3 ms·

This sounds more worrying now. When I heard it originally it sounded like a mountain wave. Those are extremely powerful natural downdrafts (or up!) and common i

This sounds more worrying now. When I heard it originally it sounded like a mountain wave. Those are extremely powerful natural downdrafts (or up!) and common in South New Zealand.. They've crashed flights before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911 though that was at mount Fuji in Japan. But if the plane did this by itself.. wow. The 787 is fly by wire. Worrying. And very bad timing for Boeing.

nop_slide 3y ago
Not sure how I acquired the "common" knowledge that a plane has never crashed before due to turbulence alone, but this looks like an example of such a case!
- avemg 3y ago
  I think maybe you've misunderstood what the common knowledge said. Turbulence hasn't ripped an airplane apart at altitude, so yea turbulence alone hasn't caused a crash. But anything near terrain is plenty risky (mountain waves, low-level wind shear). If the turbulence makes you drop a couple of hundred feet that's no big deal at 35,000 feet and no matter how bumpy it gets, the wings aren't going to break off. But if you're near the ground (or a mountain), well....
  - nop_slide 3y ago
    > Turbulence hasn't ripped an airplane apart at altitude, so yea turbulence alone hasn't caused a crash The linked wiki article literally says it ripped the plane apart > The aircraft then encountered strong turbulence, causing it to break up in flight and crash into a forest.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    > Turbulence hasn't ripped an airplane apart at altitude It has, not only in this case but also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLM_CityHopper_Flight_431 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLM_CityHopper_Flight_431 And there are many other examples. I guess it depends by what you mean by "at altitude"? Most of these accidents did happen below 10.000 feet yes. And the mountain wave phenomenon in New Zealand in particular reaches pretty high. Some glider pilots use it to get up really high, so high some of them got frostbitten. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItPnp4pJ_bg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItPnp4pJ_bg There at 19k feet. But yes at that altitude the phenomenon is probably not strong enough anymore to break up an airliner.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      I guess a tornado can be called turbulence.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    The good news is that very strong downdrafts, in absolute terms, simply can't happen close to the ground, because the air in question needs somewhere to go.
BasilPH 3y ago
Fascinating article. Some interesting anecdotes: > The victims even included several survivors of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines Flight 402 crash. (Note: A plane that crashed the day prior, with only 8 out of 72 people on board surviving) > Several booked passengers cancelled their tickets at the last moment to see a ninja demonstration. These passengers, Albert R. Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Ken Adam, Lewis Gilbert, and Freddie Young, were in Japan scouting locations for the fifth James Bond film, You Only Live Twice (1967). Coincidences like this are of course bound to happen with large enough numbers of people traveling, but I still find this interesting.

nop_slide 3y ago

Not sure how I acquired the "common" knowledge that a plane has never crashed before due to turbulence alone, but this looks like an example of such a case!

avemg 3y ago
I think maybe you've misunderstood what the common knowledge said. Turbulence hasn't ripped an airplane apart at altitude, so yea turbulence alone hasn't caused a crash. But anything near terrain is plenty risky (mountain waves, low-level wind shear). If the turbulence makes you drop a couple of hundred feet that's no big deal at 35,000 feet and no matter how bumpy it gets, the wings aren't going to break off. But if you're near the ground (or a mountain), well....
- nop_slide 3y ago
  > Turbulence hasn't ripped an airplane apart at altitude, so yea turbulence alone hasn't caused a crash The linked wiki article literally says it ripped the plane apart > The aircraft then encountered strong turbulence, causing it to break up in flight and crash into a forest.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > Turbulence hasn't ripped an airplane apart at altitude It has, not only in this case but also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLM_CityHopper_Flight_431 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLM_CityHopper_Flight_431 And there are many other examples. I guess it depends by what you mean by "at altitude"? Most of these accidents did happen below 10.000 feet yes. And the mountain wave phenomenon in New Zealand in particular reaches pretty high. Some glider pilots use it to get up really high, so high some of them got frostbitten. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItPnp4pJ_bg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItPnp4pJ_bg There at 19k feet. But yes at that altitude the phenomenon is probably not strong enough anymore to break up an airliner.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    I guess a tornado can be called turbulence.
- usrusr 3y ago
  The good news is that very strong downdrafts, in absolute terms, simply can't happen close to the ground, because the air in question needs somewhere to go.

BasilPH 3y ago

Fascinating article. Some interesting anecdotes: > The victims even included several survivors of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines Flight 402 crash. (Note: A plane that crashed the day prior, with only 8 out of 72 people on board surviving) > Several booked passengers cancelled their tickets at the last moment to see a ninja demonstration. These passengers, Albert R. Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Ken Adam, Lewis Gilbert, and Freddie Young, were in Japan scouting locations for the fifth James Bond film, You Only Live Twice (1967). Coincidences like this are of course bound to happen with large enough numbers of people traveling, but I still find this interesting.