back to article Shakes on a plane: How dangerous is turbulence?

If you have ever travelled on an aeroplane, the chances are you have experienced some form of turbulence. For those of us who fly infrequently, it can be alarming and unnerving, but rest assured that for the pilots and crew who experience turbulence every day, it is business as usual. You will normally receive a message to …

Page:

  1. Richard 12 Silver badge

    AAIB reports are freely available

    I can thoroughly recommend them as in-flight entertainment.

    Though you may find yourself doing a pre-flight inspection as you board.

    https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: AAIB reports are freely available

      I can recommend the entirely soothing audio book of Michael Crichton's 'Airframe' for long haul flights.

      1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

        Re: AAIB reports are freely available

        Quantas never crashed...

  2. John Tserkezis

    I've just finished watching Air Crash Investigations, Seasons 1-13.

    Anything that could go wrong, will go wrong.

    1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

      I remember hanging around in Schipol, waiting for a connecting flight. While I was sitting in one of the bars, there was a big-screen TV playing Discovery Channel for anyone who was interested. Yep - it was showing something like "Air Crash Investigation", "When Planes Plummet" or something like that, with some wonderfully graphic footage of aircraft ploughing into mountainsides.

      1. Captain Scarlet

        I was watching a program on my tablet in Schipol last year waiting for the gate to open. I looked up and see a plane on fire with lots of people at the gates looking directly ahead probably as confused as I was.

        Only realised after it was put out it was a training rig in full view of gates we were at.

      2. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

        reminds me of...

        the in-flight movie during "Airplane!" which I believe were excerpts from this documentary. Around the 6:00 mark, IIRC.

        1. Sgt_Oddball
          Mushroom

          Re: reminds me of...

          The best thing is the reason for that test crash was to to see if a newly developed fuel designed with a high ignition point would work ad intended and not burst into flames if memory serves.

          It didn't work.... Quite spectacularly too (I recall it had some sort of catalyst near the engine which kept pumping fuel before being atomised reaching a high enough flash point to make the lot go up in in flames.)

          1. JimBob01

            Re: reminds me of...

            This whole fuel idea was shown on Tomorrows World. They started by demonstrating that kerosene is hard to ignite by turning a blow torch on a dish of the stuff. They then did the same with an atomised spray to show how easily it burnt then.

            The invention was an additive that reacted to violent movement, eg a crash, by turning the kerosene form a liquid to a jelly. The idea being that “solid” kerosene wouldn’t burn. The catalyst near the engine would disable the gelling mechanism.

            In the test, a remote control plane was supposed to crash land on a runway that contained 4 obstacles designed to rip the wings (fuel tanks) apart. The pilot made a small error on landing and one of these obstacles ripped through an engine causing a flash fire. The additive did its job and the flash fire quickly subsided even though the destroyed engine led to more fuel than expected being available to the fire. Unfortunately, the flash fire was enough to get some of the luggage smouldering and a few minutes later a secondary fire started that eventually burnt out the plane. The test was deemed a failure.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Anything that could go wrong, will go wrong."

      Which is why the word "accident" (from the article author) isn't the right word, even if it's the one the public use. If I remember rightly, organisations like the AAIB don't use that word. ICBW.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Which is why the word "accident" (from the article author) isn't the right word, even if it's the one the public use. If I remember rightly, organisations like the AAIB don't use that word.

        Might be helpful if they changed their name then?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Might be helpful if AAIB changed their name then?

          Here's a scenario posted earlier by Boris the Cockroach.

          "The book for the plane said grease every 5000hrs (or whatever it was) , manglement put that back by another 1000 hrs to save money, grease monkey forgets to do it, inspector does'nt check its done, nor checks the nut for play."

          Not an accident. A sequence of people not doing their jobs properly. Most days it would work out fine because although someone didn't do their job properly (which may be a design failure rather than a maintenance failure), someone else would have spotted it or some other system would have spotted it, and consequently no one would have been hurt. Sometimes it doesn't work out like that.

          It's like that in lots of areas, not just flight safety. Construction workers are often supposed to wear hard hats. They don't actually need them, generally, unless something else has gone wrong. If that something else has gone wrong AND they're not wearing a hard hat, it's quite possibly hospital time (or worse).

          Stay safe. You know it makes sense.

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          >Might be helpful if they changed their name then?

          Air-Oopsie-Investigation-Board

        3. Anonymous Blowhard

          "Might be helpful if they changed their name then?"

