Emergency at the Airport

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Don't be so sure about that. I imagine there's someone somewhere counting how many jet fuel hydrocarbon molecules accumulate in a seagull's body and how by doing such practice we're ruining precious eco-systems and if we must fly we should purchase jet fuel offsets offered by the same such person that monitors it in the first place. And of course by offset I don't mean projects that actually remove as much jet fuel from the air that are sent on average by one flight, but rather projects that show the possibility of one day in the far off future doing just that.

### lol

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The Globe and Mail link posted above has already changed to remove the speculation about life-threatening injuries.

Sounds like some media outlets may be jumping the gun to break a new angle first...

Yeah, apparently there was a news conference running at the same time I posted earlier and none of the injuries are life threatening.

[The Goon]

I was just walking through the mall at lunch, and on a TV, CNN was doing coverage of it (couldn't get any sound, though).

[MarchHare]

Sounds like a classic case of a plane encountering clear air turbulance. As others have noted, always, always, always keep your seatbelt fastened when in flight. It's safe to keep it loose if you like, but it should be tight enough that you won't fly out of your seat if the plane were to lose altitude suddenly. CAT can appear without any warning, so even if the seatbelt sign is off, it doesn't mean that the aircraft won't instantly encounter turbulant air.

[firebug]

Another fine example of what our southern alberta weather can do to an airplane:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/haildamage.asp

Although the description should provide some comfort to nervous fliers, as to how much damage a plane can take, yet still land safely.

best regards,

~firebug

[MelBridgeman]

The FP tells us this incident happened over Northern Washington state

[Nehkara]

Now reporting computer failure. Pilots had to take manual control of aircraft.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...g.html?ref=rss

An Air Canada flight that rolled suddenly from side to side then plunged in the air may have suffered technical problems, according to passengers interviewed after the plane was diverted to Calgary.

The pilot of Flight 190, heading from Victoria to Toronto, came over the intercom to say there had been a computer failure and that they were flying the plane manually, Richard Kool, a passenger from Victoria, said in an e-mail to CBC News.

Fellow passenger Jayne Harvey, a nurse from Keswick, Ont., said pilots told the flight "the computer had been knocked out.

"Some of the armrests on the aisle seat sides were bent 60 degrees from people holding on. That's how extreme it was," she said.

[arsenal]

I am not liking this. I have to fly to Germany next week, and I am am ok flier when it is nice and smooth. But even with a little bit of turbulence, I start to get a little sketchy.
Not to mention the whole 10 hour flight thing, that is not going to be fun.

It is an air canada flight as well.. but I think it is actually a Lufthansa plane that I am on. God I hate AC...

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by arsenal

I am not liking this. I have to fly to Germany next week, and I am am ok flier when it is nice and smooth. But even with a little bit of turbulence, I start to get a little sketchy.
Not to mention the whole 10 hour flight thing, that is not going to be fun.

It is an air canada flight as well.. but I think it is actually a Lufthansa plane that I am on. God I hate AC...

These things are rare...just stay buckled up to avoid any issues with turbulance...i fly all the time as a second job, you are in good hands..now that this has happened, AC will be looking over all of their planes

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by arsenal

I am not liking this. I have to fly to Germany next week, and I am am ok flier when it is nice and smooth. But even with a little bit of turbulence, I start to get a little sketchy.
Not to mention the whole 10 hour flight thing, that is not going to be fun.

It is an air canada flight as well.. but I think it is actually a Lufthansa plane that I am on. God I hate AC...

I hear you man. Just flew back from Hawaii and encountered some pretty rough turbulance half way through the flight and over open water. I was gripping my chair way to tight on that flight

[arsenal]

Oh I know they are rare. But it only takes something to happen once.

And funny enough, i watch Mayday on Discovery when ever I get a chance. I guess watching all the air accidents, and what the crews go through, kind of puts me at ease in a way, in that they are professionals and they do everything in their power to make sure everyone gets to their destination safe.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Oh I know they are rare. But it only takes something to happen once.

And funny enough, i watch Mayday on Discovery when ever I get a chance. I guess watching all the air accidents, and what the crews go through, kind of puts me at ease in a way, in that they are professionals and they do everything in their power to make sure everyone gets to their destination safe.

Mayday is a great show! Only once has it been about Air Canada and that was 35 years ago.....

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Now reporting computer failure. Pilots had to take manual control of aircraft.

I saw that too. Also a fan of "Mayday" so I have to ask.... how do you take manual control of a plane controlled entirely by the computer? Meaning there are no mechanical means to tell the flaps to move, the pilot moves the stick and the computer send the command.

Or am I out to lunch on what the whole "fly by wire" thing really means?

[vicphoenix13]

I live in Victoria and there have been some strong wind storms here recently. I am betting that the wind gusts were really strong when the plane encountered problems.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I saw that too. Also a fan of "Mayday" so I have to ask.... how do you take manual control of a plane controlled entirely by the computer? Meaning there are no mechanical means to tell the flaps to move, the pilot moves the stick and the computer send the command.

Or am I out to lunch on what the whole "fly by wire" thing really means?

I know old 737's were still mechanical controls, not sure if that still holds true. Airbuses are fly by wire as you described it.

Dumb question here... but why does the plane fall so much faster than people when you hit an air pocket? Or does some property of the air actually pull the plane down faster than gravity? It seems to me that if the plane is just falling you should get light on your seat but not leave it.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I saw that too. Also a fan of "Mayday" so I have to ask.... how do you take manual control of a plane controlled entirely by the computer? Meaning there are no mechanical means to tell the flaps to move, the pilot moves the stick and the computer send the command.

Or am I out to lunch on what the whole "fly by wire" thing really means?

when you are manually flying you do not have the auto pilot engaged. You still have manual controls that use hydraulics to move the flaps, spoilers, elevator ect...

For the most part pilots will fly manually, its is important never to lose those skills....and the autopilot doesnt necessarily correct certain issues that may happen, like certain winds that you may encounter

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I know old 737's were still mechanical controls, not sure if that still holds true. Airbuses are fly by wire as you described it.

Dumb question here... but why does the plane fall so much faster than people when you hit an air pocket? Or does some property of the air actually pull the plane down faster than gravity? It seems to me that if the plane is just falling you should get light on your seat but not leave it.

It already has a great velocity

[arsenal]

Objects inside the vessel are traveling at the same speed and direction of vessel. Yet when the vessel abruptly changes course, the objects inside the vessel stay stationary, unless they are attached to the vessel in a certain way. In this case, seat belts, connected to the seats, connected to the floor.
So the people do not fall, since they are essential inside of a vacuum (are they not?).

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Dumb question here... but why does the plane fall so much faster than people when you hit an air pocket? Or does some property of the air actually pull the plane down faster than gravity? It seems to me that if the plane is just falling you should get light on your seat but not leave it.

Because the plane isn't really falling, it is flying downward. Meaning gravity isn't the force at work here.

Take your pen, hold it in the palm of your hand. Move your arm down as fast as you can. Your hand will "fall" faster than the pen.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Objects inside the vessel are traveling at the same speed and direction of vessel. Yet when the vessel abruptly changes course, the objects inside the vessel stay stationary, unless they are attached to the vessel in a certain way. In this case, seat belts, connected to the seats, connected to the floor.
So the people do not fall, since they are essential inside of a vacuum (are they not?).

Pretty much correct. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion until acted on by something else. In this case the people and the plane are moving in the same direction at the same speed. If the plane changes direction (goes down) and a person is not attached to it, the person will still be going the same direction and speed as before...until the top of the plane meets their head.