit some heavy turbulence.

The gondola would slice through a section of L.A. State Historic Park, wipe out dozens of trees and trample a space that was carefully designed with years of community input. And the mounting opposition now includes seven former state park officials and four former members of the state Park and Recreation Commission.

The former staffers have sent “don’t you dare” letters to the commission, and one of them argued that the view of the downtown skyline would be cluttered and commercialized.

“Gondola cars encased in digital ads, flying 26 feet overhead every 25-30 seconds would irreparably impair the vista, and the sense of calm and escape from urban life,” wrote former state parks director Ruth Coleman.

The four former commissioners have signed a joint letter arguing that the gondola proposal “would enable a private development to permanently and irreparably shrink, degrade, and destroy the integrity of a state park.”

They’re speaking up now because the state is considering an amendment to the park’s general plan that would allow for “consideration and review of the proposed Los Angeles Aerial Rapid Transit (LA ART) gondola project.”

That was McCourt’s brainchild, back in 2018, and he’s a guy with lobbying muscle and friends in high places. McCourt later handed off the project to an environmental group, but the idea is still to deliver fans to Dodger Stadium, where he has financial interests.

A hearing on the matter is expected in the fall, and it’s sure to be a cage fight. Last December, throngs of supporters and foes squared off at a raucous Metro board meeting. The board ultimately green-lighted the gondola, which the L.A. City Council has almost unanimously opposed. So the showdown scheduled for this fall could be at least as interesting as the World Series.

For the record, I’m not anti-gondola. They’re fun, right?

But I’m not buying the proponents’ claim that this is a public transit project. They say several thousand people would soar up to Chavez Ravine and help relieve the miserable traffic in and out of parking lots, which McCourt took part ownership of after selling the team back in 2012 for a cool $2 billion.

But how much is gained if gondola riders ditch the free shuttle buses that now run to the ballpark from Union Station?

Then there’s a much bigger question, which my colleague Bill Shaikin explored in 2022: Is the gondola phase one of a plan to develop stadium property into some kind of Dodgertown commercial extravaganza?

Unclear, but let’s not be naive.

A Dodgers executive told Shaikin the Dodgers support the gondola project, although they are “really not involved” in it. But we’re talking about fabulously wealthy people whose only real job is figuring out how to make more money.

Team McCourt has suggested the gondola will be built with private money, perhaps from selling advertising rights, and that rides will be free to Dodger ticket holders.

But how would any of that pencil out with Dodger Stadium closed most of the year, and with gondola traffic chipping away at revenue from parking fees that start at a monstrous $40?

There’s something they’re not telling us, and if you think there’s no threat of taxpayers getting dinged one way or another at some point, you’ve either been hit in the head by a line drive or you’ve had too many $18 beers at Dodger Stadium.

If you want more details on the history of the gondola gambit, I suggest you check out all the reporting by Shaikin, who has been on the case for years, and offered up a far better idea than a gondola: Make it easier for fans to walk or bike to the ballpark.

But let’s get back to L.A. State Historic Park.

Much of the early gondola opposition was from Chinatown residents who didn’t like the idea of living under what would resemble an amusement park ride. But on Wednesday evening, I met with some people whose focus is the impact on the park.

“All of these trees would be gone,” said Sean Woods, a former state parks employee who penned one of the letters to Sacramento, and who was involved in some of the 65 public meetings and workshops at which community members helped with the design and mission of the park.

We were in a shady spot, where the gondola would run parallel to the existing Metro train tracks. There’d be supporting towers on park property, with cables dangling overhead, and a gondola station just outside the park. The gondola would occupy only a small slice of the 32-acre space, but it would be a visible distraction from every inch of the park.

“I think it’s a betrayal of California State Parks’ commitment to the communities that surround this park, that fought dearly for this park,” Woods said.

He was reflecting on a time when the former railyard was destined to become a giant industrial warehouse complex. And this followed the history of Chinatown having been relocated to make way for Union Station, and residents of Chavez Ravine being relocated to make way for Dodger Stadium.

Jon Christensen, Sean Woods and Susan Lai chat at Los Angeles State Historic Park.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Joining us was Susan Lai, who along with Woods represents Friends of Los Angeles State Historic Park.

Lai is small in stature, but she swings for the fences.

“This is called a historic park for a reason,” she said, “and McCourt … has no historical connection to the park, no community connection to the park, and no cultural connection to the park.”

Lai is steeped in the archaeology of the park, the Gabrielino establishment here, the Zanja Madre irrigation line that served the early pueblo.

As we strolled, she told me this is another case of politically connected profiteers trying to impose their will on the local community, and she won’t stand for it. Lai is carrying a torch lit by her husband, Collin, who died last year at the age of 96 after years of fighting to make the park a reality.

“She’s brought an extra fire to this whole effort, and really inspired a lot of young people,” said Jon Christensen, gondola foe and co-founder of the Los Angeles Parks Alliance.

Christensen led Lai, Woods and me to the top of a grassy hill. When the park opened in 2006, I thought it seemed too flat and shapeless, too hemmed in by Broadway and Spring. But it later expanded, the trees filled in and the whole park grew on me as a place to see and feel Los Angeles.

I loved two things most of all.