          Maybe to AFUIB?

      2. Brenda McViking

        In this case, the AAIB do indeed use the word "Accident", with a specific definition that can be found here: AAIB Accident definition (GOV.UK)

        Because they determine the facts, rather than apportion blame, political correctness doesn't get a look in. As it should be.

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Betteridge's law of headlines.

      Let's test it on the BBC today?

      Could electric shocks curb spending? NO!

      Could Thunderbird 2 become a reality? NO!

      Are pancakes now Britain's favourite food? NO!

      Could eating more fat boost health? NO!

      Can Egypt's tourism recover from terrorism? NO!

      Are 'killer' hornets on their way to the UK? NO!

      Are 5 countries about to join the EU? NO!

      Are we innovating at the slowest rate in a century? ... Yeah that one's self-evident to anyone who follows tech news.

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        Re: Betteridge's law of headlines.

        @massivelySerial,

        The answer to that last one is actually also No! Its just that nowadays the old metrics used to measure "innovation" have become pretty much useless.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Betteridge's law of headlines.

        Could electric shocks curb spending? NO!

        Yes, actually. If a large enough electric shock is applied to an individual, they will no longer be able to spend money. Remember, you want very high voltage with a huge current.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Betteridge's law of headlines.

      For anyone who hasn't stumbled on it, Patrick Smith's 'Ask the Pilot' blog is well worth a follow. He's a trained pilot who knows his stuff - and I can also recommend his book of the same name as a present for anyone who is scared of flying:

      http://www.askthepilot.com

      Here's his take on turbulence:

      http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/turbulence/

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Vic

          Re: Betteridge's law of headlines.

          For some reason it reminded me of this:-

          I was reminded of this one.

          Vic.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. anthonyhegedus Silver badge

          Re: Betteridge's law of headlines.

          You beat me to it! That's a favourite cartoon of mine

        3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Betteridge's law of headlines.

          farsideplane.jpg

          For some reason I read the end of that link as Farsi Deplane and was expecting some sort of word play on Farsi speakers getting off an aircraft.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well of COURSE a Boeing 707 was brought down by turbulence. It's a Boeing! A 'Murkin plane.

    The planes involved in 9/11, all Boeing. The plane that knobbled Concord ... that was a 'Murkin McDonnell Douglas. 'Murkin planes are flown continuously without maintenance until they fall apart mid-air.

    A whole fleet of Boeing 737-300 were grounded when the roof panels literally started peeling off mid-flight, because nobody checked the rivets for fatigue for decades.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. Chairo

    Big jets are boring and stable

    If you want to experience turbulence I'd recommend a trip in a small one engine craft. Or even better a glider plane flying through a thermal.

    I once had a girlfriend getting angry on me when we were flying together in a commercial airliner because she thought I was playing tough during "feeding time". My father was member of an aero club and took me along regularly that time, so I honestly felt nothing notable.

    Good training for getting married, though...

    1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

      Re: Big jets are boring and stable

      Try a paraglider; probably the only aircraft in which the wing is not only flexible but liable to tie itself in knots in severe turbulence... though most of the time it will put itself back together for you, with a little help.

      On the other hand, huge fun :)

    2. Jonski

      Re: Big jets are boring and stable

      a glider plane flying through a thermal

      We don't fly *through* thermals, we fly *in* them. Feel the bump, wait a couple of seconds and then push the lifted wing down hard to start circling. Pull back to V(min sink). Keep an ear out on the vario and hope you found a good one.

    3. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: Big jets are boring and stable

      > experience turbulence I'd recommend a trip in a small one engine craft

      (Mine was a two-engine plane - a Twin Otter[1] but the same principle applies)

      Many years ago (1988) we flew from Plymouth to Jersey. On approaching the Jersey coast the pilot warned that we might want to hold on to our seats as it got 'a bit bumpy'.

      Sure enough, coming over the Jersey coastline, we dropped what felt like about 50 feet. And then rose again, pretty quickly.

      Was fun.

      [1] And I just missed out on going in the co-pilot seat - pilot offered to let someone sit up front with him as long as we didn't touch the controls. I suspect he would get sacked nowadays if he did that..

      1. AndyS

        Re: Big jets are boring and stable

        In very light aircraft operating with only one pilot, the other front seat normally counts as a passenger seat. If it's used that way regularly it probably won't have dual controls, but often it will. Many times the control column can be removed fairly easily. Same goes for light helicopters.

