7 injured as turbulence hits Qantas A380 flight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7 injured as turbulence hits Qantas A380 flight
Are Airbus aircraft more vulnerable and susceptible to turbulence than Boeing aircraft?
7 injured as turbulence hits Qantas A380 flight
I've done the KUL/DXB run many times on both B777 and A330, and I can tell you that from an SLF point of view the B777 provides a much smoother ride.
Could it be that the B777 is a better aerodynamic design than the A330, or is there some other reason for this anomaly?
I would just like to understand why I am constanly shaken around in the front-end of the A330, but experience a much smoother ride when travelling the very same route in the front-end of the B777?
Any ideas on this?
7 injured as turbulence hits Qantas A380 flight
I've done the KUL/DXB run many times on both B777 and A330, and I can tell you that from an SLF point of view the B777 provides a much smoother ride.
Could it be that the B777 is a better aerodynamic design than the A330, or is there some other reason for this anomaly?
I would just like to understand why I am constanly shaken around in the front-end of the A330, but experience a much smoother ride when travelling the very same route in the front-end of the B777?
Any ideas on this?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Poland, Zyrardow
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why I am constanly shaken around in the front-end of the A330, but experience a much smoother ride when travelling the very same route in the front-end of the B777?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium
Age: 43
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that the B777 is a better aerodynamic design than the A330, or is there some other reason for this anomaly?
Since your assessment of the difference in comfort is completely unscientific it's not really worth trying to find an explanation, but stuff like wing flex and plane mass does alter the way you feel turbulence.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, my cousin, a former Northwest f/a, had horror stories about turbulence on 747s. Does that mean the 747 is more prone to turbulence? I doubt it - I think it depends on the weather conditions and not the design of the aircraft. Having said that, a smaller aircraft will obviously react more to unstable conditions than a larger aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me but it did happen, consistently and very noticeably!
You guys need to get down from your high horses.
SLF are paying passengers and without them you would be looking for another job.
You guys are stuck in the cockpit and you don't have a clue what is happening in the passenger cabin. Something to do with your 'training' I suppose.
You should take SLF feedback more seriously, you might learn something.
You guys need to get down from your high horses.
SLF are paying passengers and without them you would be looking for another job.
You guys are stuck in the cockpit and you don't have a clue what is happening in the passenger cabin. Something to do with your 'training' I suppose.
You should take SLF feedback more seriously, you might learn something.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: erf
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been sat in a business class seat only yesterday, taking my in-flight rest (yes our company never thought about bunks) we hit a patch of moderate turbulence, the guys up front stuck the sea belts sign on and within 5 seconds someone was on their way to the toilet.
The blatant disregard of the SB sign really irks me sometimes, maybe these 7 wouldn't have been injured if they'd have been strapped in.
The blatant disregard of the SB sign really irks me sometimes, maybe these 7 wouldn't have been injured if they'd have been strapped in.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The popcorn smiley appears as the 61st ECAM on the A380, after a blown engine has shredded a wing, destroyed all the controls within it and burst it's fuel tanks.
If you have brains, you will realise that by the time you have addressed all 60 ECAM's your aircraft will have plunged to the ground or into the sea, and you will try to put the phuking thing on the ground ASAP.
In this case you will never see the popcorn smiley.
If you follow your 'training' and try to address all 60 ECAM's, then the popcorn smiley will likely be the last thing you ever see.
CJ
If you have brains, you will realise that by the time you have addressed all 60 ECAM's your aircraft will have plunged to the ground or into the sea, and you will try to put the phuking thing on the ground ASAP.
In this case you will never see the popcorn smiley.
If you follow your 'training' and try to address all 60 ECAM's, then the popcorn smiley will likely be the last thing you ever see.
CJ
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Personally felt that the A380 was more comfortable then any other aircraft I've flown on, but thats an unscientific analysis.
As for the seatbelt sign, if it was unexpected then it's possible the sign wasn't on.
Sometimes however, on certain routes with constant turbulance at this time of year (such as this very route mentioned), the seatbelt sign can be on from pretty much departure until landing, which for a 10-12 hr flight does mean that people take the risk and visit the toilet.
Turbulence is environmental issue, that we just have to live with and accidents like this happen. Such as life!
As for the seatbelt sign, if it was unexpected then it's possible the sign wasn't on.
Sometimes however, on certain routes with constant turbulance at this time of year (such as this very route mentioned), the seatbelt sign can be on from pretty much departure until landing, which for a 10-12 hr flight does mean that people take the risk and visit the toilet.
Turbulence is environmental issue, that we just have to live with and accidents like this happen. Such as life!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carjockey - The most likely response to your specific question is that the difference is perceived rather than actual.
A few things are generally accepted: Longer fuselages arguably tend to "flex" more than shorter, stubbier ones and certainly provide a different ride through the weather. I have worked on a lot of types, and the difference between a 737-300 and a 777-300 is noticeable. The 737 tends to provide a harder, more "seat of the pants" ride, whereas the 777-300 is a more flexible beast. The reasons for this relate to fuselage length and (I think) wing design, not to mention aircraft mass.
The general rule of thumb is that turbulence will be more pronounced at the rear than the front of the aircraft - I can vouch for this from frequent personal experience. A ride that is twitchy and merely irritating at the front can make a hot drink service at the rear a safety hazard.
It is possible that there is some design (or handling) issue that makes the A330 feel different to the 777 in turbulence, but unlikely. It is more likely that a series of coincidences have led you to that conclusion.
A few things are generally accepted: Longer fuselages arguably tend to "flex" more than shorter, stubbier ones and certainly provide a different ride through the weather. I have worked on a lot of types, and the difference between a 737-300 and a 777-300 is noticeable. The 737 tends to provide a harder, more "seat of the pants" ride, whereas the 777-300 is a more flexible beast. The reasons for this relate to fuselage length and (I think) wing design, not to mention aircraft mass.
The general rule of thumb is that turbulence will be more pronounced at the rear than the front of the aircraft - I can vouch for this from frequent personal experience. A ride that is twitchy and merely irritating at the front can make a hot drink service at the rear a safety hazard.
It is possible that there is some design (or handling) issue that makes the A330 feel different to the 777 in turbulence, but unlikely. It is more likely that a series of coincidences have led you to that conclusion.
Totally away from the Qantas experience, but what about a Dash 8.
I still fondly remember approach into GLA back in what would be 1997 or 1998....very very windy, Brymon Operated flight for BA, BRS-GLA, flight deck announcement stating confidnetly that despite 3 go arounds in front of us by jet aircraft we were making an approach (on to R/W 23) and that he was "confident" of settling the Dash 8 down on that runway. Boy did that aircraft rock over Beardsen and down the glide path but ever so sensational....looking out the window I swear we were sometimes going side ways....
Never had a seat belt so tight...
Nivsy
I still fondly remember approach into GLA back in what would be 1997 or 1998....very very windy, Brymon Operated flight for BA, BRS-GLA, flight deck announcement stating confidnetly that despite 3 go arounds in front of us by jet aircraft we were making an approach (on to R/W 23) and that he was "confident" of settling the Dash 8 down on that runway. Boy did that aircraft rock over Beardsen and down the glide path but ever so sensational....looking out the window I swear we were sometimes going side ways....
Never had a seat belt so tight...
Nivsy
