[deleted]
Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
121–130 of 158 posts
Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression that seatbelts are basically mandatory at all times. On my recent turkish airlines flight the safety video requested you put it on and leave it on, ans the staff would come by and ask you to put your seatbelt on, even when theres no turbulence. The "seat belt" indicator light should actually be changed to "dont get up and walk around"
On the half dozen (European) airlines I’ve flown, it’s always been “seatbelts are recommended at all times”. Never a requirement.
Well, it may be recommended, but if the attendants constantly nag you to put them on, then that's the same as required, no?
Only the obnoxiously hard headed folks would argue back and go "since it's a recommendation and not a requirement I will not sit with my seatbelt on, and there's nothing you can do about it."
Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
After the recent incidents, I’d love to see zip line style safety lines in planes. When you get up to use the lavatory, you’d connect your carabiner to the aisle ceiling and floor lines to keep you level in case of a sudden movement.
This idea wouldn’t actually solve most of the biggest problems during turbulence, which is people hitting their heads on the ceiling, and people getting hit by luggage falling out of the overhead storage. I think having a cable flying around would actually be dangerous in itself. Wouldn’t want to get it caught around your neck…
You will at least not get sucked out when a door pops open again.
Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've, technically, eaten food that was at zero gravity once for a short period of time.
Free-fall isn't zero-gravity, and anyone who observes the five-second rule has had a similar experience.
Relatively to the aircraft, the food was zero gravity though?
Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
#125This seems to be attributed to a technical problem and not turbulence so far. Probably should be a bit skeptical about any explanation this early, but I'm wondering which systems would be powerful enough to cause something like this. For example, would a pilot be able to manually fly the airplane and cause this kind of incident? Or would the control surfaces of the plane be able to cause this assuming that any safety…
> would a pilot be able to manually fly the airplane and cause this kind of incident?
As a parent and car pilot I used my brake once to teach my children the necessity of wearing seatbelts. You actually do not need to break hard to let them fly around I noticed.
Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
#126What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The only time I'm not using it is when I'm on the way to and from the bathroom. If I'm seated I'm using the seatbelt.
Bathroom, stretching legs, getting something from overhead locker, and of course the cabin crew. I could see at least 20 people at a given time doing one of those things.
Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
#127Not turbulence related. Plane (Boeing 787-9) lost instrumentation according to the captain, followed by rapid loss of altitude. When instrumentation came back, flight continued to a safe landing. 12 people were sent to hospital. S always, see avherald.com for the most reliable, non-speculative info.
I disagree, the physics of large planes make extreme movements on the plane's z-axis like this via just it's control surfaces near impossible. All the control surfaces can really do is tilt the plane, which in absolute terms will change verticality but relative to the plane is still a longitudinal acceleration. The only thing that can overwhelm the momentum of something with the mass of a small building fast enough t…
You will get negative G when your flight path is "steeper" than the parabolic trajectory you would get traced out by a ballistic object at the same height and speed.
That's how we can get the zero-G flights - by precisely flying the parabola.
Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, the physics of large planes make extreme movements on the plane's z-axis like this via just it's control surfaces near impossible. All the control surfaces can really do is tilt the plane, which in absolute terms will change verticality but relative to the plane is still a longitudinal acceleration. The only thing that can overwhelm the momentum of something with the mass of a small building fast enough t…
You can induce multiple Gs when pushing hard enough. Negative Gs and everything and everyone not strapped in flies into the ceiling. Which then must at some point come down. Injuries from first crashing headfirst into the ceiling and then out of control falling back into your chair is a given when you have hundreds of passengers on board. Especially on a Boeing which does not limit the flight envelope like an Airbus…
People have averted hijackings by using sudden movements to whip the hijackers around the cabin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705
Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if the 787 was any better. Just see the history of issues and reports about manufacturing.
Dreamliners have been flying for 13+ years now with zero hull loss accidents or fatalities. There were some teething issues with fuel leaks and batteries, but AFAICT those have long since been ironed out.
Is 'hull loss' the equivalent of 'rapid unscheduled disassembly' for space travel?
Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't all that far-fetched, really. Venus is the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon. ... as to _how_ bright it can be - I was once in an area with dark skies, setting up my telescope just before sunset. After dark, I was taking in the beauty of the Cigar Galaxy and then looked up and behind from the scope. My eyes were assaulted by a bright light on the top of the hill behind, and I was cursing the i…
It always shocks me how bright Venus is. A few months ago I was wondering what the hell that blinding light was, and even though I’m an amateur astronomer I was sure it had to be something artificial. My star app told me it was Venus, and i decided to see it in my telescope for the first time. So I lugged out the 4-inch refractor and no matter what I could not manage to make out its shape. It was supposed to be a cre…
Out of curiosity, what eyepiece were you using?