NZ-bound flight hit by 'technical' issue
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68488418
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/latam-flight-from-sy...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/latam-flight-from-sy...
article said:
Brian Jokat told RNZ the plane “just dropped” about two-thirds of the way through the flight.
“There was no pre-turbulence, we were just sailing smoothly the whole way,” he said.
“I had just dozed off and I luckily had my seatbelt on, and all of a sudden the plane just dropped.
“It wasn’t one of those things where you hit turbulence and you drop a few times ... we just dropped.”
A passenger two seats away from him was not wearing his seatbelt, and flew up and hit the ceiling, Jokat said.
“I thought I was dreaming. I opened my eyes and he was on the roof of the plane on his back, looking down on me. It was like The Exorcist.”
The man then fell back to the floor, breaking his ribs on his arm rest, Jokat said.
I wonder what happened if this wasn't related to clear air turbulence?“There was no pre-turbulence, we were just sailing smoothly the whole way,” he said.
“I had just dozed off and I luckily had my seatbelt on, and all of a sudden the plane just dropped.
“It wasn’t one of those things where you hit turbulence and you drop a few times ... we just dropped.”
A passenger two seats away from him was not wearing his seatbelt, and flew up and hit the ceiling, Jokat said.
“I thought I was dreaming. I opened my eyes and he was on the roof of the plane on his back, looking down on me. It was like The Exorcist.”
The man then fell back to the floor, breaking his ribs on his arm rest, Jokat said.
Yep. I was on this flight in 2017:
https://avherald.com/h?article=4a9e409d
…and was very glad to have been wearing my seatbelt. One of the stewardesses was crushed under her breakfast trolley and there were a few broken bones. The stewardess in my section was about 50 years old (so probably pretty experienced) and - after we bottomed out for the first time - was in the foetal position on the floor screaming, having been smashed into the overhead lockers. Then it happened all over again. I thought it was game over. Bizarrely, it cured my fear of flying! I flew weekly from 2000-2017 and hated every single flight. Now I don’t care because not much* could ever be worse than those two minutes of hell.
* Obviously worse things happen. I don’t mean to make this sound any scarier than a serious brown trouser moment.
https://avherald.com/h?article=4a9e409d
…and was very glad to have been wearing my seatbelt. One of the stewardesses was crushed under her breakfast trolley and there were a few broken bones. The stewardess in my section was about 50 years old (so probably pretty experienced) and - after we bottomed out for the first time - was in the foetal position on the floor screaming, having been smashed into the overhead lockers. Then it happened all over again. I thought it was game over. Bizarrely, it cured my fear of flying! I flew weekly from 2000-2017 and hated every single flight. Now I don’t care because not much* could ever be worse than those two minutes of hell.
* Obviously worse things happen. I don’t mean to make this sound any scarier than a serious brown trouser moment.
Slight thread drift but this caught my eye from the BBC link: "The aircraft was scheduled to fly on from Auckland to Santiago, the capital of Chile".
That onward journey looks pretty bloody lonely - not many (or any?) places for diversion if something goes wrong enroute. I remember reading in the past about the quite stringent rules on twin-engine planes flying such remote routes, but evidently that's something they've relaxed over time?
Personally, I've been on plenty of transatlantic flights and never given it much thought, but when I did LA-Tahiti in 2008 (on an A340) watching the inflight map on that one focused the mind somewhat!
That onward journey looks pretty bloody lonely - not many (or any?) places for diversion if something goes wrong enroute. I remember reading in the past about the quite stringent rules on twin-engine planes flying such remote routes, but evidently that's something they've relaxed over time?
Personally, I've been on plenty of transatlantic flights and never given it much thought, but when I did LA-Tahiti in 2008 (on an A340) watching the inflight map on that one focused the mind somewhat!
NowWatchThisDrive said:
Slight thread drift but this caught my eye from the BBC link: "The aircraft was scheduled to fly on from Auckland to Santiago, the capital of Chile".
That onward journey looks pretty bloody lonely - not many (or any?) places for diversion if something goes wrong enroute. I remember reading in the past about the quite stringent rules on twin-engine planes flying such remote routes, but evidently that's something they've relaxed over time?
Personally, I've been on plenty of transatlantic flights and never given it much thought, but when I did LA-Tahiti in 2008 (on an A340) watching the inflight map on that one focused the mind somewhat!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPSThat onward journey looks pretty bloody lonely - not many (or any?) places for diversion if something goes wrong enroute. I remember reading in the past about the quite stringent rules on twin-engine planes flying such remote routes, but evidently that's something they've relaxed over time?