The unstructured activities enjoyed by a broad mix of people picnicking on the grass, napping under a tree, kicking a ball around or doing what 10 guys were doing Wednesday evening — playing a game of Frisbee football in the meadow below us.

And the unfettered skyline view, which could soon be lost. And consider the optics: Dodgers fans soaring over a public park enjoyed by families who might need to hit the lottery to afford tickets to a game.

It was almost Dodger game time, and if the gondolas were up and running, they’d be close enough overhead that you could hit one with a tomato.

Not that I’m recommending that.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

NATO leaders emerged from their summit in Ankara relieved that U.S. President Donald Trump reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the alliance, but European officials acknowledge that relations with the United States remain fragile and expect further periods of uncertainty.

While the gathering ended on a positive note, diplomats say the alliance continues to face questions over Trump’s long-term approach to NATO, burden sharing and Europe’s security.

Summit ends on a more positive note

The two-day summit began amid fresh tensions after Trump criticized several allies, announced he wanted to cut off U.S. trade with Spain, and revived disputes over defense spending.

However, the atmosphere improved significantly by the end of the meeting.

Trump endorsed the summit declaration reaffirming NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense commitment, praised the unity among allies, and approved a license allowing Ukraine to manufacture Patriot missile interceptors.

European leaders viewed those moves as an important signal that Washington remains committed to the alliance despite months of increasingly strained relations.

Trump also described the summit as one filled with “love,” easing fears that the gathering could end in open confrontation.

European allies remain cautious

Despite the improved tone, European governments are preparing for continued volatility in transatlantic relations.

Officials note that Trump’s approach toward NATO has often shifted rapidly, creating uncertainty over U.S. security commitments.

Recent disputes have included Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland, criticism of allies during the Iran conflict, and repeated suggestions that European members should assume greater responsibility for their own defense.

Many European capitals believe maintaining strong ties with Washington remains essential despite these disagreements.

Without U.S. military capabilities, officials fear NATO’s ability to deter Russia would be significantly weakened.

Rutte emphasizes America’s central role

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stressed that the United States remains the alliance’s indispensable military power.

He noted that the U.S. economy accounts for roughly half of NATO’s combined economic strength and that American military capabilities remain unmatched within the alliance.

According to Rutte, NATO’s credibility and deterrence against Russia remain intact despite recent political tensions.

Not everyone shares that optimism.

Some former U.S. defense officials argue that repeated political disputes have already damaged perceptions of alliance unity and provided Moscow with opportunities to question NATO’s cohesion.

Several European diplomats privately acknowledged that while the summit avoided a major crisis, it did little to erase concerns created over recent months.

Defense spending helps ease tensions

One factor that helped calm relations was Europe’s significant increase in defense spending.

Trump has long argued that NATO members rely too heavily on the United States for their security.

Ahead of the summit, NATO officials highlighted large increases in military spending by European members and Canada, presenting the figures as evidence that Trump’s pressure has produced tangible results.

Alliance officials also emphasized billions of dollars in new defense procurement agreements announced during a defense industry forum held before the summit.

The deals covered surveillance aircraft, transport planes, drones and other military equipment worth more than $50 billion.

The announcements were intended to demonstrate that allies are translating higher defense budgets into concrete military capabilities.

NATO counters criticism over Iran conflict

Alliance officials also sought to push back against Trump’s criticism that NATO members failed to support the United States during the conflict with Iran.

Officials argued that, with the exception of Spain restricting U.S. access to military facilities, most allies honored existing agreements governing American military operations.

Those efforts were designed to reassure Washington that European allies remain reliable security partners even when political disagreements arise.

Pentagon review adds fresh uncertainty

Despite the summit’s relatively positive conclusion, uncertainty remains over America’s future military posture in Europe.

The Pentagon has already reduced some of the forces allocated to NATO defense plans and recently launched a review of approximately 80,000 U.S. troops stationed across Europe.

The review has fueled concerns that Washington could further reduce its military presence on the continent as European governments work to strengthen their own defense capabilities.

European leaders seek fewer flashpoints

Several officials suggested NATO may reduce the frequency of high-profile leaders’ summits to avoid repeated political confrontations.

Plans for a NATO leaders’ meeting in Albania next year have reportedly been put on hold as alliance members reassess the format of future gatherings.

Some diplomats believe limiting opportunities for public disputes could help preserve alliance unity while allowing practical cooperation to continue behind the scenes.

Why the Ankara summit mattered

The Ankara summit represented an important test of NATO’s ability to manage internal political differences while maintaining collective security.

Turkey, as host nation, sought to strengthen its standing within the alliance and improve relations with Washington, while NATO leadership worked to keep attention focused on defense cooperation rather than political disagreements.

Although tensions remain, the summit demonstrated that both the United States and European allies continue to recognize the strategic importance of NATO amid Russia’s war in Ukraine and growing global security challenges.

Future outlook

The immediate crisis surrounding the Ankara summit may have eased, but European governments expect relations with the Trump administration to remain unpredictable.

Future disagreements over defense spending, U.S. troop deployments, support for Ukraine, trade disputes and broader geopolitical issues are likely to continue testing alliance unity.

For now, NATO leaders appear determined to strengthen Europe’s military capabilities while keeping the United States firmly engaged, recognizing that preserving transatlantic cooperation remains central to the alliance’s long-term security strategy.

With information from Reuters.