Etihad turbulence out of WA

[rob_ginger]

'I thought we were going to fall out of the sky': Perth woman's Etihad nightmare (http://www.smh.com.au/wa-news/i-thought-we-were-going-to-fall-out-of-the-sky-perth-womans-etihad-nightmare-20170907-gyd9u3.html)

According to the article they encountered heavy turbulence about 45 minutes out of Perth. Nothing too unusual about hitting turbulence, except that on this occasion the flight returned to Perth and the airline reportedly said the aircraft was going to be inspected for damage. Is that unusual?

The article has the usual "I thought we were all going to die" stuff, but what's really *really* unusual is that the picture at the top of the page *is* an Etihad 787!!!!!

[underfire]

"Not only that, but all my duty free got smashed.

"The whole experience has been quite traumatic."

I think this puts it all in perspective....

[777Nine]

Since when has turbulence caused a plane to turn back unless it was that severe that it caused structural damage? Can't really gauge much from the usual sensationalised media reports.

[Pontius]

Since when has turbulence caused a plane to turn back unless it was that severe that it caused structural damage?

How were the crew to know the aircraft hadn't suffered structural damage? It's not like there's a big, flashing, 'Structural Damage' light.

They were obviously concerned enough by the severity of the turbulence to suspect something might not be right, so did the safe thing and returned to PER to get it checked out (as reported in the article).

If there's no damage then they still did the right thing by addressing their concerns. Only they can determine their actions because only they were there, unlike second-guessers.

[Car RAMROD]

Since when has turbulence caused a plane to turn back unless it was that severe that it caused structural damage? Can't really gauge much from the usual sensationalised media reports.

Injuries maybe?

[Di_Vosh]

Interesting.

The SMH article said that there were no injuries, but there was severe turbulence.

I would imagine that most airlines would ground an aircraft after a severe turbulence encounter; only releasing an aircraft back into service after the relevant engineering inspections.

So... encountering severe turbulence 45 minutes into a several hour flight the crew decided to return to Perth.

Without being there, and only having the SMH article to base my opinion on, I'd still say probably a good call. In any case, I'd be surprised if the crew acted outside their company guidelines in such a situation.

DIVOSH!

[C441]

Random thought bubble…….flight control problem related severe turbulence rather than the weather kind? It's not uncommon in that part of the world….

[Di_Vosh]

C441

Hadn't thought of that... The 'Geraldton Triangle'...


DIVOSH!

[bolthead]

Report in 'The West' of severe turbulence forecast. Anyone got the SIGWX chart for that time?

[Pontius]

flight control problem related severe turbulence rather than the weather kind? It's not uncommon in that part of the world…

Hadn't thought of that... The 'Geraldton Triangle'...

Do you guys ever read what nonsense you write?

"Geraldton Triangle"!! Remove the tinfoil hats and measure the distance between Geraldton and "that part of the World" and you'll realise that it's actually over 700km from where the A330(s) had the problems with their flight control computers (Learmonth).

Now, I know it wasn't a Qantas flight and, therefore, according to all Australians, it can't possibly be crewed by qualified, experienced, pilots who know how to make a decent decision :rolleyes: but what is SO unreasonable in accepting that a non-QF flight experienced severe turbulence, the crew were concerned about the state of their aircraft and they brought it back to Perth because that was the most sensible thing to do?

[wheels_down]

Last time I checked EY discussion was banned on here?

[Di_Vosh]

Pontius

'Geraldton Triangle'... meant as a joke mate.....:ok:

DIVOSH!

[maggot]

Pontius

'Geraldton Triangle'... meant as a joke mate.....:ok:

DIVOSH!
A good one too!
Relax guy

[Pontius]

'Geraldton Triangle'... meant as a joke mate.....

If it was a dig at C441's geography then, yes, it is a good one.

If not......you know what they say about day jobs :}

[TULSAMI]

Crew called a mayday so must have been bad

[HotPete]

Mayday? How do you know?

[C441]

Do you guys ever read what nonsense you write?
The other Pontius was a pretty serious dude too apparently!:)

Oh and by the way if we're being critically accurate; the 'other' flight control incident was on a Malaysian 777 not a second 330.

