Turbulence Handling

Sully

Quick one. Is there much of a difference in how Ryanair and Aerlingus planes handle turbulence any different?

My parents took a regular flight to lanzarote recently and on both trips with Aerlingus they had very bad turbulence, to the point were crew didn't serve meals and strapped into seats witg their jackets on. To top it off, the cockpit door flew open on landing which struck me as odd as I always thought they were supposed to be locked and secure.

They always have flown with Ryanair and never experienced it.

Is it a coincidence or is it just the type or age of aircraft?

Locker10a

Nothing to do with aircraft at all, entirely down to weather here.
Cockpit door opening is a separate issue, it may well have been the pilot who accidentally knocked the switch to release the door. The switch is close to the captains right hand, he/she may have knocked it accidentally or indeed the door may have had a technical issue

PukkaStukka

Not wishing to seem to be smart, flippant, or funny in any way, but this has more to do with the weather on the day than the type of aircraft your folks flew on and the merits or otherwise how that type handles turbulence.

Personally I have flown Aer Lingus Airbus and a myriad of 737's like Ryanair use in some very rough weather and there is little difference to how either feel.

On the route your parents flew, I have traversed that in an Airbus, several 737's and an MD83 without any hassle. One of those flights flew over a thunderstorm the length of Portugal and it was all very smooth and quite entertaining!

RobAMerc

Sully wrote: »

Quick one. Is there much of a difference in how Ryanair and Aerlingus planes handle turbulence any different?

My parents took a regular flight to lanzarote recently and on both trips with Aerlingus they had very bad turbulence, to the point were crew didn't serve meals and strapped into seats witg their jackets on. To top it off, the cockpit door flew open on landing which struck me as odd as I always thought they were supposed to be locked and secure.

They always have flown with Ryanair and never experienced it.

Is it a coincidence or is it just the type or age of aircraft?

life jackets ? :eek::eek:

darkonethree

From Google search:

"There are situations in which changing altitude is not an option. For example, if you cannot descend because doing so would burn too much fuel, but you cannot climb because you are already as high as you can go. It also may not be possible to deviate much from your course because of fuel considerations."

But yeah, the cockpit door is a separate issue..

Locker10a

RobAMerc wrote: »

Sully wrote: »

Quick one. Is there much of a difference in how Ryanair and Aerlingus planes handle turbulence any different?

My parents took a regular flight to lanzarote recently and on both trips with Aerlingus they had very bad turbulence, to the point were crew didn't serve meals and strapped into seats witg their jackets on. To top it off, the cockpit door flew open on landing which struck me as odd as I always thought they were supposed to be locked and secure.

They always have flown with Ryanair and never experienced it.

Is it a coincidence or is it just the type or age of aircraft?

life jackets ? :eek::eek:

Aer Lingus cabin crew wear their uniform jackets for take off and landing, I assumed this is what the OP meant, they crew took their seats in full uniform i.e. wearing their jackets.
They only reason I can think of for this would be perhaps advice from the flight deck that they'd be best to prepare a take seats for landing early due to turbulent weather, but they may just have been cold

Sully

Thanks for the replies. Was curious as the route was over and back the same despite being two weeks or so apart. They took their seats quickly following a call and it was based on a bad patch of turbulence.

I've said this a few times in the past when talking about flights but pilots, in my opinion, should communicate better in flights about conditions and reasons etc. if at all possible.

Locker10a wrote: »

Aer Lingus cabin crew wear their uniform jackets for take off and landing, I assumed this is what the OP meant, they crew took their seats in full uniform i.e. wearing their jackets.
They only reason I can think of for this would be perhaps advice from the flight deck that they'd be best to prepare a take seats for landing early due to turbulent weather, but they may just have been cold

They were asked. Said they had nowhere to hang it and nothing was meant by it. This was during the flight.

The door was just during landing and crew just shouted into the pilot was all okay as a, I assume, reassuring acknowledgement to the passengers up front.

PukkaStukka

Sully wrote: »

I've said this a few times in the past when talking about flights but pilots, in my opinion, should communicate better in flights about conditions and reasons etc. if at all

If pilots are expecting "weather" enroute, they do tend mention that. Having said that, if they are battling tough conditions, the last thing they need to do is provide running commentary for the pax!!

