tg mid air incident? anyone knows about this?
Sep 1, 2013, 7:57 am
#16
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 47
Sep 1, 2013, 5:10 pm
#18
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,065
I think a lot of people got hurt because when they landed they didn't land in their seat. So if they hit anything hard then it would be really painful (that's why a lot of the fa's standing got injured). I'm pretty sure I bonked my head against the overhead bin but I think I am okay atm so it wasn't too bad. I think the other injuries came from falling objects such as galley carts, etc.
In 1992, I suffered a serious compression fracture of the top of my tibia when I fell into a ditch. The ditch was less than a meter deep, but I was running and I didn't see it. So, my leg was in a very awkward position when I landed. Those on this plane where in a similar situation in that they never expected to be up in the air and then land hard.
Last edited by dhuey; Sep 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm
Sep 2, 2013, 3:12 am
#20
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SIN
Programs: TK-G | Accor P | SQ-G | Marriott T
Posts: 3,828
I was on the flight. Really insane extremely lucky i am okay
I wrote a post see: http://boardingarea.com/canadiankilo...ht-of-my-life/
I wrote a post see: http://boardingarea.com/canadiankilo...ht-of-my-life/
i still do not understand the damage is on the ceiling. does it mean the cart flew off to the ceiling? that's sound scary
Sep 2, 2013, 5:09 pm
#21
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,385
or even people's heads (that's why so many injuries)
Sep 3, 2013, 9:01 am
#23
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Singapore
Programs: BA Gold, HH Gold, IHG Diamond Elite
Posts: 102
Wonder what would happen if it was another a/c that got hit by that kind of turbulence. Anyway, landed on a MAS 380 one hour later than TUA had reached HKG. Saw that the outbound flight got cancelled and all pax got rebooked on CX. Plane ferried back empty at around 7pm for Bangkok.
Sep 5, 2013, 3:51 pm
#24
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK & Phuket
Programs: TG Plat
Posts: 314
Are there any aerospace engineers or pilots here who can explain to me how an incident such as this occurs?
The common perception is the aircraft enters an 'air pocket' loses lift and drops like a stone, the passengers, trolleys, and anything else loose rise up hit the ceiling and when the aircraft regains lift they all fall within the aircraft.
This explanation is false, if you stood in a lift (elevator) and I cut the cable you and the lift are subject to the same force - gravity - and will accelerate downwards at the same rate (the only difference would be due to air resistance which is negligible initially and in any event only relevant to the lift), your weight would come off your feet but they would not leave the floor.
The only explanation to the ceiling damage I can come up with is that the aircraft encounters some sort of wind shear that turns it and simultaneously accelerates it in a direction generally aligned (but not completely aligned) with the downward vertical plane of the aircraft at a rate higher than free-fall. This explanation would also explain why items/passengers are also thrown across the aircraft. I had a quick Google and Wiki search but could not find the answer. Any better theories anyone?
Barack Obama, David Cameron and the current President of Thai Air all jump off the 100th floor of a building, Obama is the heaviest followed by Cameron and the Thai Air man is the lightest. Who hits the ground first?
>
>
>
>
>
Who cares?
I know it's old, I'll get my coat.
The common perception is the aircraft enters an 'air pocket' loses lift and drops like a stone, the passengers, trolleys, and anything else loose rise up hit the ceiling and when the aircraft regains lift they all fall within the aircraft.
This explanation is false, if you stood in a lift (elevator) and I cut the cable you and the lift are subject to the same force - gravity - and will accelerate downwards at the same rate (the only difference would be due to air resistance which is negligible initially and in any event only relevant to the lift), your weight would come off your feet but they would not leave the floor.
The only explanation to the ceiling damage I can come up with is that the aircraft encounters some sort of wind shear that turns it and simultaneously accelerates it in a direction generally aligned (but not completely aligned) with the downward vertical plane of the aircraft at a rate higher than free-fall. This explanation would also explain why items/passengers are also thrown across the aircraft. I had a quick Google and Wiki search but could not find the answer. Any better theories anyone?
Barack Obama, David Cameron and the current President of Thai Air all jump off the 100th floor of a building, Obama is the heaviest followed by Cameron and the Thai Air man is the lightest. Who hits the ground first?
>
>
>
>
>
Who cares?
I know it's old, I'll get my coat.
Sep 7, 2013, 12:04 pm
#25
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,065
The only explanation to the ceiling damage I can come up with is that the aircraft encounters some sort of wind shear that turns it and simultaneously accelerates it in a direction generally aligned (but not completely aligned) with the downward vertical plane of the aircraft at a rate higher than free-fall. This explanation would also explain why items/passengers are also thrown across the aircraft. I had a quick Google and Wiki search but could not find the answer. Any better theories anyone?
