Chapecoense?

[nottyboi]

<sigh>

You don't know what you are talking about nottyboi. I suspect you have some knowledge of aviation, and that you might be in the aviation industry in some capacity. But not as a pilot, dispatcher, designer, engineer etc.



Lol!

I guess you are correct in that there is no such thing as "uniform" turbulence.

But turbulence is categorized.

The Federal Aviation Authority's Aeronautical Information Manual sets out the most basic categories in Chapter 7-144

It is further categorized by type, intensity and other characteristics etc.

http://maps.avnwx.com/help/turb_desc.html

http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2016/03/types-of-turbulence-that-can-rock-your-flight/

When it comes to conditions that can effect range and endurance, you better believe that those conditions are factored and published in the AFM.

Manufacturers must engineer and conduct extensive testing of the aircraft according to specific and measurable turbulence types and intensities.

If these well known factors influenced range, endurance etc to any significant effect, turbulence factors would be specified in the aircraft's range, endurance Performance Charts. The granularity of the performance data regarding even slight changes in weight, temperatures, center of gravity etc on airliners is hard to fathom to a layman or even non-ATR/ATP rated jet pilots.





No it doesn't.

You might change altitude (up or down) to find a smoother flight level, and you might slow down until you find that altitude, but the two have nothing to do with each other.




Wrong again.




You obviously don't even fly on airplanes! LOL

Fucking right you slow down in anything more than light chop. Moderate turbulence is hard on the airplane, paying passengers and the crew who may need to walk around the cabin. The intensity of the effect of turbulence is significantly reduced with lower airspeed.

"Severe Turbulence" by definition: “Aircraft may be momentarily out of control.” Extreme turbulence is defined as “turbulence in which the aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control. It may cause structural damage.”

Good article on severe turbulence in this Smithsonian Air and Space magazine article

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/a-rough-ride-164514997/

Where do you think a manufacturer is gonna find turbulence to test fuel performance? The impact is not huge and is account for in fuel reserves as far as I know. As far as altitude and speed they are definitely related:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/flying-in-the-coffin-corner-air-france-flight-447/

stall speeds soar as a heavily loaded plane climbs.

here is one incident where a plane stalled at 39,000 feet:

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/plan-stalls-mid-flight-faa-slaps-skywest-altitude/story?id=32452209

plane got too slow and plunged 12,000 feet before recovering. Do you think it was gremlins? lmao

If turbulence is severe, yes they will slow down, but they also will have to descend.

Ask a pilot agrees with me:

http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/turbulence/


FYI min speed for a CRJ200 @ FL350 is mach .72

 

[fuji]

SOOOOOO many things went wrong to cause this.

A flight plan with no margin for error.

Skipping a refueling airport because it was closed (it's an emergency at that point, at least mathematically). This one includes: closing an airport with an incoming flight, that flight not then turning back, and not seeking alternates, and again a plan with no margin for error.

Finally, ATC giving them the runaround until they crashed.

What a shit show.

 

[nottyboi]

SOOOOOO many things went wrong to cause this.

A flight plan with no margin for error.

Skipping a refueling airport because it was closed (it's an emergency at that point, at least mathematically). This one includes: closing an airport with an incoming flight, that flight not then turning back, and not seeking alternates, and again a plan with no margin for error.

Finally, ATC giving them the runaround until they crashed.

What a shit show.

I don't blame ATC at all, they did not declare an emergency. As soon as they did, all decks were cleared but it was too late at that point. They delayed declaring and emergency because questions would be asked, and they would lose licenses, airline would be suspended, pilot arrested etc etc.

 

[Insidious Von]

A flight plan with no margin for error.

And there you have it, my argument from the very beginning.

Sean may disagree, the force of gravity and low barometric pressure consumes more fuel. The Amazon Basin is one of the most treacherous regions to fly through and it's three times the size of The Bermuda Triangle. 60% of Colombia is Basin country, the vast majority of the population lives along the Andean Ridge.

It comes down to pilot and navigator error, they should have landed in Bogota to be on the safe side. Yes, that would have caused a significant delay but everyone would be alive today.

