Scary approach to Atlanta yesterday

[phrogpilot73]

I'm going to start this post with the fact that I know nothing of commerical aviation (save for the fact that I have to be at the security area 1 1/2 hours prior domestic, 2 hours international).

All I'm going to say is that A4's, that's the avatar you had when I first joined. Truth be told, I like the one of the A4 in the sunset, but that's just me.

 

[A4sForever]

.....All I'm going to say is that A4's, that's the avatar you had when I first joined. Truth be told, I like the one of the A4 in the sunset, but that's just me.

And you, Sir, are totally correct. It has more "class".

Thanks for the course correction.

 

[EvilGN]

Just going by what we teach as far as dealing with Turbulence. Even the report itself said that they over G'd the plane during recovery. Don't get me wrong, it is still a causual factor, as in the plane lands safely with no turbulence encountered. But I will again use my Hurricane hunter examples, unless I am unaware of some sort of structural modification, P-3's and C-130's fly thru severe/extreme turbulence every time they fly into the eye of a 'cane, but those pilots do a good job of keeping the plane wings level without pulling up/pushing down on the yoke causing excess G loading.
My disclaimer is that I am not saying its not possible for turb. to tear a plane apart, but more than likely the damage to the plane is caused by the pilots "fighting" the effects and thus over/under G'ing the plane.

NOTE: Most if not all A/C recommended turbulent air penetration airspeeds are considerably less than the manuevering airspeeds. But if the turbulence causes a sudden increase in indicated A/S and the pilot is unaware, they could easily over stress the A/C with full deflection of the control surfaces.

 

[selmacf7]

Usually keep to myself around here, but...

1000 feet minimum seperation up to FL410 with RVSM, 2000 feet above that. None of that visual seperation stuff in the class A either. Interestingly, there was a controller somewhere recently who got slapped with an operational error (a 'deal') for applying visual seperation between two jets up in the flight levels, though I believe it was somewhere around ORD and they aircraft were FL190 or thereabouts.

Seperation between two that close and that high would be a major error... probably would wind up in the papers these days. That said, 36,000 feet up 1,000 feet doesn't look like much.


Back to my corner now....

Your Friendly North Florida Air Traffic Controller

 

[bunk22]

Back in the 90's a Japanese 747 cargo plane took off somewhere in Alaska. Minutes prior, an AF C-130 had called in severe turbulence a few miles from the field. The 747 took off and after a few minutes ran into the turbulence. It was so bad that two of the engines were torn from the same wing. Read the cockpit transcripts and it was very intense. Glad to say they made it back safely to the runway. Good chance they had to change their pants that night.

 

[A4sForever]

.....That said, 36,000 feet up 1,000 feet doesn't look like much....

You got that right .... especially at night.

 

[Flash]

As scary as it seems I cant recall ever hearing of a plane that has broken up in flight due to just turbulence. Am I correct?? My wife asked me if this stuff is just par for the course..... I dont fly commercial enough to answer. How much can these planes take??

As noted by A4s already, it was clear air turbulence, but turbulence nonetheless:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911

 

[plc67]

I'll try this again.
Airliners have TCAS to prevent collisions. They issue alerts and resolution guidance. The guidance is given when things are too close. They start talking to you in the less than 1000 foot vertical separation and a horizontal separation that I believe is time/distance based. I don't recall the particulars and I don't have my systems manuals with me.
As for turbulence related airliner break ups I would be totally remiss if I didn't mention the crash that took Knute Rocknes life.