“…Progress in understanding the response of a turbidity current to specific topographic features was hindered on the one hand by the difficulty of studying such flows in natural deep‐water settings and, on the other hand, by the scale limitation of laboratory flume‐tank experiments. Laboratory studies have been an important contribution as analogues for various flow phenomena, such as flow reflection (Kneller et al ., ), topographic ponding (Lamb et al ., , ; Violet et al ., ; Toniolo et al ., ; Patacci et al ., ), channel inception (Yu et al ., ; De Leeuw et al ., ) and flow behaviour in sinuous channels (Peakall et al ., ; Janocko et al ., ). While a crucial component for developing the core mathematical understanding for many aspects of flow processes, the dilute and extremely fine‐grained laboratory mini‐flows may fail to reveal some of the important hydraulic aspects of natural‐scale turbidity currents, such as the phenomena of internal reverse underflow and the hydraulic impact of large Kelvin–Helmholtz waves (Janocko et al ., ; Ge et al ., , ; see also discussion by Al‐Ja'Aidi, ).…”