Airplane Turbulence Is Getting More Common And Severe...

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The important non-climate-change question is "Should we bail out Boeing?"

They seem to be in a serious tailspin lately, no pun intended.

Are they too big to fail?

Is our military too dependent on them?

How about nationalizing them? Then our capitalists can blame the government for their failures. [Notice how quiet they are when it's a free market failure.]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

We made a mistake bailing out the airline industry.

Time to admit it.

I say revive dirigibles. If there's enough helium.

 

[Finance85]

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.

Are you saying climate hasn't always changed? Do you think we can actually control climate change?

 

[RileyHawk]

Are you saying climate hasn't always changed? Do you think we can actually control climate change?

No. Completely? No. Reduce the impact we have on it - absolutely.

Let's see if you will answer a direct question - do you believe that humans have had an impact on climate change through the use of fossil fuels?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

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?

Good question.

Answer: Republicans.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

It is a "I wonder if new air turbulence rates might require updates to our plane designs and testing standards" thread, now.

So "don't fly in airplanes"...........got it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[TC Nole OX]

Severe Turbulence on a Ryanair flight

 

[Kinnick.At.Night]

An article on turbulence cancelling technology. Cool stuff.


https://www.thedrive.com/news/new-t...ch-could-make-air-travel-smoother-and-cheaper

 

[DogBoyRy]

Severe Turbulence on a Ryanair flight

View embedded media

God i hate crap like that.

 

[hexumhawk]

Severe Turbulence on a Ryanair flight

View embedded media

I had that for about 30 minutes once from Vegas to Cedar Rapids. Had a storm that was 50K ft. and there was no going around it. Pilot warned us at least.

 

[TC Nole OX]

Insane turbulence on Turkish Airlines TK 10




From the comments:

“As a pilot myself, from a passengers perspective this can be very scary. I can assure anyone who's scared of flying if you were in the cockpit and knew how to fly you'd feel much more relaxed. When you are in control you can change the situation, vs just strapped in for the ride as a passenger. Also remember planes are not flimsy dangerous metal tubes. They are engineered to combat turbulence MUCH more severe.”

 

[LBoogie28]

Generally speaking, turbulence is characterized into four levels (light, moderate, severe, and extreme). The severe turbulence designation requires the aircraft to be out of control, briefly. Hard to tell from the videos if that truly qualifies as “severe.”

Also worth noting most commercial jets:

-record flight activity (including loads)

-have service and maintenance schedules for inspection of failsafe structure, which certainly includes the wing box area.

specifically speaking to a 777 (but not limited to)

-structurally tested to 150% of highest loads it would encounter in service

-fatigue tested to 3 design lifetimes

 

[BlIIlken2]

I had that for about 30 minutes once from Vegas to Cedar Rapids. Had a storm that was 50K ft. and there was no going around it. Pilot warned us at least.

Pilots are ****ing idiots if they flew into it. You can always go around it or TURN AROUND. I’m not balling up a plane to get people to point B. Yes, I’ve turned around before and have flown hundreds of miles out of the way for a smooth ride in the clear. Too many idiots up front. Why I hate flying and rarely do.

 

[hexumhawk]

Pilots are ****ing idiots if they flew into it. You can always go around it or TURN AROUND. I’m not balling up a plane to get people to point B. Yes, I’ve turned around before and have flown hundreds of miles out of the way for a smooth ride in the clear. Too many idiots up front. Why I hate flying and rarely do.

I am pretty sure it was an anomaly that day. Some weather system that stretched from Texas up through Minnesota at extreme elevation so there was basically no going around or over it.

 

[BlIIlken2]

I am pretty sure it was an anomaly that day. Some weather system that stretched from Texas up through Minnesota at extreme elevation so there was basically no going around or over it.

I enjoy not working those days 😂. Seem to have those fronts a handful of days in spring and late fall.

 

[SI_NYC]

This claim is so, so dumb.

Pete Buttigieg is a puppet, moron.

Pete is anything but a moron. That dude is pretty damn smart.

 

[hexumhawk]

I enjoy not working those days 😂. Seem to have those fronts a handful of days in spring and late fall.

Yeah, I went back and looked. June 20, 2011. Bunch of storms and tornados to go along with the elevated storm. Basically I just picked a bad day to fly!

 

[Joes Place]

-structurally tested to 150% of highest loads it would encounter in service

-fatigue tested to 3 design lifetimes

If turbulence is more severe and more frequent, my point is that these "test standards" may no longer be accurate. You seem to be hitting on exactly what I've tried to point out to you.

 

[LBoogie28]

If turbulence is more severe and more frequent, my point is that these "test standards" may no longer be accurate. You seem to be hitting on exactly what I've tried to point out to you.

You haven’t pointed anything out to me. I have been hitting on this the entire time. I have simply stated: more severe/more frequent needs to be quantified. You’ve simply been fixated on trying to argue with someone.