Personally, I've been on plenty of transatlantic flights and never given it much thought, but when I did LA-Tahiti in 2008 (on an A340) watching the inflight map on that one focused the mind somewhat!
Etops 180/240/330/370.
Yup. Clear air turbulence is a very real thing and why you should always keep your belt on at all times. Even just loosely, as it’ll still stop you from being flung around the cabin if it happens.
I understand that Santiago route doesn’t fly the great circle rather a path further north to keep it within the 787’s ETOPS 330 range. Tahiti, Pitcairns, Easter Island, etc. There’s actually quite a few South Pacific atols and the like along the way with suitable diversion airports. You just need to zoom in a good amount on google earth to find them.
But yes, having flown to NZ a good few times from the US out over the Pacific, there’s quite a while that the globe view flight map shows just the plane in the middle of a big blue ball. The pacific is much much bigger than you realise. It’s still disconcerting how remote it seems, even though I know there are plenty of places to divert to, they’re just too small to show up on the map.
I understand that Santiago route doesn’t fly the great circle rather a path further north to keep it within the 787’s ETOPS 330 range. Tahiti, Pitcairns, Easter Island, etc. There’s actually quite a few South Pacific atols and the like along the way with suitable diversion airports. You just need to zoom in a good amount on google earth to find them.
But yes, having flown to NZ a good few times from the US out over the Pacific, there’s quite a while that the globe view flight map shows just the plane in the middle of a big blue ball. The pacific is much much bigger than you realise. It’s still disconcerting how remote it seems, even though I know there are plenty of places to divert to, they’re just too small to show up on the map.
Edited by dvs_dave on Tuesday 12th March 13:41
Master Bean said:
So having to fly for longer on one engine to reach an airport... a calculated risk I suppose. I'm reminded of when Rickenbacker came down in the Pacific and spent 3 weeks in a life raft..Thanks - reading about ETOPS (which does ring a bell) off the back of these replies led me down a fascinating if slightly morbid Google/Wiki rabbit hole.
Looking at the GC plot for Auckland-Santiago, the flown route actually looks to be fairly close to it, which makes sense as when you overlay the ETOPS-330 range on the map (as I have in the link) it's well within the lit area - although you can see it's pretty slim pickings for options down there. Personally not sure I'd manage a 5hr+ single engine diversion without some form of sedation
There's other interesting and similarly unnerving routes discussed online - e.g. Sydney-Jo'burg which, when it was operated by Qantas 747, was known to venture so far south in search of favourable winds that the Antarctic coast could be seen out the left hand side
...and Santiago-Easter Island, where destination is a tiny single runway airport with literally no alternative, so they have to carry enough fuel to make it the whole way back in case of bad weather or runway obstruction.
Looking at the GC plot for Auckland-Santiago, the flown route actually looks to be fairly close to it, which makes sense as when you overlay the ETOPS-330 range on the map (as I have in the link) it's well within the lit area - although you can see it's pretty slim pickings for options down there. Personally not sure I'd manage a 5hr+ single engine diversion without some form of sedation
There's other interesting and similarly unnerving routes discussed online - e.g. Sydney-Jo'burg which, when it was operated by Qantas 747, was known to venture so far south in search of favourable winds that the Antarctic coast could be seen out the left hand side
...and Santiago-Easter Island, where destination is a tiny single runway airport with literally no alternative, so they have to carry enough fuel to make it the whole way back in case of bad weather or runway obstruction.NowWatchThisDrive said:
Thanks - reading about ETOPS (which does ring a bell) off the back of these replies led me down a fascinating if slightly morbid Google/Wiki rabbit hole.
Looking at the GC plot for Auckland-Santiago, the flown route actually looks to be fairly close to it, which makes sense as when you overlay the ETOPS-330 range on the map (as I have in the link) it's well within the lit area - although you can see it's pretty slim pickings for options down there. Personally not sure I'd manage a 5hr+ single engine diversion without some form of sedation
There's other interesting and similarly unnerving routes discussed online - e.g. Sydney-Jo'burg which, when it was operated by Qantas 747, was known to venture so far south in search of favourable winds that the Antarctic coast could be seen out the left hand side...and Santiago-Easter Island, where destination is a tiny single runway airport with literally no alternative, so they have to carry enough fuel to make it the whole way back in case of bad weather or runway obstruction.
