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

261–270 of 376 posts

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

#261

Post by bglazer »

phumbe wrote: post #7

For anyone interested, there are several great youtube videos[1-4] that show the wakes (the wingtip vortices in particular) created by various aircraft. This incident brings the Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM)[5] into question. Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure (SLOP)[6] can be used used to avoid such incidents. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ESmvyAmOs [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfY5ZQDzC5s…

Perhaps you should warn people that video number 4 is an aircraft accident that possibly shows people dying.

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

#262

Post by Neliquat »

xapata wrote: post #256
geezerjay wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, the Chapecoense flight was done by a private charter company which provided services to football teams. That was not a private jet incident at all.

charter ~ jet No?

Charter =/= Private

To us it is the same, but to the person with a private jet, there is a substantial difference.

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

#263

Post by mirimir »

knodi123 wrote: post #258
mirimir wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From #6: > In addition to mitigating en route midair collision hazard, SLOP is used to reduce the probability of high-altitude wake turbulence encounters. During periods of low wind velocity aloft, aircraft which are spaced 1000 feet vertically but pass directly overhead in opposite directions can generate wake turbulence which may cause either injury to passengers/crew or undue structural airframe stress. This hazar…

unintended? of course! that's not the same as unexpected :-)

Well, I can't imagine that it was unexpected. So perhaps it was an unavoidable trade-off. But to say "unintended" is extremely disingenuous.

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

#264

Post by lohi »

jacquesm wrote: post #52
cr4ig_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was looking at FlightRadar24 and listening to ATC while an A380 took off from Dulles near DC. Not only did they warn for wake turbulence when the plane was already well away, they held other aircraft for a runway inspection after the plane took off. I'd imagine that kind of wake could kick up some significant debris on the ground as well.

The same would happen with any widebody, the displacement is enormous and it's one very good reason to nail down everything close to the ground in the path of these planes very well.

Which is also why, as you might know, they explicitly call them heavy and super respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_(aeronautics)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI6avay9w4g

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

#265

Post by dmix »

antubbs wrote: post #61
clueless123 wrote: post #15

Big problem is the use of autopilot navigation locked to the GPS route.. this pretty much guarantees that you will fly right below the wake of the above plane on the same route! (Before GPS it will be very odd to flight exactly the same path) ..

Eh. e.g. the north atlantic tracks have been around since the 1960s. GPS wasn't available to the public until Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in the 1980s.

> until Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in the 1980s

Woah, the soviets shot down a Korean airliner with air-to-air missles killing 269 people? Never heard that story. Crazy.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

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

#266

Post by School-Cotton »

danaliv wrote: post #55
taejavu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the first rule that goes out the window when you're on a private jet.

And it's the number one way you're going to get injured. Keep your seatbelt buckled, even when the sign is off.

Flying is already so incredibly torturously uncomfortable for me that the very slight risk of injury or death is worse it for the increased comfort of not having a seatbelt on.

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

#267

Post by mikeash »

taejavu wrote: post #49
lutorm wrote: post #44

This is a reminder that the announcement that you should "keep your seat belt fastened at all times when you're in your seat" isn't just something someone made up. It's a small price to pay in case you ever encounter severe turbulence en route, but it might be one of these things that most people don't realize until it happens to them. Hitting your head against the cabin ceiling can seriously put a damper on your tri…

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the first rule that goes out the window when you're on a private jet.

It's not even a rule on airliners, merely a suggestion. I'm sure silly people on private jets will keep their seat belt off when seated, but plenty of silly people do that on airliners too.

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

#268

Post by School-Cotton »

dantillberg wrote: post #245
jabl wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Over here at least, people (me included) cycle on the same road as cars all the time. Not freeways, of course, but normal city roads with a speed limit of up to 50 km/h. It's actually illegal to cycle on the sidewalk unless there's an explicit traffic sign allowing bicycles.

When I lived in Boston, it was certainly legal to ride bicycles in the road (and illegal to ride them on many sidewalks), but cyclists still got hit by cars all the time. Riding with cars (whether in your own "lane" sandwiched between parked cars and moving cars, or in the same lane as the cars that want to bolt ahead at 40 mph whenever they have the chance) is the only legal option to get around by bike, but is abso…

Where the fuck are you supposed to ride them, then? Sure I'd love it if cities built separated bike paths everywhere people want to commute, but that's far from reality currently

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

#269

Post by TillE »

jacquesm wrote: post #4

The wakes of large aircraft are such that even big passenger planes make sure to keep plenty of separation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587 Is another example (though pilot error likely made a bad situation worse in that particular incident).

To be clear, that crash in Queens was 100% pilot error (and the plane allowing insane inputs). There was a little turbulence, but it was the extreme rudder movement that threw the plane around and tore off the tail.

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

#270

Post by School-Cotton »

lmm wrote: post #240
tempestn wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the cost? Helmets aren't that expensive. Having to carry it around? Could always lock it to the bike. Helmet hair?

Would you be ok with a mandatory helmet law for car drivers and passengers? The risk of a head injury that a helmet would prevent is much higher in a car, and carrying a helmet around in your car is more convenient than on your bike (e.g. it's much less likely to get stolen). Nevertheless, we don't have mandatory helmet laws for people in cars; why is that?

> The risk of a head injury that a helmet would prevent is much higher in a car

What is this based on? My own intuition is that the risk is many times higher on a bike.

Post reply on HN