Fasten your seatbelts

[esmozz]

Yes a lot of redundancy and in the event of complete failure they have a small turbine that drops from the undercarriage to power vital systems...

That's an Airbus thing - Boeing don't have them.

 

[squerble]

That's an Airbus thing - Boeing don't have them.

Except the 747-8, 757, 767, 777, and 787

 

[200sols]

That's an Airbus thing - Boeing don't have them.

Its not only an Airbus thing. 757, 767, 777 and 787 all have them as do some 747s.

 

[squerble]

Was on a Monarch flight in the early 2000s and the generators in the engines failed, had to do an emergency landing at Ciampino airport. Pilot was throwing the plane into the ground before we ran out of electricity. Pretty sure a Britannia plane ended up taking us home.

Early 2000s Monarch was likely a 757 - these have a RAT (ram-air turbine) to provide power in extreme emergencies. Not only that, both engines have generators as well as the APU in the rear of aircraft. It's a beyond-slim chance you were in a scenario were the pilot was getting you down "before you ran out of electricity".

 

[Diddums]

they have a small turbine that drops from the undercarriage to power vital systems.

So do I.


Actually, that's probably why I'm always knackered, my turbine never gets a spin

 

[molinari]

That's an Airbus thing - Boeing don't have them.

Boeing planes do have Ram Air Turbines, although not all of them.

 

[200sols]

my turbine never gets a spin

Errr, you may be using it wrong mate

 

[randomshenans]

Although the media reporting the 6,000 ft drop as the cause is not correct. It didn’t drop 6,000 ft. It had already diverted to Bangkok and that was on descent. If it was 6,000 ft it would have shown people pinned to the roof and the pilot would have not likely kept control of the aircraft. It was probably 20-30 ft drop.

You can actually see it on the flighttracker data, it goes from 37,000 to 31,000ft in a second.

 

[Kenai]

You can actually see it on the flighttracker data, it goes from 37,000 to 31,000ft in a second.

It didn't when I looked at FR24, it was several minutes

 

[delta0]

You can actually see it on the flighttracker data, it goes from 37,000 to 31,000ft in a second.

That was after it had turned for Bangkok so it wasn’t the turbulence. They would have lost control of the aircraft if it had descended that quickly. That was a normal descent rate.

 

[200sols]

You can actually see it on the flighttracker data, it goes from 37,000 to 31,000ft in a second.

It really doesnt. The 6000ft descent occurs later and is clearly controlled. The media reporting of the incidient is shocking. As FR24 says 'Some media reports have erroneously reported the pilots’ initial descent toward Bangkok from 37,000 feet to 31,000 feet as the turbulence event. While the aircraft may have continued to experience turbulence during that descent, it was a standard descent to a new flight level controlled by altitude selection in the aircraft’s autopilot.'

 

[iamtheoneneo]

You can actually see it on the flighttracker data, it goes from 37,000 to 31,000ft in a second.

That's incorrect. Even flightrader have come out and said that the media reports are nonsense.

 

[delta0]

It really doesnt. The 6000ft descent occurs later and is clearly controlled. The media reporting of the incidient is shocking. As FR24 says 'Some media reports have erroneously reported the pilots’ initial descent toward Bangkok from 37,000 feet to 31,000 feet as the turbulence event. While the aircraft may have continued to experience turbulence during that descent, it was a standard descent to a new flight level controlled by altitude selection in the aircraft’s autopilot.'

This is really interesting. It looks like that sharp drop was around 150-200 ft.

 

[Richard - London]

That's an Airbus thing - Boeing don't have them.

ANA 787 Dreamliner Landing - RAT deployed

A Japanese ANA Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner comes in to land with the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) deployed as part of its pre-delivery flight test program.This v...

www.youtube.com

Someone should have told this plane that it didn't have one.

 

[esmozz]

Except the 747-8, 757, 767, 777, and 787

My bad, you are correct however (unless I'm mistaken again) - they all provide additional hydraulic pressure to the flight controls etc not electrical power with the exception of the 787 since its FBW. I was thinking electrical backup due to previous posts. I'll amend my comment to be - the B737 (one of the most common aircraft in the world) definitely does not have a RAT.

 

[adam cool dude]

I think it is quite common in this area. My first ever trip to Australia we went on Japan airlines and when flying on the second leg from Japan to Aus was some monumental turbulence that the whole cabin smelt of the brown stuff! It also feels ten times worse when it is night outside!

 

[Trig]

I don't understand why people don't have their belts on all the time..

 

[Ayahuasca]

monumental turbulence that the whole cabin smelt of the brown stuff!

Do people actually turtle head from turbulence?

 

[randomshenans]

It really doesnt. The 6000ft descent occurs later and is clearly controlled. The media reporting of the incidient is shocking. As FR24 says 'Some media reports have erroneously reported the pilots’ initial descent toward Bangkok from 37,000 feet to 31,000 feet as the turbulence event. While the aircraft may have continued to experience turbulence during that descent, it was a standard descent to a new flight level controlled by altitude selection in the aircraft’s autopilot.'

Thanks! I am happy to stand corrected!

 

[D-Ranged]

Claim to fame, I've been in a light bus crash

Basically went through the back of a van, other than the sound didn't notice much of a bump.

I've also been in a bus/coach when it crashed into the back of a van on the A2. I was pretty drunk and half asleep when it hit the van. I headbutted the seat in front of me but didnt really do me any damage. The windscreen of the bus was cracked everywhere and everyone else on the bus was fine.