 

[Kinnick.At.Night]

Pilots are ****ing idiots if they flew into it. You can always go around it or TURN AROUND. I’m not balling up a plane to get people to point B. Yes, I’ve turned around before and have flown hundreds of miles out of the way for a smooth ride in the clear. Too many idiots up front. Why I hate flying and rarely do.

Keep thinking like that and YOU’LL START A WAR!

 

[Joes Place]

You haven’t pointed anything out to me. I have been hitting on this the entire time. I have simply stated: more severe/more frequent needs to be quantified.

Uh...the PAST data were "quantified" to produce standards of "150% of stress" and "3x lifespan".

More severe and more frequent were 'quantified' in the recent publication(s).

When I pointed out that should be updated in standards, you've somewhat waffled here. And I've seen no one (including you) posting updates to those standards. Which is my point.

 

[LBoogie28]

More severe and more frequent were 'quantified' in the recent publication(s).

Let’s see them.

 

[Joes Place]

Let’s see them.

They're linked in the original post article.

55% increases in incidence; if that relates directly to your "3x lifespan", then 1.55x means it's now a "1.9x lifespan" for similar frequency of highest stresses.

Go review those sources and other data on the severity and how those convert to stress limits on airframes.

You appear to understand that those "safety margins" were based on past airframe experiences in typical flight hours. And those assumptions now appear to be outdated.

 

[LBoogie28]

They're linked in the original post article.

55% increases in incidence; if that relates directly to your "3x lifespan", then 1.55x means it's now a "1.9x lifespan" for similar frequency of highest stresses.

Go review those sources and other data on the severity and how those convert to stress limits on airframes.

You appear to understand that those "safety margins" were based on past airframe experiences in typical flight hours. And those assumptions now appear to be outdated.

Since youre the expert and ignoring the assumptions made in your calcs, is that an acceptable margin of safety?

 

[LBoogie28]

When I pointed out that should be updated in standards, you've somewhat waffled here. And I've seen no one (including you) posting updates to those standards. Which is my point.

You mistake waffling with nuance. It’s a more complex topic than this forum allows, and my comments aren’t isolated to a single platform, OEM, end user, flight/mission profile, or governing body/agency.

 

[Joes Place]

Since youre the expert and ignoring the assumptions made in your calcs

hhWhut?

I've simply pointed out that the current standards are not LIKELY based on the higher severity and prevalence of turbulence moving forward.

Can you post where they've been reviewed and updated? This was my very first comment in this thread.

 

[Joes Place]

You mistake waffling with nuance. It’s a more complex topic than this forum allows

No; it is not.

Extant standards are based on past flight experiences with respect to turbulence frequency and severity.
You seem to freak out, when I'm questioning whether they need to be updated.

 

[LBoogie28]

No; it is not.

Extant standards are based on past flight experiences with respect to turbulence frequency and severity.
You seem to freak out, when I'm questioning whether they need to be updated.

😂

You think current standards are based on the nominal?

And no “freak out.” Simply suggesting a more pragmatic approach, by those that know WTF they are talking about.

 

[Joes Place]

You think current standards are based on the nominal?

I think current standards are based on what forces planes were expected to be subjected to based on PAST turbulence frequency and severity.

Why is that controversial for you?

 

[Joes Place]

You think current standards are based on the nominal?

I'm not seeing you linking any updated standards (or even proposed ones).
Perhaps my initial comment in this thread is actually spot-on here...

FWIW, I work in an area where there are also lots of standards in place; since I started working in this field, there have been 3 or 4 major updates to some of those standards....

 

[LBoogie28]

I think current standards are based on what forces planes were expected to be subjected to based on PAST turbulence frequency and severity.

Why is that controversial for you?

This has been the problem all along.

 

[LBoogie28]

I'm not seeing you linking any updated standards (or even proposed ones).
Perhaps my initial comment in this thread is actually spot-on here...

FWIW, I work in an area where there are also lots of standards in place; since I started working in this field, there have been 3 or 4 major updates to some of those standards....

Fantastic…and not relevant.

Why do I need to link to updated standards?

 

[Joes Place]

This has been the problem all along.

It is how standards work, Cletus

They base them on available data; now, the available data indicate those past numbers probably should be revisited.

If you have a link to updates/proposals, then post it.

 

[Joes Place]

Why do I need to link to updated standards?

You've implied they do not need to be updated here.
Science would indicate otherwise...

 

[LBoogie28]

It is how standards work, Cletus

They base them on available data; now, the available data indicate those past numbers probably should be revisited.

If you have a link to updates/proposals, then post it.

You missed the entire point of that comment.

You thinking something, rather than knowing it. Another miss.

 

[LBoogie28]

You've implied they do not need to be updated here.
Science would indicate otherwise...

Haven’t implied that at all. If anything, I’m suggesting a more pragmatic approach than just lighting everything on fire. You have missed it because you are too busy trying to convince yourself how exceptional you are.

 

[Joes Place]

You missed the entire point of that comment.

You thinking something, rather than knowing it. Another miss.

Which is why I'd asked you to post any updates to testing standards that you're aware of

If that's "none", then it sorta makes my point here.