 

[SchlongConery]

And there you have it, my argument from the very beginning.

Sean may disagree, the force of gravity and low barometric pressure consumes more fuel. The Amazon Basin is one of the most treacherous regions to fly through and it's three times the size of The Bermuda Triangle. 60% of Colombia is Basin country, the vast majority of the population lives along the Andean Ridge.

It comes down to pilot and navigator error, they should have landed in Bogota to be on the safe side. Yes, that would have caused a significant delay but everyone would be alive today.

Agreed.

The saying is that you can never have enough fuel onboard....unless you are on fire.

 

[SchlongConery]

Where do you think a manufacturer is gonna find turbulence to test fuel performance? The impact is not huge and is account for in fuel reserves as far as I know. As far as altitude and speed they are definitely related:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/flying-in-the-coffin-corner-air-france-flight-447/

stall speeds soar as a heavily loaded plane climbs.

here is one incident where a plane stalled at 39,000 feet:

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/plan-stalls-mid-flight-faa-slaps-skywest-altitude/story?id=32452209

plane got too slow and plunged 12,000 feet before recovering. Do you think it was gremlins? lmao

If turbulence is severe, yes they will slow down, but they also will have to descend.

Ask a pilot agrees with me:

http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/turbulence/


FYI min speed for a CRJ200 @ FL350 is mach .72

I am fascinated by human nature. Your posts, especially this one, fascinate me.

Clearly you are not a pilot. Whether you recall my past disclosure that I am indeed a pilot. Not just a Cessna bug-smasher one either. Although I have never flown for a living, I have a Commercial, Multi-Engine, Land and Sea license with current Instrument Rating. I qqualify and have studied for and have been meaning to write the ATP (Air Transport Pilot) rating for a few years just to say I have it. I have over 4,000 hours over 30 years of being licensed and have flown many types including sevveral that require type ratings. I have been to Flight Safety and Simcom too many times to count for initial and recurrent training on several high performance and light twin jets. I fly as a safety pilot for a half dozen guys when they ask me.

SO I AM a pilot. An experienced, knowledgable and proficient pilot with a good understanding of the underlying fundamentals of aerodynaics, weather, etc etc. I DO know what I am talking about. Including the "coffin corner" that you introduced and then misapplied to this discussion. You and I dont get along so you are personally invested in dismissing my information as it threatens your sense of self.

You are not a pilot and do not have the knowledge and experience that comes along with both. As a pilot, I know you don't know what you are talking about and especially in this situation. You know enough to think you know and then try to retrospectively justify your initial false assumptions.

And that is what fascinates me.

Despite having me explain why your assumptions are fundamentally incorrect, and therefore your conclusions, you continue to cling to them and try, try and try to justify them.

The thing is, the articles you cited do not prove your point. In fact they disprove it.

I'm not going to waste the time in trying to explain these turbulence, certification, range/endurance things to you for the simple reason that you only use them to springboard into another bellyflop.

 

[nottyboi]

I am fascinated by human nature. Your posts, especially this one, fascinate me.

Clearly you are not a pilot. Whether you recall my past disclosure that I am indeed a pilot. Not just a Cessna bug-smasher one either. Although I have never flown for a living, I have a Commercial, Multi-Engine, Land and Sea license with current Instrument Rating. I qqualify and have studied for and have been meaning to write the ATP (Air Transport Pilot) rating for a few years just to say I have it. I have over 4,000 hours over 30 years of being licensed and have flown many types including sevveral that require type ratings. I have been to Flight Safety and Simcom too many times to count for initial and recurrent training on several high performance and light twin jets. I fly as a safety pilot for a half dozen guys when they ask me.

SO I AM a pilot. An experienced, knowledgable and proficient pilot with a good understanding of the underlying fundamentals of aerodynaics, weather, etc etc. I DO know what I am talking about. Including the "coffin corner" that you introduced and then misapplied to this discussion. You and I dont get along so you are personally invested in dismissing my information as it threatens your sense of self.