Sep 9, 2013, 1:35 am
#26
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: West Coast, USA
Programs: Skywards Platinum
Posts: 3,747
Due to the forces in play here, it is actually much easier to get injured during extreme turbulence than would be thought. Consider the negative G forces that were in play to cause people and objects to hit the ceiling. As long as the negative G forces are occurring, the people/objects will stay attached to the ceiling. Once the airplane is then subject to positive G forces, then the people/objects will begin to fall from the ceiling. If the airplane recovers to a normal +1G then the people/objects will fall at the normal rate we are used to falling at. But, as often is the case in turbulence, the G forces could be higher than +1G, and in that case your fall could be much harder than anticipated. If +2G is experienced, people/objects wall fall from the ceiling at 2x the normal speed. In the same regards, if the initial drop is -2G then you are going to hit the ceiling much harder.
Last edited by whimike; Sep 9, 2013 at 1:46 am
Sep 9, 2013, 1:02 pm
#27
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,385
There is a downward component to the air that causes the aircraft to vertically accelerate downwards beyond the pull of gravity, i.e. experience negative G forces.
Due to the forces in play here, it is actually much easier to get injured during extreme turbulence than would be thought. Consider the negative G forces that were in play to cause people and objects to hit the ceiling. As long as the negative G forces are occurring, the people/objects will stay attached to the ceiling. Once the airplane is then subject to positive G forces, then the people/objects will begin to fall from the ceiling. If the airplane recovers to a normal +1G then the people/objects will fall at the normal rate we are used to falling at. But, as often is the case in turbulence, the G forces could be higher than +1G, and in that case your fall could be much harder than anticipated. If +2G is experienced, people/objects wall fall from the ceiling at 2x the normal speed. In the same regards, if the initial drop is -2G then you are going to hit the ceiling much harder.
Due to the forces in play here, it is actually much easier to get injured during extreme turbulence than would be thought. Consider the negative G forces that were in play to cause people and objects to hit the ceiling. As long as the negative G forces are occurring, the people/objects will stay attached to the ceiling. Once the airplane is then subject to positive G forces, then the people/objects will begin to fall from the ceiling. If the airplane recovers to a normal +1G then the people/objects will fall at the normal rate we are used to falling at. But, as often is the case in turbulence, the G forces could be higher than +1G, and in that case your fall could be much harder than anticipated. If +2G is experienced, people/objects wall fall from the ceiling at 2x the normal speed. In the same regards, if the initial drop is -2G then you are going to hit the ceiling much harder.
so are the people in the airplane not prone to the g force as the plane falls in the turbulence?
Sep 10, 2013, 12:49 pm
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
Do a little thought experiment. If you had a ball contained within another ball and dropped them, both balls would fall at the same speed because both are simply being acted upon by gavity. If you threw the contraption toward the ground then your force is exerted upon the outside ball only and the inner component would be pinned along the trailing (upper) edge of the outer ball because it simply wants to move at 1G which is slower than the outer ball.
Sep 10, 2013, 4:16 pm
#29
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,065
A strong downward force on the plane would not be effected upon the planes occupants who would simply be accelerating toward the ground at 1G (until the occupants hit the ceiling).
Do a little thought experiment. If you had a ball contained within another ball and dropped them, both balls would fall at the same speed because both are simply being acted upon by gavity. If you threw the contraption toward the ground then your force is exerted upon the outside ball only and the inner component would be pinned along the trailing (upper) edge of the outer ball because it simply wants to move at 1G which is slower than the outer ball.
Do a little thought experiment. If you had a ball contained within another ball and dropped them, both balls would fall at the same speed because both are simply being acted upon by gavity. If you threw the contraption toward the ground then your force is exerted upon the outside ball only and the inner component would be pinned along the trailing (upper) edge of the outer ball because it simply wants to move at 1G which is slower than the outer ball.
Sep 11, 2013, 2:59 am
#30
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,385
A strong downward force on the plane would not be effected upon the planes occupants who would simply be accelerating toward the ground at 1G (until the occupants hit the ceiling).
Do a little thought experiment. If you had a ball contained within another ball and dropped them, both balls would fall at the same speed because both are simply being acted upon by gavity. If you threw the contraption toward the ground then your force is exerted upon the outside ball only and the inner component would be pinned along the trailing (upper) edge of the outer ball because it simply wants to move at 1G which is slower than the outer ball.
Do a little thought experiment. If you had a ball contained within another ball and dropped them, both balls would fall at the same speed because both are simply being acted upon by gavity. If you threw the contraption toward the ground then your force is exerted upon the outside ball only and the inner component would be pinned along the trailing (upper) edge of the outer ball because it simply wants to move at 1G which is slower than the outer ball.