    4. Number6

      Re: Big jets are boring and stable

      I remember being on a 747 departing Gatwick, being thrown around a fair bit. Overhead lockers were popping open and the people across the aisle from me were praying. I was more like "Yee-haa!"

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Explainer?

    This is the sort of drivel I come here to avoid.

    It explains nothing that an El Reg reader won't already know.

    Please stop it.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Explainer?

        When the article includes gems like "the level of turbulence required to bend a wing spar is something even most pilots will not experience in a lifetime of travelling", and then even goes on to explain that wings are meant to flex, then you know that you're down at the level of an Open Day tour guide or a Sky News reporter, not a technical summary.

        1. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Explainer?

          They say, "the level of turbulence required to bend a wing spar is something even most pilots will not experience in a lifetime of travelling". And then they go on to tell the story about the 707 tail that was torn off near Mt Fuji.

          Well, at least the wings stayed on.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Preston Poly?

        Nah, Harris College when I were a lad.

        There were nowt wrong wit Polytechnics, except that they were under the control of local government not central government and they kept making central government look daft.

        So they had to be removed from local government, and became universities.

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: Preston Poly?

          > nowt wrong wit Polytechnics, except that they were under the control of local government

          That was *everything* that was wrong with Polytechnics. I went to Leicester Poly in the mid-80's to do Information Technology. After a couple of weeks I asked to move courses over to Computer Science course as I hated the analogue electronics that we were forced to do. They refused.

          The reason? The local council had mandated a one-way process (you joined the course, you couldn't transfer) because they were getting funding from Central Government for every student in the "IT Course" but not on computer science.

          After failing the electronics section of the course I went back to re-do the first year but gave it up after a term. I'd been getting distinctions on the computer side of things..

          Not that I'm bitter or anything.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Preston Poly?

            Small world, I was also at Leicester Poly on the IT course from 85-89 :)

            There's nothing like having to trek all the way to the other side of the city when they found the main CS building was full of asbestos ;)

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Explainer?

        "My guess is the author is aiming it at the level of his students at Preston Poly."

        My knowledge of the graduates of that institution is limited to a sample of one but it would have been well beyond his comprehension.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Explainer?

      Why should all people with an interest in IT (many of whom won't be even IT engineers/technicians) be knowledgeable in Aircraft engineering?

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

      Re: Explainer?

      Actually, I hadn't come across the Swiss Cheese thing until reading this article, and it looks like a useful thing for a number of applications.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Explainer?

        Personally I could have done without the Swiss cheese anology, it only made me want some cheese.

      2. DropBear

        Re: Explainer?

        "Actually, I hadn't come across the Swiss Cheese thing until reading this article, and it looks like a useful thing for a number of applications."

        Could have been summed up equally effectively in a single sentence, along the lines of "whenever an air crash happens it's almost never the result of a single failure* but rather an unfortunate coincidence of all involved safeguards failing at the same time"...

        *yeah okay that crash involving the horizontal stabilizer actuator nut stripping out its threads due to inadequate greasing was pretty much a single point of failure.

        1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

          Re: Explainer?

          quote "*yeah okay that crash involving the horizontal stabilizer actuator nut stripping out its threads due to inadequate greasing was pretty much a single point of failure."

          But it was'nt

          The book for the plane said grease every 5000hrs (or whatever it was) , manglement put that back by another 1000 hrs to save money, grease monkey forgets to do it, inspector does'nt check its done, nor checks the nut for play.

          And I flew on one of those Frontier MD80's just after that accident..... Nice views of Mt St Helens/Mt Hood as we came into Portland though

  7. graeme leggett Silver badge

    "means the wing tips are flexed up to 90 degrees during testing"

    Deflection of 5 metres on a wing nearly 30 metres long does not to my mind make 90 degrees.

    Deflection of 10 metres full down to full up might be getting on for 90 degrees total flex, if for instance flexing outboard of engine only.

    1. Tom 7

      Re: "means the wing tips are flexed up to 90 degrees during testing"

      Wings are profiled - they thin towards the tip - think of it a bit like a kids drawing of a bird in flight.

      I was flying across the atlantic in 1970 long before they had decent weather warnings and we hit a thunderstorm and free-fell 3000 feet before the wings seemed to do that. The plane smelt a bit funny after that. I was allowed on the flight deck a few hours later and the co-pilot was still shaking.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        The plane smelt a bit funny after that.

        Engine problems, flying food, or everybody wet themselves?

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon