Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

flightservicebureau.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 376 posts

Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

#121

Post by cjrp »

goodcanadian wrote: post #27
NikolaNovak wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aviation thing (unfortunately, but it is what it is). You'll hear them referred to as Flight Levels or Angels as well (Angel 15 == 15,000feet).

Technically, the lowest flight level is FL200 or 20000'. Below that, altitudes are reported in feet. I'm not really familiar with the "angels" thing. I suspect that is specifically military. EDIT: there was a reply (since deleted) that indicated I may not be completely correct on stating FL200 as the lowest number used. I contend that I am still basically correct for North America, but there is some subtlety: https:/…

It used to vary in the UK, but I believe they've settled on a Transition Altitude of 18,000ft now.

Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

#122

Post by sneak »

ghshephard wrote: post #96
M_Grey wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was in single digits, my mother and I were coming home from an international flight and the plane was struck by lightning. We lost a bit of altitude (felt like a TON of altitude subjectively), and yeah... it was a damned good thing we'd all been told to keep those seatbelts on. It was literally the difference between seconds of terror, and someone being seriously injured.

Using that philosophy, then anyone riding a bicycle, even if they aren't going at high-speed on road, should wear a helmet "just in case" there is an accident to protect their skull? There is a balance between annoyance and utility. I personally have no problem wearing a belt for the entire flight, including while sleeping. But I'm not to dismayed by those who leave it off, walk around the cabin, go hang out near the…

There is a pretty good statistical argument for wearing a helmet anytime one is near roads, sidewalks, moving walkways, bike lanes, or anywhere else objects are moving more than 0.5m/s, whether you are moving or not. You can even die relatively simply from falling from an otherwise motionless standing position and hitting your head on the paved ground. The brain is remarkably fragile.

I kind of want the helmet-in-public fashion trend to kick in.

Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

#123

Post by avhon1 »

EGreg wrote: post #103

"until the crew was able to recover the aircraft exercising raw muscle force" Any more info on that??

If both engines went out, then that means hydraulic power was lost, and that all of the aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces were transmitted directly to the stick. This is exactly the same as trying to steer a car with the engine turned off - you can do it, but it takes much more effort than when the power steering is working.

Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

#124

Post by sneak »

phumbe wrote: post #17
clueless123 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few years ago, an embraer actually cut another's plane wing off for the exact same reason. (They were flying at the wrong altitude though)

That's Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Fl... There's also an episode ("Phantom Strike") of the TV series Mayday about the incident; it's probably on youtube.

Ahh, I see you are one of those kinds of wikipedia readers as well. I've spent many a late night reading about the minutae of air disasters. Hello, friend.

May I also recommend strong radiation source mishandling accidents?

Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

#125

Post by rurban »

uptownfunk wrote: post #30

Had to google around to understand wake turbulence. If I read the wiki correctly, it's basically a horizontal tornado that emanates from the wings. That would explain the rolling that the aircraft encountered. On another note, I fly every week for work, can't imagine rolling five times and engines losing power with a drop of 10k feet. That's absolutely insane. I've had engines lose power before, but it was quickly re…

What would you do? I imagine immediately going down 3000ft could have avoided it.

Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

#126

Post by mikko-apo »

ghshephard wrote: post #96
M_Grey wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was in single digits, my mother and I were coming home from an international flight and the plane was struck by lightning. We lost a bit of altitude (felt like a TON of altitude subjectively), and yeah... it was a damned good thing we'd all been told to keep those seatbelts on. It was literally the difference between seconds of terror, and someone being seriously injured.

Using that philosophy, then anyone riding a bicycle, even if they aren't going at high-speed on road, should wear a helmet "just in case" there is an accident to protect their skull? There is a balance between annoyance and utility. I personally have no problem wearing a belt for the entire flight, including while sleeping. But I'm not to dismayed by those who leave it off, walk around the cabin, go hang out near the…

Keeping the safety belt on protects other passengers too. A person weighing 80kg has surprisingly high amount of kinetic energy when the plane trashes around.

Kinetic energy is also the reason why the flight attendants try to lock as much as possible of the loose items to the overhead bins or under the chairs.

Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

#127

Post by tluyben2 »

redler wrote: post #99
komali2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like Steve Jobs is an odd choice... He turned down treatment I thought?

He wasted precious time indulging quackery.

Anecdotal but I notice in my circles only less financially well off people endulge in quackery. The latest is that you do not need treatment for anything if you do enough marijuana and reiki (not to mention a lot of poor people burn their last money on reiki training....) especially not doing chemo when they sbould is hard to witness.

Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

#128

Post by dorfsmay »

cyberferret wrote: post #110
nether wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Longer path" has no bearing on reality. A flat plate can generate plenty of lift even with both sides the same. It's also hard to define "path," as the air starts convecting well ahead of the wing in subsonic flow.

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the 'flat plate' theory. There is a reason that almost every commercial (and most military) aircraft have leading edge slats to generate lift at lower speeds (by making the top of the wing more convex and the bottom of the wing more concave). If pure 'flat plate' theory was valid, then all those aircraft speeding down the runway with the leading edge of their wings canted downwards 20…

The shape of the wing makes a huge difference, so a plate or a piece of wood wouldn't make a good wing, but it is still able to fly.

Proof? Inverted flight on low power aircraft and gliders.

Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down

#129

Post by lutusp »

Pilots should be aware of wake turbulence and wingtip vortices in particular, and should be aware that being at a lower altitude than the generating aircraft is the most dangerous position (the vortex pattern is denser than the surrounding air and therefore descends).

Also, an invisible vortex is no less turbulent for its invisibility.

Post reply on HN