The SYD-JNB flight still does that now but in a B789Looking at the GC plot for Auckland-Santiago, the flown route actually looks to be fairly close to it, which makes sense as when you overlay the ETOPS-330 range on the map (as I have in the link) it's well within the lit area - although you can see it's pretty slim pickings for options down there. Personally not sure I'd manage a 5hr+ single engine diversion without some form of sedation
There's other interesting and similarly unnerving routes discussed online - e.g. Sydney-Jo'burg which, when it was operated by Qantas 747, was known to venture so far south in search of favourable winds that the Antarctic coast could be seen out the left hand side
...and Santiago-Easter Island, where destination is a tiny single runway airport with literally no alternative, so they have to carry enough fuel to make it the whole way back in case of bad weather or runway obstruction.I’m not sure how far they get from the nearest diversion airfield but a lot of Tokyo flights are going polar now. HEL-NRT does it every day.
I’ve never given it much thought when on a plane crossing an ocean, not sure I’d like to.
Its worth bearing in mind that when a twin engined aircraft, with the engines offset from the centreline is flying on one engine, the dead engine is creating a massive amount of drag, which in turn needs a significant rudder input to overcome it. This in turn creates even more drag, so the one engine is not just doing double the work it was before, but a considerable amount more than that.
To put the dead engine drag in context, the Boeing 777 engine has a larger diameter than the cabin cross-section of a Boeing 737.
Photo: B777 engine next to B737
To put the dead engine drag in context, the Boeing 777 engine has a larger diameter than the cabin cross-section of a Boeing 737.
Photo: B777 engine next to B737
GliderRider said:
Its worth bearing in mind that when a twin engined aircraft, with the engines offset from the centreline is flying on one engine, the dead engine is creating a massive amount of drag, which in turn needs a significant rudder input to overcome it. This in turn creates even more drag, so the one engine is not just doing double the work it was before, but a considerable amount more than that.
To put the dead engine drag in context, the Boeing 777 engine has a larger diameter than the cabin cross-section of a Boeing 737.
Photo: B777 engine next to B737
Not sure the engine is doing double the work as you’re at lower thrust settings in the cruise and if you have an engine failure in the cruise you drift down to something like 250000 to get to the alternate depending on the weight and can fly happily on one engine. Remember also that these aircraft flight control systems will initially attempt zero roll rate and sideslip then the automatic rudder input counters the yaw moment and lateral control initially counters the rolling moment then after initial inputs the flight control system transfers lateral control to the rudder resulting in a small sideslip. To put the dead engine drag in context, the Boeing 777 engine has a larger diameter than the cabin cross-section of a Boeing 737.
Photo: B777 engine next to B737
For instance on the B789 at 10,000ft the power settings (N1) on two engines (at 200T) are c61% and on 2 engines are c84% for long range cruise.
The 789 flies very well on 1 engine.
NowWatchThisDrive said:
Thanks - reading about ETOPS (which does ring a bell) off the back of these replies led me down a fascinating if slightly morbid Google/Wiki rabbit hole.
Looking at the GC plot for Auckland-Santiago, the flown route actually looks to be fairly close to it, which makes sense as when you overlay the ETOPS-330 range on the map (as I have in the link) it's well within the lit area - although you can see it's pretty slim pickings for options down there. Personally not sure I'd manage a 5hr+ single engine diversion without some form of sedation
There's other interesting and similarly unnerving routes discussed online - e.g. Sydney-Jo'burg which, when it was operated by Qantas 747, was known to venture so far south in search of favourable winds that the Antarctic coast could be seen out the left hand side...and Santiago-Easter Island, where destination is a tiny single runway airport with literally no alternative, so they have to carry enough fuel to make it the whole way back in case of bad weather or runway obstruction.
I think most pilots are far more worried about cabin or cargo fires etc than an ETOPS (single engine even) diversion.Looking at the GC plot for Auckland-Santiago, the flown route actually looks to be fairly close to it, which makes sense as when you overlay the ETOPS-330 range on the map (as I have in the link) it's well within the lit area - although you can see it's pretty slim pickings for options down there. Personally not sure I'd manage a 5hr+ single engine diversion without some form of sedation
There's other interesting and similarly unnerving routes discussed online - e.g. Sydney-Jo'burg which, when it was operated by Qantas 747, was known to venture so far south in search of favourable winds that the Antarctic coast could be seen out the left hand side
...and Santiago-Easter Island, where destination is a tiny single runway airport with literally no alternative, so they have to carry enough fuel to make it the whole way back in case of bad weather or runway obstruction.Engine failures (or depressurised flight) over large ares of high ground are more challenging like the Middle East longhaul routes avoiding Iran or Afghanistan, here you might have to descend but the alternates are often A) not very good B) come with political issues and C) involve complex routings avoiding terrain when you might not be able to climb.
Then you’ve got the GPS jamming and spoofing at the moment in certain areas, making life a bit harder.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff