Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sick flight crew = sicker passengers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sick flight crew = sicker passengers?

    If the flight crew got so sick due to turbulence, imagine the passengers!!!

    I'm quite resistant to turbulence, but I would not have liked to test my limits in this flight.

    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

    below 10,000 feet the aircraft encountered severe turbulence all the way down. Both flight crew felt sick and had problems controlling the aircraft, at 1600 feet the crew initiated a go-around and received vectors for a second approach. The first officer became ill and was unable to continue duties. The captain requested a diversion to Baltimore at low altitude below turbulence, ATC provided vectors to Baltimore but refused vectors at low altitude. While enroute to Baltimore the first officer recovered and resumed duties but again became ill and unable to continue duties while on approach to Baltimore. The captain managed to land the aircraft safely in Baltimore about 25 minutes after going around.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  • #2
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    If the flight crew got so sick due to turbulence, imagine the passengers!!!

    I'm quite resistant to turbulence, but I would not have liked to test my limits in this flight.

    http://avherald.com/h?article=484909ea&opt=0
    How did these guys ever pass the flight school centrifuge test?

    Comment


    • #3
      Everyone has their limits, and it sounds like these guys hit theirs! Physiological response. If its bad enough, it will probably get most people! Severe turbulence really is something to behold.

      And as for centrifuge tests - all of the astronauts pass them, but then most spend the first few days of space flight needing the space-sick bags.

      Comment


      • #4
        The effects of a centrifuge vs extreme turbulence have two VERY different effects on the human body.
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #5
          That is interesting!

          1) On a really clear day you can probably almost see from DCA to BWI...I would think there might be someplace a little better to go if you needed smoother air.

          2) On a clear day you can ALSO see all those great Washington DC terrorist targets...I'm thinking these guys probably got some serious scrutiny with who knows what planes and guns ready to act! While this sounds innocent, with the recent Germanwings business, it could also sound fishy...."Ahhh yeah, could we get vectored to BWI at 1500 ft AGL?" through God knows what uncontrolled airspace....ummm, NO.

          3) I'm a little surprised these guys were subjected to sustained turbulence like this...it would seem to be beyond the limit at which you really want to entertain your passengers, and I would think that forecasts and PIREPS, and operations that there would be some sort of diversion.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            ERJ-175
            Maybe I'm weird, but I enjoy planes that don't go all flexible in turbulence, so a nice smaller ERJ, might ride rougher, but the lurches are very straight forward.

            In a typical jumbo jet where the wings flap up and down, while the engines go down and up and Lord knows what goes on with the tail planes and mushy wallowing yawing responses...
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
              The effects of a centrifuge vs extreme turbulence have two VERY different effects on the human body.
              Right. G-LOC vs extreme motion sickness and vertigo, no LOC but it leaves you unable to perform any task and at the same time fully aware that you want to die NOW!

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #8
                I agree that a rougher bounce can sometimes be less unpleasant. I too am not a fan of the 'mushy' turbulence response of some of the newer aircraft - they seem to yaw and slide around a lot more than the stiff suspension of some older aircraft.

                The problem with avoiding turbulence is you often don't know where it is. I'm sure as hell that they didn't want to be in it, but it ain't that easy to avoid sometimes!

                Comment


                • #9
                  We all know that turbulence can be a factor in crashes: It can slam the plane against the ground, it can contribute to spatial disorientation, it can render the plane uncontrollable, it can directly tear the plane apart.

                  Now, I have never heard of thought of this: Can turbulence contribute to a crash buy making the crew so sick and feeling so bad to the point that they are incapable of flying the plane?

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    How did these guys ever pass the flight school centrifuge test?

                    This is a joke right? What centrifuge test? You think this is NASA?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                      This is a joke right? What centrifuge test? You think this is NASA?
                      Of course I'm kidding. Even I know that most flights schools today simply give the ejection seat test and the inverted dunk tank test and leave it at that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MCM View Post
                        ...The problem with avoiding turbulence is you often don't know where it is. I'm sure as hell that they didn't want to be in it, but it ain't that easy to avoid sometimes!
                        C'mon MCM, I need a LITTLE more than a simple "tough to avoid" because pilots ROUTINELY work to avoid turbulence...

                        I know they are not 100% successful, but ride reports are probably the #2 user of enroute radio communications right?

                        It's a little strange if some large disruption formed around THIS RJ and followed it through the whole 30,000 feet of descent, the arrival to DCA, and enroute to BWI, but did not affect any other aircraft (at least in any newsworthy way)?

                        No aircraft 10 miles ahead, or 10 miles behind or anywhere else in the greater DCA area didn't bump someone's head on the side or bruse a leg against an arm rest???

                        No 50 mile diversion nor nice altitude to hang out at for a while?

                        None of our forum pilots passed this weather system and have a ride report.

                        Yet these guys are somewhat incapacitated...letting Otto fly while they use barf bags?

                        I'm focused here on what seems to be a fairly sustained turbulence incident.

                        I'm starting to wonder if it's really that they shouldn't have ate that fish?

                        By the way- I think I once remember Nav5 at AD.com (not to be confused with Nnav) mentioning a very unpleasant fligh into Boston, and also remember another thread where an RJ pilot was bashing big iron guys for always asking for ride reports and wind checks.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          We may work routinely to avoid it - but that doesn't mean its always avoidable!

                          In the US, yes, ride reports probably are one of the most common radio comms. There is an obsession with them there!

                          Do you know no-one else suffered turbulence? Very little turbulence makes the news, even the really rough stuff. Its only if you need many ambulances that it tends to have anyone pay attention.

                          It doesn't sound to me like there was a massive band of consistent turbulence that only they flew through. I imagine the scenario (based on what I've read) to be similar to this... encountered turbulence below 10,000ft (not uncommon for it to then be fairly rough down to the ground, at least in patches), they felt ill, and that they had difficulty controlling the aircraft. Thats not unreasonable - severe turbulence, by definition, requires difficulty in controlling the aircraft, and if its sustained rough stuff, why wouldn't they feel sick?

                          Next they do an approach, which they give away at 1600ft. During the manoeuvring for a second approach the F/O gets ill (probably still very rough at this point), so the Captain decides that given he's got an unwell F/O, he will divert to another airport, which is hopefully not as rough and will allow an easier approach, rather than keep trying at the destination. Reasonable decision given severe turbulence is often isolated.

                          On the cruise to the new destination the flight is smoother, and the F/O starts to come good - but when they get to the alternate and start their approach it gets rougher again, and F/O again gets ill. Captain, while reporting that he felt ill, continued to fly the aircraft to the landing.

                          There's plenty of reasons the F/O might have been more susceptible on the day - could have been a little under the weather, had something a little dodgy to eat - just scoffed down a crew breakfast (that would make you feel ill at the best of times), or he might have just been naturally more susceptible to motion sickness. It happens, sometimes.

                          I'm not sure whats so unlikely about that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Pro pilots of this forum,

                            What do you think of my question in post #9?

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              We all know that turbulence can be a factor in crashes: It can slam the plane against the ground, it can contribute to spatial disorientation, it can render the plane uncontrollable, it can directly tear the plane apart.

                              Now, I have never heard of thought of this: Can turbulence contribute to a crash buy making the crew so sick and feeling so bad to the point that they are incapable of flying the plane?

                              I think if were rough enough for long enough anything is possible.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X