Pretty cool video from Brazil in this article
Last edited:
Airplane Turbulence Is Getting More Common And Severe...
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
Well, based on the article there most likely wasn't any turbulence anywhere prior to the inception of flight.
You're comparing 2 different things here.
Pressurization cycles would not likely be related to aging from turbulence.
Wings very well could be. Aircraft undergoing significantly higher levels of severe turbulence will have a higher rate of severe stress cycling on wing structures. That becomes a new calculation/factor in how long those planes might remain in service.
They could have an adequate safety margin, but that's my point here - they were designed based upon certain assumptions on how often they'll encounter severe stresses. Those assumptions may now need to be revisited, particularly for older designs and older planes.
It was less severe and less common 20 yrs ago.
Think of it as "your interstates have lots more potholes in them now". Will your vehicles tires and suspension be expected to remain stable for the same 100,000 miles of driving on smooth roads vs those with lots of potholes and defects? They could be, if they were designed for it. If not, then you'd have some problems.
I’m not comparing two things, I am telling you how they determine the LOV of an aircraft. An LOV can be based solely on flight cycles, not flight time (as previously stated in the prior two posts). Those platforms are still tested and analyzed for gusts.
Your last paragraph echos what I stated in the post you just quoted. There could be a need, but without better information, it’s not definitive. This is what needs to be quantified : “Aircraft undergoing significantly higher levels of severe turbulence…” You have to first establish the current baseline is no longer sufficient, and “significantly higher” needs to have a value.
Btw, not everything needs to be an argument.
Funny thing is for my job, I got a promotion and have been flying a lot more last 6 months and was noting with family how turbulent the flights have been. Did a vacation in Providence and almost barfed on the flight there from Atlanta.
Do you get in the ocean past your ankles? There are a heck of a lot more shark attacks than people flying out of planes.
You first establish what guidance/numbers the previous testing parameters were based upon.
If that is something like "5% severe turbulence encounters per flight hour", and that number is going to run to 2x or 3x that, then you should consider re-evaluating and/or re-designing your cycling testing designs.
That's my point here.
If the tests are designed for "100% turbulence" and 100% max wing fatigue for every flight (which they certainly aren't), you would not need to change anything.
We are? Why didn't you say so? If we are controlling climate change right now, then why all the worry about climate change related events?
Well, not everything would be an argument if everyone would just accept Joes opinion as the last word on EVERY subject.
Apparently he’s not allowed to be a contestant on Jeopardy because it just wouldn’t be fair. 🤷♂️
Because our "control" is what's causing those events.
And we seem incapable of eliminating our CO2 emissions to allow the climate to vary naturally.
What we are doing is very "unnatural" and once we hit a major tipping point, we will have "FAFO"....
So we really aren't controlling climate change. Please make up your mind, cletus.
When you do not understand "engineering" stuff, specifically mechanical cycling and metal fatigue, it's best to stay out of the discussion.
Past airframe testing has been conducted based upon assumptions of the stresses encountered with typical air turbulence encounters. If air turbulence significantly increases, it is a completely logical step to question and re-evaluate those tests to assess whether they are still relevant and adequate for the increases in stresses that may be encountered with higher rates of turbulence.
It's not that the current tests are "wrong" or necessarily "inadequate" - it is that they were based on specific assumptions - and it is very possible those assumptions are no longer accurate. When that happens, we upgrade the tests, or we reduce the lifespans of mechanical systems to match the expected differences.
I do not do much cycle-testing in my line of work, but I have run the statistical analysis for them.
I use Minitab for that - what statistical packages/experience do you have?
Wait, is Joe an aviation expert now?
Not "intentionally", we aren't.
But we certainly are controlling it by increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to ~430 ppm.
No; Joe understands fatigue testing and the statistical analysis that goes with it.
And he also understands that when the parameters your system will encounter in its service life change (in particular, increase) that you may need to adjust your testing methods OR reduce the expected service life of your system.
That's pretty much Materials Science: 101. And, yes, I did teach Mat Sci classes back in the day, as well as run statistical analysis on stuff like this.