You are not a pilot and do not have the knowledge and experience that comes along with both. As a pilot, I know you don't know what you are talking about and especially in this situation. You know enough to think you know and then try to retrospectively justify your initial false assumptions.

And that is what fascinates me.

Despite having me explain why your assumptions are fundamentally incorrect, and therefore your conclusions, you continue to cling to them and try, try and try to justify them.

The thing is, the articles you cited do not prove your point. In fact they disprove it.

I'm not going to waste the time in trying to explain these turbulence, certification, range/endurance things to you for the simple reason that you only use them to springboard into another bellyflop.

Well the guy that ran out of fuel was a pilot as well. Now hes dead and killed 71 people.

You said slow down for turbulence, the article says they often do not and when they do its only slightly. So how does that disprove my assertion that they typically do not slow down for turbulence.

You said weight and speed do not factor into max altitude... considering the CRJ says min mach .72 over FL350 its pretty clear you were incorrect. You may be a pilot, but a great communicator you are not.

 

[SkyRider]

Well the guy that ran out of fuel was a pilot as well. Now hes dead

There are old pilots and
there are bold pilots but
there are no old bold pilots

 

[SchlongConery]

Well the guy that ran out of fuel was a pilot as well. Now hes dead and killed 71 people.

And that has what do do with our conversation or your assertions?

I am a pilot and I have yet to run out of fuel, run a tank dry, or ever come close to getting into Reserve Fuel. I've yet to put a scratch on an airplane. I've encountered some really severe turbulence in unexpected situations. I've flown many hundreds of hours in moderate turbulence that would make most passengers puke or cry like babies. Never flown into a thunderstorm.

So, I guess I am a better pilot than that pilot. And more knowledgable than you.

You said slow down for turbulence, the article says they often do not and when they do its only slightly. So how does that disprove my assertion that they typically do not slow down for turbulence.

Indeed it does say that they slow down for turbulence. You editorialize to say it is "only slightly". The article specifies that they slow to a turbulence penetration speed but that you will not feel the deceleration.

Here is the exact quote: "[FONT=&quot]At times like this, [/FONT]pilots will slow to a designated “turbulence penetration speed” to ensure high-speed buffet protection (don’t ask) and prevent damage to the airframe[FONT=&quot]. This speed [/FONT]is close[FONT=&quot] to normal cruising speed, however, so [/FONT]you probably won’t notice the deceleration from your seat"

You try too hard. This ^^^ "Ask a Pilot" article you frantically tried to find to back up your initial assertion that pilots only reduce speed in "severe" turbulence is dumbed down pablum. It is written to assuage and comfort the flying public that turbulence does not mean the plane is going to break apart and they are going to die. It is not written on a pilot to pilot level.
You also said that the plane therefore descends when it slows down, especially when it is heavy, and therefore it adversely effects range etc.

Your pablum article says they can climb or descend to look for smoother air. As I said.

"[FONT=&quot] We can also request higher or lower altitudes or ask for a revised routing."

You also said that turbulence causes reduced range etc because the frequent deflections of the control surfaces required in turbulence cause extra drag to the degree that it causes notable reduction in range.

Again, I will refer to your own article.

"You’re liable to imagine the pilots in a sweaty lather: the captain barking orders, hands tight on the wheel as the ship lists from one side to another. Nothing could be further from the truth. The crew is not wrestling with the beast so much as merely riding things out. Indeed, one of the worst things a pilot could do during strong turbulence is try to fight it. Some autopilots have a special mode for these situations. Rather than increasing the number of corrective inputs, it does the opposite, desensitizing the system."[/FONT]

You said weight and speed do not factor into max altitude... considering the CRJ says min mach .72 over FL350 its pretty clear you were incorrect. You may be a pilot, but a great communicator you are not.

I did not say that weight and speed do not factor into "max altitude".

I said that the plane cannot hold altitude because speed is reduced in turbulence.

In any case, the areas of high altitude aerodynamics that you are now going into are so complex that there is not a chance I am going to waste my time trying to explain such a complex subject to you. Fuck, when I started flying turbine aircraft, took me a loooong time to get my head around the "Coffin Corner" and the differences and variations between Vne, Vmo and Mmo and how they varied with altitude etc.

