Inconvenient Annoyances

I do love the turbulence gotta admit that... At the moment I am fascinated by this whole 737 Max thing. It's very unusual that we design an unsafe aircraft but they seem to have achieved it with that one. Sooo many interested threads to that discussion though. I could bore you all for hours. Personally, I'd not recommend a flight on one...

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Might be taking one to Japan in November. Now I'm paranoid. F***. I am going to get anxiety now for 6 months later LOL.

I HATE turbulence. I don't get it and it always makes me feel like we're going to die.

Might be taking one to Japan in November.

I take it there is a stopover and a shorter flight into Japan on a 737 Max? 

Dave, it's sure a bizzaro airplane. Was reading all about the design yesterday and the reasons why it ended up the way it did. 

I take it there is a stopover and a shorter flight into Japan on a 737 Max? 

Dave, it's sure a bizzaro airplane. Was reading all about the design yesterday and the reasons why it ended up the way it did.

There's a stopover in France but not a short flight....but I might be wrong as might not be a 737 Max (as the "max" part doesn't sound familiar to me).

Yeah, the not sure you'd be on a 737/737 max , as it is a pretty short haul plane - The likes of Southwest and Ryan Air use them for their routes. 
From France, you'd be on likely be a Boeing 777, 747, 787 or like an Airbus A380, A350, A330  But I am no expert. Just fly a fair bit!

Yeah, the not sure you'd be on a 737/737 max , as it is a pretty short haul plane - The likes of Southwest and Ryan Air use them for their routes. 
From France, you'd be on likely be a Boeing 777, 747, 787 or like an Airbus A380, A350, A330  But I am no expert. Just fly a fair bit!

You're right! I think it's 747 but for some reason I was thinking 737 (because I wasn't thinking logically LOL)

Yeah, the not sure you'd be on a 737/737 max , as it is a pretty short haul plane - The likes of Southwest and Ryan Air use them for their routes. 
From France, you'd be on likely be a Boeing 777, 747, 787 or like an Airbus A380, A350, A330neo.  But I am no expert. Just fly a fair bit!

What she said!

Max is for short haul routes and it's also grounded pretty much worldwide right now so unless you're flying a few months from now then I'd say there's zero chance of you being on one.

Turbulence is an interesting subject but I am sure KSand could tell you more than I as we design aircraft to be resilient to it and for safe handling characteristics when encountering it. The meteorology of it would be fascinating I am sure. I have some knowledge from my days as a flight mechanics and performance engineer and basic atmospherics is a significant part of any aero degree but KSand would know more.

The reasons for the Max problem are fascinating. Open to some speculation of course but I don't entirely blame Boeing. Sure, they and the FAA are in the wrong but it would be ludicrous to think that we don't all do the same sorts of bad things/ have bad practice. I think the problem is much more culture based and procedure based than technical although I strongly believe the aircraft design is flawed and the software patch didn't fix it ergo, and as I often say, don't use software to fix a mechanically unsound solution.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

I blind panic LOL.

I think if I understood turbulence more, it might help me be less fearful of it.

I blind panic LOL.

I think if I understood turbulence more, it might help me be less fearful of it.

I have to admit, I enjoy it! My husband, not so much... he was once on one of those flights which made the news...

I have to admit, I enjoy it! My husband, not so much... he was once on one of those flights which made the news...

NOPE. I'd die of a heart attack I imagine.

I blind panic LOL.

I think if I understood turbulence more, it might help me be less fearful of it.

In theory, there should be no situation where a crew commits an aircraft to turbulence which is outside of the approved flight envelope for a particular aircraft operating in particular conditions. The envelope itself will have a considerable safety margin attributed to it. Flying "out of limits" is rare but this is a procedural control requiring the crew to correctly perform a well trained and rehearsed procedure.

The likelihood of structural failure when flying within limits, fatigue life accounted, must be "extremely improbable" by FAR 25; anecdotally less than 1 accident in a billion flight hours per airframe.

