3 ms·
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 cause
by 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 agoI guess a tornado can be called turbulence.
- usrusr 3y agoThe 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.