At the best of times, I have a hard time trying to explain it to pilots, never mind a proudly rockheaded know-it-all who knows only enough to look like an idiot on a regular basis!

 

[SchlongConery]

There are old pilots and
there are bold pilots but
there are no old bold pilots

I agree.

With one exception.... Hoover.

Died a peaceful death a couple months ago at age 94. After a lifetime of test flying, getting shot down in the war, unbelievable aerobatic routines and so much more.

It is with the greatest of consideration that I, and many others, consider Bob Hoover to have been the greatest stick and rudder pilot of all time.

I have been meaning to start a thread on Mr. Hoover. There are enough aviation enthusiasts on TERB that I think it would be quite interesting to many.

I wouldn't call him a "friend" but I have spent more than a few hours socially with him at airshows and fly-ins and the Reno Air Races over the years and boy did he make me, and anyone who was around, feel like you were his friend! Got to fly with him once on a positioning flight in the old Shrike Commander. Aside from being the consummate pilot, there was no finer of a gentleman than Mr. Hoover.

Here is something quick to when your appetite.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/october/26/aviation-legend-bob-hoover-dies-at-94

 

[SkyRider]

These pilots have incredible courage and amazing skills. They definitely have the "Right Stuff".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-south-pole-rescue-mission-amundsen-scott-1.3638703

 

[thesun]

I agree.

With one exception.... Hoover.

Died a peaceful death a couple months ago at age 94. After a lifetime of test flying, getting shot down in the war, unbelievable aerobatic routines and so much more.

It is with the greatest of consideration that I, and many others, consider Bob Hoover to have been the greatest stick and rudder pilot of all time.

I have been meaning to start a thread on Mr. Hoover. There are enough aviation enthusiasts on TERB that I think it would be quite interesting to many.

I wouldn't call him a "friend" but I have spent more than a few hours socially with him at airshows and fly-ins and the Reno Air Races over the years and boy did he make me, and anyone who was around, feel like you were his friend! Got to fly with him once on a positioning flight in the old Shrike Commander. Aside from being the consummate pilot, there was no finer of a gentleman than Mr. Hoover.

Here is something quick to when your appetite.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/october/26/aviation-legend-bob-hoover-dies-at-94

I hate to hijack this thread and am going off topics....as a pilot, did you have many success in getting those lovely flght attendants (ould be amazing if you work with an asian airline) into your hotel room or theirs? Just curious....or is that too hollywoodish?

 

[thesun]

And no i m not being insensitive. Deepest condolences to their family and all of those who have been impacted.

 

[kstanb]

The pilot was also a co-owner of the airline... so regrettably there was an economic dimension to the decision making process that lead to this drama.

 

[captnkirk]

I hate to hijack this thread and am going off topics....as a pilot, did you have many success in getting those lovely flght attendants (ould be amazing if you work with an asian airline) into your hotel room or theirs? Just curious....or is that too hollywoodish?

I drive taxi and have picked up many flight attendants in the Toronto West / 427 strips where there are some crash pads. Two of the same ladies I have driven to their other jobs as MPA. It is a good UBER fare as they work way out of their neighbourhoods at MP near York

 

[kstanb]

co-pilot was a cutie

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world...in-colombia-plane-crash/ar-AAl3pPR?li=BBqdg4K

 

[SchlongConery]

I hate to hijack this thread and am going off topics....as a pilot, did you have many success in getting those lovely flght attendants (ould be amazing if you work with an asian airline) into your hotel room or theirs? Just curious....or is that too hollywoodish?

I've never worked for an airline or for hire. Just a lifelong passion of mine and I used to fly a lot for business.

Only ever banged one flight attendant in my life. And one of two female pilots.

But let me tell you, there is no more impressive first date than taking a girl flying. Being a pilot has got me a lot of pussy over my lifetime!

 

[SkyRider]

 

[nottyboi]

And that has what do do with our conversation or your assertions?