Locker10a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEZ6cfnIv9I

Above is a video which looks to be a similar scanario to what you describe, it may be a glitch with Airbus flight deck doors. But I know from working as cabin crew that's it's not very common at all.
For balance it does occur on Boeings too as the video below demonstrates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47oOisIqqmU

smurfjed

 in my opinion, should communicate better in flights about conditions and reasons

High level turbulence can be hard to avoid as the weather usually doesn't have much moisture for the weather radar to reflect, if its at night the crew can have a hard time actually seeing the weather. Some weather radars are better than others at depicting high level turbulence which actually makes life easier. Finally depending on where you are, you are expected to clear nasty clouds by 5-10000 feet, this may not always be possible.
Speak to anyone who flew into Dubai this week and they will tell you that they had the nastiest ride descending into Dubai on a route that is 99% smooth.

Steve

In my experience American carriers are way better at communicating with pax on any delays or weather issues. Irish carriers tend to assume the pax are less well informed and so give less detailed information.

I had a scary CAT encounter a few years back going to Australia with Etihad, was just passing 0 deg latitude and having a lovely dream when I was woken up in negative G with the seat belt holding me down.

martinsvi

Sully wrote: »

Quick one. Is there much of a difference in how Ryanair and Aerlingus planes handle turbulence any different?

I've flown on both types quite a bit and have had my worst turbulence on 737, does that mean the 737 is bad? Of course not, it's all very subjective when it comes to turbulence, a lot of us make huge deal out of it and insist we nearly died

There are a few things that determine how badly will the turbulence be felt in the cabin - the main thing is wing loading (mass per area of wing) and speed. Generally the bigger the wing loading, the less it's going to be bothered by turbulence. The faster you go, the bigger the bump you're going to get when it hits the horizontal gust.

At MTOW A320 wing loading would be 130.5 lb/sq ft, where as the number for 737NG comes up as roughly 140.. In other words A320 are generally lighter than 737 using the wing of the same size, therefore A320 should (on the paper) be more susceptible to turbulence

You also want to look at the stiffness of the structure, CG location, autopilot response and some other bits.

so to answer your question, yes the aircraft that two airlines use handle turbulence differently. By how much - we will probably never know, no two turbulence events are ever the same so we can't measure it accurately.
The most important bit to remember is that both aircraft are certified to withstand certain amount of loads and both types are doing that equally well

Gamebred

Is the aircraft always kept on autopilot during turbalance? same speed heading ect?

martinsvi

Gamebred wrote: »

Is the aircraft always kept on autopilot during turbalance? same speed heading ect?

depends on the stage of the flight. If it's just after take off or coming in to land, especially when dealing with low level wind shear, it would be expected from the pilot to execute the required escape maneuver manually. On the other hand if you're cruising away at FL360 especially in RVSM airspace, disconnecting the AP is a big no no. I believe some systems can disconnect themselves if they can't handle it, but generally AP will deal with it a lot better than human.

As for the speed/heading - once you enter moderate turbulence, it would be wise to slow down to the type's specific turbulence penetration speed. If you know where the turbulence is coming from (e.g. convection or jet stream) you might ask the ATC to vector you around it, thus you can have a change in heading/altitude. But as a pilot, you just enter the values and let the autopilot take care of it.

smurfjed

(e.g. convection or jet stream) you might ask the ATC to vector you around it, 

There arent that many ATC units that can provide that assistance anymore due to a lack of primary radar.
Some Autopilots have a Turbulence function that basically dampens out the responses in an attempt to give a smoother ride.
The numbers that we work with are as follows:

Light Turbulence - 300-1199 fpm rate of change Moderate Turbulence - 1200-2499 fpm rate of change Severe Turbulence - 2500-2999 fpm rate of change Extreme Turbulence - 3000+ fpm rate of change

Based on these figures, severe or extreme are seldom encountered.

Jawgap

smurfjed wrote: »

High level turbulence can be hard to avoid as the weather usually doesn't have much moisture for the weather radar to reflect, if its at night the crew can have a hard time actually seeing the weather. Some weather radars are better than others at depicting high level turbulence which actually makes life easier. Finally depending on where you are, you are expected to clear nasty clouds by 5-10000 feet, this may not always be possible.
Speak to anyone who flew into Dubai this week and they will tell you that they had the nastiest ride descending into Dubai on a route that is 99% smooth.