So I guess you're right. It couldn't possibly have been a flight control problem as it wasn't far enough north. Thought bubble explosively popped.

......It's still the weekend tomorrow. Relax & enjoy it!:ok:

[clear to land]

By definition severe turbulence means that the pilot is not in control of the aircraft so if you have the capacity to make a radio call then Mayday is the appropriate one-you can't be out of control without being in a Mayday situation. Landing at Perth was a very good decision-definitely a far better option than continuing out over the ocean into ETOPS without knowing what damage had been caused.

[Transition Layer]

Sigmets were valid for severe turbulence in the area at the time and were being broadcast by MEL CTR, but then again that happens all the time.

If it's clear air turbulence as this was, then there's no easy way to avoid it. Sure you can leave the seatbelt signs on but this sounds like it was more about damage to the aircraft than injuries to Pax.

[Agent86]

Just about every aircraft that afternoon on the north/south run to/from Perth copped it to varying extents. Winds went from 80kt SW to 30kt N in 4000ft. Thanks to an excellent airep from an Aussie on the outbound Scoot 787 we were prepared, strapped everyone in and expedited decent as we went into it.
Definitely "Severe":cool:

[maggot]

Well ASIR and ac inspection then, good job.

I could easily see injuries on an ME airline with the signs on, the service usually continues in full swing.

[donpizmeov]

It depends maggot.

[Capn Bloggs]

By definition severe turbulence means that the pilot is not in control of the aircraft so if you have the capacity to make a radio call then Mayday is the appropriate one
I'd be directing that mental capacity to getting myself back under control, then make a Mayday call. You may be in "grave and imminent danger and require immediate assistance" but nobody will be able to help you at that point in time.

[maggot]

It depends maggot.

Yeah I'm sure it does, just an obs from a bunch of travelling on a few of the me3 - with no knowledge of your procedures obv.

For me its odd to see a service continue with the signs on tho.

[RickNRoll]

Would have liked to have seen the 787 wings flexing in that.

[donpizmeov]

Just different procedures maggot. Depending on the weather/bumps pax can be strapped in and service without hot drinks continued. Or Crew and pax are strapped in if the bumps dictate.

[clear to land]

Ok Bloggs I was guilty of assuming that it would be apparent that capacity was only available after the aircraft was in some semblance of control-I guess I didn't spell it out though. From personal experience with severe CAT the only thing I cared about was regaining control however once regained there is no guarantee it will be maintained e.g. more CAT so thats when the radio call would be appropriate-also as a warning to following traffic i.e. Airmanship. Does that spell it out clearly enough!

[flyingins]

From my observations over the years, there can be a tendency to underestimate what actually constitutes severe turbulence. For the record, you don't have to be out of control to be in defined severe turbulence. The definition is "may", but needs to be taken in the context of what else is going on at the time;

"Conditions in which abrupt changes in aircraft attitude and/or altitude occur; aircraft may be out of control for short periods. Usually, large variations in air speed. Changes in accelerometer readings greater than 1.0G at the aircraft's centre of gravity. Occupants are forced violently against their seatbelts. Loose objects are tossed about".

I recently experienced what I deemed to be severe turbulence during a go-around in foreign airspace. Naturally there was no accelerometer to give me instantaneous G-readings but I did observe speed fluctuations of around 40 knots (20 either side of my target Vref + 20) and although the autopilot managed to hold on, I was certain that it was not commanding rates of climb varying rapidly between 500 and 7000 fpm!

In the heat of the moment, the only real test I had at hand was the "eye-roll" test - the instruments were a blur and I can't even describe the noise. Test failed! This was further backed up by data some days later which confirmed a total fluctuation range of 1.1G and 0.8G over 3 seconds on 3 separate occasions. Truly frightening, but Boeing (and Airbus) do build 'em like tanks...

All up sounds like the EY crew did a great job (hope they found a way back to PER which didn't force them back through the bumps!). We should never be afraid to call severe turbulence what it is, even if uncertain that it's bad enough to cause a fuss. If doubt exists? It's probably severe!

ps - I also note that one Australian carrier does tend to call severe turbulence when everyone else assesses light to moderate. Overabundance of caution, perhaps?