I am a pilot and I have yet to run out of fuel, run a tank dry, or ever come close to getting into Reserve Fuel. I've yet to put a scratch on an airplane. I've encountered some really severe turbulence in unexpected situations. I've flown many hundreds of hours in moderate turbulence that would make most passengers puke or cry like babies. Never flown into a thunderstorm.

So, I guess I am a better pilot than that pilot. And more knowledgable than you.






Indeed it does say that they slow down for turbulence. You editorialize to say it is "only slightly". The article specifies that they slow to a turbulence penetration speed but that you will not feel the deceleration.

Here is the exact quote: "[FONT="]At times like this, [/FONT][/COLOR][I]pilots will slow to a designated “turbulence penetration speed” to ensure high-speed buffet protection (don’t ask) and prevent damage to the airframe[/I][COLOR=#05182E][FONT="]. This speed [/FONT]is close[FONT="] to normal cruising speed, however, so [/FONT][/COLOR][I]you probably won’t notice the deceleration from your seat"[/I][/B]

You try too hard. This ^^^ "Ask a Pilot" article you frantically tried to find to back up your initial assertion that pilots only reduce speed in "severe" turbulence is dumbed down pablum. It is written to assuage and comfort the flying public that turbulence does not mean the plane is going to break apart and they are going to die. It is not written on a pilot to pilot level.
You also said that the plane therefore [I]descends[/I] when it slows down, especially when it is heavy, and therefore it adversely effects range etc.

Your pablum article says they can climb or descend to look for smoother air. As I said.

[I]"[/I][COLOR=#05182E][FONT="] We can also request higher or lower altitudes or ask for a revised routing."

You also said that turbulence causes reduced range etc because the frequent deflections of the control surfaces required in turbulence cause extra drag to the degree that it causes notable reduction in range.

Again, I will refer to your own article.

"You’re liable to imagine the pilots in a sweaty lather: the captain barking orders, hands tight on the wheel as the ship lists from one side to another. Nothing could be further from the truth. The crew is not wrestling with the beast so much as merely riding things out. Indeed, one of the worst things a pilot could do during strong turbulence is try to fight it. Some autopilots have a special mode for these situations. Rather than increasing the number of corrective inputs, it does the opposite, desensitizing the system."[/FONT]



I did not say that weight and speed do not factor into "max altitude".

I said that the plane cannot hold altitude because speed is reduced in turbulence.

In any case, the areas of high altitude aerodynamics that you are now going into are so complex that there is not a chance I am going to waste my time trying to explain such a complex subject to you. Fuck, when I started flying turbine aircraft, took me a loooong time to get my head around the "Coffin Corner" and the differences and variations between Vne, Vmo and Mmo and how they varied with altitude etc.

At the best of times, I have a hard time trying to explain it to pilots, never mind a proudly rockheaded know-it-all who knows only enough to look like an idiot on a regular basis!

I said if they slow down due to turbulence, it may not save any fuel cos they may have to reduce altitude when they slow down and air is denser thus more drag... that is when you got all "I'm a PILOT I AM GOD!!! YOU KNOW NOTHING"
The reason the plane cannot hold altitude is a decision to reduce speed. As was pointed out in "Ask a pilot" the speed reduction is typically quite small. Unless turbulence is severe according to the OTHER pilot, speed is not reduced.

Sure they can climb, but that is an alternative option to flying through the turbulence. Of course finding smooth air is always an option. Geez. It all depends on orders of magnitude. If they slow down a tiny amount they don't have to do anything, and it also depends on the load of the plane. You are trying to say that I claimed they only have one course of action. If they slow a lot and have to reduce altitude, fuel burn will probably increase depending on the speeds and altitude involved.

:crazy:

 

[thesun]

I drive UBER for kicks and have picked up many flight attendants in the Toronto West / 427 strips where there are some crash pads. Two of the same ladies I have driven to their other jobs as MPA. It is a good UBER fare as they work way out of their neighbourhoods at MP near York

FLight attendants working as a MPA on the side; that s a first time for me hearing it. Perhaps I should get their names.