3 ms·

The airline itself said it was due to technical issues, right after the plane landed.

fransje26 3y ago
Talk is free, but that doesn't say much. It can be a (natural) misguided attempt to deflect blame. Were there any cockpit warnings? Full loss of instruments? Conflicting information displayed? Stall warnings with overspeed warnings? Altitude holding problems on autopilot? Erratic system inputs? Before and/or after the mishap? It will take quite an input to push passengers to the ceiling, an acceleration well beyond what the FBW system will allow. This particular article addresses none of those points, only repeating what the airline said. So until new information emerges, this mishap reads like a fairly classic inflight turbulence encounter. See, for instance, this event from December: https://avherald.com/h?article=51212eb5&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=51212eb5&opt=0
- zettabomb 3y ago
  It doesn't appear to have been reported in Al Jazeera but the pilot did in fact report a total loss of instrumentation for a few seconds. That being said, no I would not say a sudden drop of a few hundred feet, both preceeded and succeeded by steady and level flight, sounds like a "classic inflight turbulence encounter". That would be quite unusual.
  - fransje26 3y ago
    No, wind shear exists. And +/-30 meter changes are well within the realms of wind shear drafts.
    - zettabomb 3y ago
      Never said it didn't. I'm saying that based on the description, the degree of disturbance is far outside of the realm of what I would consider common. This is regardless of cause.
      - fransje26 3y ago
        Ah, I see where the misunderstanding came from. In my "this reads like a fairly classic inflight turbulence encounter" "classic" was not meant to say it was something necessarily common, but something that is well understood happens, with a high enough probability of being encountered in the lifetime of an airframe. Case-in-point being the Emirates flight from December, with similar ceiling damage, and similar passengers/crew injuries.

Talk is free, but that doesn't say much. It can be a (natural) misguided attempt to deflect blame. Were there any cockpit warnings? Full loss of instruments? Conflicting information displayed? Stall warnings with overspeed warnings? Altitude holding problems on autopilot? Erratic system inputs? Before and/or after the mishap? It will take quite an input to push passengers to the ceiling, an acceleration well beyond what the FBW system will allow. This particular article addresses none of those points, only repeating what the airline said. So until new information emerges, this mishap reads like a fairly classic inflight turbulence encounter. See, for instance, this event from December: https://avherald.com/h?article=51212eb5&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=51212eb5&opt=0

zettabomb 3y ago
It doesn't appear to have been reported in Al Jazeera but the pilot did in fact report a total loss of instrumentation for a few seconds. That being said, no I would not say a sudden drop of a few hundred feet, both preceeded and succeeded by steady and level flight, sounds like a "classic inflight turbulence encounter". That would be quite unusual.
- fransje26 3y ago
  No, wind shear exists. And +/-30 meter changes are well within the realms of wind shear drafts.
  - zettabomb 3y ago
    Never said it didn't. I'm saying that based on the description, the degree of disturbance is far outside of the realm of what I would consider common. This is regardless of cause.
    - fransje26 3y ago
      Ah, I see where the misunderstanding came from. In my "this reads like a fairly classic inflight turbulence encounter" "classic" was not meant to say it was something necessarily common, but something that is well understood happens, with a high enough probability of being encountered in the lifetime of an airframe. Case-in-point being the Emirates flight from December, with similar ceiling damage, and similar passengers/crew injuries.