Can give you a +1 on that......flew to Dubai on Saturday, and we ended up diverting to Al Ain, for a 4.5 hours wait in the tarmac there for the weather to clear.....needless to say I missed my onward flight to Dublin.....

......and yes it was bumpy enough for the captain to come on and tell the cabin crew to take their seats, and for a couple of overhead bins to pop.

smurfjed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlX5O3ZYa5I

This is what you missed

Gamebred

I thought the Arabs had enough money to control the weather...

Larbre34

Had a bad CAT experience myself on a Qantas A380 to Shanghai from Sydney over the Indonesian equator, yet the most prolonged and severe chop Ive ever known was on an Aer Lingus 320 out of Lisbon, on a seemingly mild misty day at ground level.

Im not a bad flier, but I remember seeing The Dubliners board the flight and thinking if we do go down, itll be remembered!!

Bog Man 1

Larbre34 wrote: »

Had a bad CAT experience myself on a Qantas A380 to Shanghai from Sydney over the Indonesian equator, yet the most prolonged and severe chop Ive ever known was on an Aer Lingus 320 out of Lisbon, on a seemingly mild misty day at ground level.

Im not a bad flier, but I remember seeing The Dubliners board the flight and thinking if we do go down, itll be remembered!!

If I see a famous singer boarding a flight I always think of them as Buddy Holly flights .

coylemj

Sully wrote: »

I've said this a few times in the past when talking about flights but pilots, in my opinion, should communicate better in flights about conditions and reasons etc. if at all possible.

Not everyone would agree with that. In relation to predicted turbulence, the pilot can needlessly scare nervous passengers by telling them that it might be 'a bit bumpy' en route and then they have a perfectly smooth flight. My attitude is that even though the flight crew will do their best to avoid bad weather, there may be bumpy patches on any flight and I don't want to know about turbulence until it happens.

In relation to when you actually encounter turbulence, I prefer the flight crew to spend their time getting us to a more stable flight path than to be talking to the passengers.

I was onboard on the ground in JFK once prior to a flight to Dublin. The pilot came on the PA and said 'welcome to the rocky road to Dublin'. He then explained that we would have a strong tailwind (jetstream) and that it might be a bit bumpy which scared the bejaysus out of me. What happened on the flight was that you could feel a very gentle rumble all the way home (we arrived 90 minutes early) but nothing that could be described as turbulence. So I'd have preferred if he had not made that announcement and spared me 5 or 6 hours of anxiety.

faceman

coylemj wrote: »

Not everyone would agree with that. In relation to predicted turbulence, the pilot can needlessly scare nervous passengers by telling them that it might be 'a bit bumpy' en route and then they have a perfectly smooth flight. My attitude is that even though the flight crew will do their best to avoid bad weather, there may be bumpy patches on any flight and I don't want to know about turbulence until it happens.

In relation to when you actually encounter turbulence, I prefer the flight crew to spend their time getting us to a more stable flight path than to be talking to the passengers.

I was onboard on the ground in JFK once prior to a flight to Dublin. The pilot came on the PA and said 'welcome to the rocky road to Dublin'. He then explained that we would have a strong tailwind (jetstream) and that it might be a bit bumpy which scared the bejaysus out of me. What happened on the flight was that you could feel a very gentle rumble all the way home (we arrived 90 minutes early) but nothing that could be described as turbulence. So I'd have preferred if he had not made that announcement and spared me 5 or 6 hours of anxiety.

Research has shown that a pilot who communicates they're may be turbulence can ease anxiety as passengers are more mentally prepared for it.

I agree with an earlier poster who said US airlines do a better job of communicating updates on turbulence (or "the bumps" as they call it)

I think the issue is though to pilots, turbulence is completely normal and safe. They forget passengers can be terrified of it. (Ever watch a video of a cockpit during turbulence?)

That being said I flew Aer Lingus to SFO in January during the storms in California. We got about 4 communications from the pilot during the flight about the roughness we were to expect on approach.

The "worst flight" (my term not the pilots!) I've ever taken was a Southwest trip from San Jose to Anaheim. Including crew we were strapped in for half of the 1 hour flight due to severe winds. Pilot couldn't line up for his first attempt at landing etc. There were tears, screams, the works. Never experienced anything like it before. When we did land and were disembarking the pilot was with the crew greeting passengers. They handled it well in fairness. But I needed a drink afterward!

