Right now, a man who was on a flight over New Zealand that “lost power” (exactly what happened is still unknown) and the plane plummeted is being interviewed on CNN. He said that “people were stuck to the ceiling.” Folks, they were experiencing zero gravity and anything that wasn’t strapped down went, ahem, flying.
I do see that it happened more than 12 hours ago; I just found out about it.
This is why my number one piece of advice to any air passenger is, keep your seatbelt on - all the time.
It doesn’t take much, just a little unexpected severe turbulence. A woman was killed that way in a bizjet last year. The plane was jolted abrubtly and she got bounced off the ceiling and / or seat back.
I had my back to the TV when that man was being interviewed on CNN; I think this is the same person. (Sydney to Auckland is about a 3 1/2 hour flight.)
The pilot even said “The instruments cut to black.” Yikes!
ETA: @Richard_Pearse two above.
Yeah. Wearing your seat belt the whole time will protect you from anything and everything that happens to the airplane. Including a landing bad enough to end with an evacuation.
The only thing the seat belt can’t protect you from is having your neck broken when somebody who chose not to wear their belt bounces off the ceiling and lands on your head. Then you’re fuxxored.
Different time zones. (Kidding.)
Almost certainly not a mistake. But definitely an odd circumstance.
You’re right that generally every airport tries to operate into the wind, and also avoids swapping directions willy nilly. When a wind shift is expected to occur, or does occur, there is often quite a dance to “turn the airport around”. In some metro areas with multiple major airports they all need to reconfigure in sync, so it’s quite a ballet for ATC.
SNA being as short a runway as it is, the airliner traffic really can’t stand to have any tailwind. In the complete absence of wind they could go either way, but IIRC there’s a small terrain clearance value to going south towards the ocean.
OTOH, the mandatory noise abatement procedures to the south are far more restrictive than those to the north. And the southbound procedure requires climb gradients that can be hard to meet if heavy or if some mechanical problem adds some extra limitations.
I’m going to bet the answer is that for whatever reason that airplane (of whatever type) could not comply with the noise abatement procedures required over the Back Bay. Which forced them to go the other way. They may well have had to sit there for 30 or 45 minutes until a small gap in arrivals could be created to let them launch opposite direction to the prevailing traffic.
This is actually a fairly common scenario in Las Vegas at McCarran / Harry Reid. The prevailing wind and operation lands and launches to the west. Into the face of rising terrain, then a set of ridges, and needing an immediate turn to avoid hitting tall mountains. Conversely, going east is over nearly flat terrain, but downwind.
You often a see a jet sitting at the “wrong” end of the Las Vegas runways for half an hour until they can launch the wrong way because they’re just too heavy to go the other way. Back in the days of the 727 this was exceedingly common. As badly as it climbed on all three engines, it really didn’t climb on two. And all airliner (and bizjet) takeoffs are predicated on the assumption of an engine failure on the runway. If the calcs show you couldn’t clear terrain after that failure, you simply don’t go that way.
It would be interesting to know what sort of airplane it was: single prop, light prop twin, bizjet, RJ, or full-sized airliner.
I was flying a Mooney to Denver and had to make a fuel stop at an uncontrolled airport. Entered the downwind, making all the calls, verified wind direction with the sock, etc. Turned base, then final, and whaddya know a King Air is landing downwind on the other end of the runway. So I called a go-around, and eventually landed.
I got an earful from other pilots at the airport about those guys in the King Air. It seems they make a regular run that’s maybe 50 -100 miles or so, in a straight line to that end of the runway. So if the wind is below 10-15 kts they do a straight in approach and land downwind to save time and money. They didn’t even bother with radio calls. They just expected the smaller airplplanes to stay out of their way, I guess.
Stay safe, and keep your eyeballs on a swivel.
sounds like they would only yield to Emporer Air …
One provision would gradually raise the tax on fuel used by private jets from about 22 cents per gallon now to $1.06 per gallon in five years.
The linked article is very thin on details. What constitutes a private jet? Are turbo-props a jet (basically a jet engine with a propeller)? Are other private planes exempt? Where is the tax applied…at the pump? Can rich people just fill up a tanker with gasoline and pay the normal tax and then fill up their planes off of that?
Jets don’t use gasoline. And I don’t think operators have much flexibility to substitute non-aviation fuel (jet or otherwise) with cheaper alternatives.
The only way the wealthy could avoid this tax is to only fuel outside of the US, I suspect.
A nitpick but a jet engine can be set up to burn anything. The B-36 jet engines burned the same gasoline as the radial engines. It would, of course, have to be set up that way from the factory.
I’m not sure if there’s ever been a luxury tax on a commodity such as fuel. it sounds like a can of worms and may be more of a campaign pledge than something actually attempted.
I wonder if Air Force One would have to pay the fuel tax?
Nothing in the operating inventory of the Department of Defense could be called “private”.
Still, I’d be curious to see what kind of nits they’d have to pick to guarantee this doesn’t become a tax on fuel used in the passenger aviation industry, for instance, plus the inevitable loopholes that would arise from that difference.
True. I understand there is an approval to use Avgas in place of Jet fuel for a limited time in PT6 engines. Alternatively diesel is a much closer substitute for Jet fuel.
Reminds me of an episode of Air Disasters on the Smithsonian Channel. A regional airliner was landing at an uncontrolled airport and collided with a King Air taking off on an intersecting runway. In the King Air were an instructor and student who failed to make the correct calls on the advisory frequency, and apparently hadn’t heard the calls from the landing plane. In the show, the student was portrayed as rather unsure and inexperienced.
The thing I could never figure out was why someone with so little experience was getting a lesson in a King Air. I would hope that by the time you’re getting instruction in a twin turboprop that you should know what to do at an uncontrolled airport.
Er, that was @Llama_Llogophile again. Are you ok? 
The F.A.A. also conducted 13 product audits for the part of the inquiry that focused on Spirit AeroSystems, which makes the fuselage, or body, of the 737 Max. Six of those audits resulted in passing grades, and seven resulted in failing ones, the presentation said.
Much worse than one would expect.
only in russia
.
.
Capt’n … looks like we lost engine number 4 …
,
New Frontline story tonight (March 12) on Boeing & 737 Max.
Is that supposed to be a clickable cite to something?