What is your background in the area?
So why didn't you say so? If we control those, why don't we just stop them, or regulate them to the exact level needed to stabilize their effect?
We were delayed from Chicago to Cedar Rapids a few years ago waiting on a plane from Detroit. Ended up finally boarding like 4 hours late and the pilot basically said he was going to "floor it" to make up some time. Not sure how fast he was going, but it felt like we were on a rocket! Think we made it in less than 30 minutes.
You said we are controlling climate change. I didn't say that.
I have 0 background in the area but I also don’t act like I know everything about everything. I didn’t even argue anything, I just thought it was funny you thought of yourself as an aviation expert now.
It’s pretty wild that most everyone on here thinks of you as an egomaniac that thinks he
is right about everything and turns everything into an argument once proven wrong. I mean you got called out like 6 times in this thread alone about that haha.
No shit...
I explained to you my general background; not my field of work or expertise, but I understand the underlying principles here. That's what a STEM and physics education do for you.
Nowhere have I claimed to be "an aviation expert".
This is not an "aviation" question, it is a structural testing and fatigue question.
So, when you say you have "0 expertise", you are absolutely correct, because you do not understand the point.
I remember reading that the forces needed to cause damage to the airframe of a commercial plane are far greater than turbulence could ever be. That’s not to say that an increase in the occurrences and severity of turbulence won’t require an increase in inspections. I’m sure it will.
I recognize it's an extremely unlikely thing to occur, however wearing a seatbelt is also not that uncomfortable to me. So I feel like I lose nothing by wearing it.
So is this a "don't fly in airplanes" thread or a *cries about climate change* thread?....................
Climate Change Is Making Airplane Turbulence More Common and Severe, Scientists Say
Following turbulence on a flight last week that led to one death and dozens of injuries, researchers, flight attendants and transportation officials alike are warning about links between warmer air and turbulencewww.smithsonianmag.com
...wonder if older airframes are designed to handle the more frequent and more severe stuff....
“You first establish what guidance/numbers the previous testing parameters were based upon.”
Testing/analysis methodology and parameters are known/established. I have attempted to provide a simplified descriptions of those. For several reasons, I don’t feel this is forum to dive into more detail. If there is a concern, that concern needs to quantified by actual data/values. One of my points is ‘significantly worse’ and ‘more severe’ don’t provide the fidelity needed for evaluating/re-evaluating anything. Proper characterization of these events is required.
Your need to be right has surpassed my patience to deal with your posts. Hopefully Boeing, Airbus, LM, Northrop, etc have reached out to you to lead their airworthiness teams. Let’s make air travel safe again!
What good is it to be smart if you cannot influence others?
I see you still have not read:
I asked a question based on your statement. Do you understand what a question mark means?
JFC. I don't know how you do it but you continue to outdo yourself with inane and witless posts.
You left out "more frequent".
Anyone who understands cycling-fatigue, understands that "more frequent" can use up the available lifespan of a mechanical structure. Just like the pressurization info you'd cited; a plane that does short-hops over the same number of flight hours as one that has half the # of flights has incurred more frequent stresses and the lifespan gets used up faster (do you agree, or disagree with that statement?)
And I understand the "testing methods are well-established".
100% true.
The question I've posed, which you appear to be sidestepping here, relates to the assumptions those standards are based upon. And whether those assumptions are still adequate/hold up when air turbulence encounters become both more frequent and more severe.
Do you disagree with those questions/premises here?
Hopefully, their design teams and QA teams are reviewing their extant standards in light of more frequent and more severe air turbulence encounters, and updating those testing steps/standards as-appropriate.
Based upon Boeing's recent "safety systems" revelations, I very much doubt they've done anything on this.
It is a "I wonder if new air turbulence rates might require updates to our plane designs and testing standards" thread, now.
No possible link between climate change and air turbulence, amirite?
Or are you still in the "what climate change?" camp?
Or maybe the "climate has always changed" camp? That seems popular these days.
It's hard to keep track which rung of the denier ladder people are on.
Similar threads