Locker10a

faceman wrote: »

coylemj wrote: »

Not everyone would agree with that. In relation to predicted turbulence, the pilot can needlessly scare nervous passengers by telling them that it might be 'a bit bumpy' en route and then they have a perfectly smooth flight. My attitude is that even though the flight crew will do their best to avoid bad weather, there may be bumpy patches on any flight and I don't want to know about turbulence until it happens.

In relation to when you actually encounter turbulence, I prefer the flight crew to spend their time getting us to a more stable flight path than to be talking to the passengers.

I was onboard on the ground in JFK once prior to a flight to Dublin. The pilot came on the PA and said 'welcome to the rocky road to Dublin'. He then explained that we would have a strong tailwind (jetstream) and that it might be a bit bumpy which scared the bejaysus out of me. What happened on the flight was that you could feel a very gentle rumble all the way home (we arrived 90 minutes early) but nothing that could be described as turbulence. So I'd have preferred if he had not made that announcement and spared me 5 or 6 hours of anxiety.

Research has shown that a pilot who communicates they're may be turbulence can ease anxiety as passengers are more mentally prepared for it.

I agree with an earlier poster who said US airlines do a better job of communicating updates on turbulence (or "the bumps" as they call it)

I think the issue is though to pilots, turbulence is completely normal and safe. They forget passengers can be terrified of it. (Ever watch a video of a cockpit during turbulence?)

That being said I flew Aer Lingus to SFO in January during the storms in California. We got about 4 communications from the pilot during the flight about the roughness we were to expect on approach.

The "worst flight" (my term not the pilots!) I've ever taken was a Southwest trip from San Jose to Anaheim. Including crew we were strapped in for half of the 1 hour flight due to severe winds. Pilot couldn't line up for his first attempt at landing etc. There were tears, screams, the works. Never experienced anything like it before. When we did land and were disembarking the pilot was with the crew greeting passengers. They handled it well in fairness. But I needed a drink afterward!

You're right turbulence and these type of "scary" landings are totally routine, although they can really shake passengers but the funny thing is the crew may very well be doing 4 sectors in a day, and each flight and landing be as rough as the one you experienced as a passenger on that one flight, so for you they experience is unique and memorable for the crew not so much

hidinginthebush

One thing that springs to mind about the pilot communication etc. is month I was coming home from Norway via Amsterdam on KLM airlines. The Norway - Amsterdam leg was delayed due to weather in Amsterdam by 2 hours. When we boarded, the pilot (after already making an announcement at the gate via the tannoy to apologise for the delay) walked down the entire length of the aircraft in case anyone wanted to ask her directly about delays, missed connections etc. Turned out it was a relatively smooth flight, bvery bumpy on the approach, but once again she apologies profusely for this when we'd landed. This was the first time I'd ever seen that level of communication from a pilot, it was a really nice touch and would definitely send me back to that airline in the future.

smurfjed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4383524/Climate-change-make-aircraft-turbulence-three-times-worse.html

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Turbulence strong enough to catapult unbuckled passengers and crew around the aircraft cabin could be the new normal when flying. [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Food service and walking could be impossible as turbulence is set to become three times worse because of climate change over the next 30 years, according to a new study.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Climate change is generating stronger wind shears within the jet strip which will throw planes enough to hospitalise air travellers.[/font]



Maybe a bit of scare mongering here.....

GBX

smurfjed wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4383524/Climate-change-make-aircraft-turbulence-three-times-worse.html

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Turbulence strong enough to catapult unbuckled passengers and crew around the aircraft cabin could be the new normal when flying. [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Food service and walking could be impossible as turbulence is set to become three times worse because of climate change over the next 30 years, according to a new study.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Climate change is generating stronger wind shears within the jet strip which will throw planes enough to hospitalise air travellers.[/font]



Maybe a bit of scare mongering here.....

The daily mail ... Never

faoiarvok

smurfjed wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4383524/Climate-change-make-aircraft-turbulence-three-times-worse.html

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Turbulence strong enough to catapult unbuckled passengers and crew around the aircraft cabin could be the new normal when flying. [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Food service and walking could be impossible as turbulence is set to become three times worse because of climate change over the next 30 years, according to a new study.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Climate change is generating stronger wind shears within the jet strip which will throw planes enough to hospitalise air travellers.[/font]



Maybe a bit of scare mongering here.....

Please tell us more about this "jet strip" Daily Mail...