In simple terms, turbulence is no different than encountering waves, undercurrents, wake and temperature differences in the ocean when going for a swim. In fact, the prevalence of storm systems and turbulence in general has a lot to do with the temperature of the earth's oceans and therefore affects conditions within the atmosphere. The reaction of an aircraft to it will depend on many things but not least the natural stability of that aircraft, ie the force at which it will attempt to restore itself naturally to the un-disturbed state. It's a bit like tuning a musical instrument but there's very little danger from technical failure alone. Pilot error; they're humans, all bets are off!

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Turbulence ended my career as a hang glider pilot.  The highest I ever flew was about 500 feet and I did this a couple of times and it was fun.  One day I encountered some lift / Turbulence  and just about shat myself.  I wanted to fly sooo badly and had dedicated literally years to learning but that was enough for me.

I'm glad to hear that it's not just me with the engineer thing.  I can't figure out a way to make them stop doing it. 

Sometimes if forced to I'll describe myself as a software engineer if that's what someone really wants to hear.  That's qualified enough, but I really squirm if it's just plain old engineer.

Speaking of aircraft disasters, did anyone see the footage of that Russian plane where people were evacuating down the slide because the plane was on fire ? You could see people coming down the slide regularly, and then it stopped for like 4 seconds, and then some guy came down WITH HIS LUGGAGE! 

Speaking of aircraft disasters, did anyone see the footage of that Russian plane where people were evacuating down the slide because the plane was on fire ? You could see people coming down the slide regularly, and then it stopped for like 4 seconds, and then some guy came down WITH HIS LUGGAGE!

Never ceases to amaze me wrt luggage carriers leaving a burning airplane. They should be stoned to death by my reckoning. I get that people don't want to leave things behind and stuff is precious but life is more precious...

Sorry to hear about your gliding career being over. You want to check out vortex ring in a helicopter or "settling with power" (almost but not exactly the same thing) if you want similar stories from the rotorcraft world.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Never ceases to amaze me wrt luggage carriers leaving a burning airplane. They should be stoned to death by my reckoning. I get that people don't want to leave things behind and stuff is precious but life is more precious...

Sorry to hear about your gliding career being over. You want to check out vortex ring in a helicopter or "settling with power" (almost but not exactly the same thing) if you want similar stories from the rotorcraft world.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Please fill me in on the vortex ring!  That sounds nuts. 

BTW, whatever happened with your ride share buddy driving like a maniac?

Girls, sorry, Jimbo asked a technical question...

Vortex Ring State (VRS) occurs during low forward speed and high rate of descent. In forward flight at positive airspeed say down to about 30kts indicated, the airflow moves down through the rotor disc and backwards along the fuselage of the aircraft. At a high rate of descent, the rotor disc is being forced to descend into its own wake. So long as there is sufficient forward airspeed, the disc will continue to bite into a fresh, undisturbed column of air and will therefore continue to develop positive lift. As soon as that forward airspeed decays beyond a critical point, and the rate of descent is maintained or recirculation is occurrent from sufficient updraft in the hover, the rotor disc will begin to bite disturbed air within its own wake. The result is that the disc will begin to stall at the root (near the mast). The stall will then propagate around the root and begin to create wake disturbance at the rotor tips. Effectively, the entire disc will stall and the vertical column of air being sucked into the disc will be completely compromised by recirculated and stalled airflow. Increasing power (pulling collective) will make the situation worse. This is known as VRS. Fully developed VRS is unrecoverable and will always result in catastrophe. Partial VRS is recoverable by either one of two actions... lowering the collective to minimum pitch and applying full fwd cyclic to get forward airspeed (there will be substantial height loss which may in itself lead to catastrophe). Alternatively, apply full cyclic port or stbd and maintain collective position followed by generating forward airspeed by fwd cyclic; much less height loss. This second method was developed by mountain pilots in Switzerland and is now the preferred method worldwide.

Settling with power is the same thing according to the FAA. In my book, settling with power is different than VRS because it involves a shortage of power available to arrest descent with forward airspeed. I guess it's like pulling up in your glider but the descent continues. Slightly different thing but can have very similar causes.

VRS has caused numerous serious and fatal accidents. One that I've personally seen was a Super Puma that crashed off Sumborough in Scotland. The Bin Laden raid aircraft was also VRS. Very nasty condition. Very deadly. Always pilot error...

Crazy driver is behaving. Words were had and problems have subsided!

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk