Singapore flight turbulence

Not if the plane moved upwards - rapidly enough - first.
If an object is projected upwards, it experiences downward acceleration g at all times, not greater. That's why the velocity decreases till it's zero at maximum height, then increases as it falls back to the ground.
 
I would hazard a guess more of a tail kick occurred could be wrong, the plane hitting turbulent air causing an oscillation affected more towards the rear of the plane, a sudden hump off air kicking the rear up and sharply down causing untethered passengers to accelerate towards lockers.
Good point, maybe the front rows of seats get it, but not the back, or vice versa.
 
If an object is projected upwards, it experiences downward acceleration g at all times, not greater. That's why the velocity decreases till it's zero at maximum height, then increases as it falls back to the ground.


Not if the overhead lockers get in the way first..........
 
Not if the overhead lockers get in the way first..........
But the passenger wouldn't rise unless the plane was falling at greater than g, is the point I'm making. And it must be a big effect, to cause the damage it did, people's heads breaking overhead lockers etc.
 
But the passenger wouldn't rise unless the plane was falling at greater than g,

Of course they would.

Plane in level flight.
Passenger sitting happily, without lapbelt on.
Overhead locker is 1m above passenger's noggin.

Plane suddenly lurches upwards at 2g, for 1 second, then resumes level flight.
Plane has gone from 0m/s (vertically), to c. 20m/s (vertically) in 1s, then back to 0m/s.
The passenger does the same, except that they only go back to 0m/s when their head hits the overhead lockers.
 
Of course they would.

Plane in level flight.
Passenger sitting happily, without lapbelt on.
Overhead locker is 1m above passenger's noggin.

Plane suddenly lurches upwards at 2g, for 1 second, then resumes level flight.
Plane has gone from 0m/s (vertically), to c. 20m/s (vertically) in 1s, then back to 0m/s.
The passenger does the same, except that they only go back to 0m/s when their head hits the overhead lockers.
The plane accelerating upwards first has nothing to do with it. If that happens, the passenger is pressed harder on to the seat.

If it accelerates downwards at greater than g, the passenger rises off the seat, that's what I've said all along. The question is - what causes the downward acceleration? Downward air current most likely. Maybe in turbulent conditions there's upward and downward acceleratiion in quick succession, the downward causing more trouble.

The behaviour of a thrown stone in still air is irrelevant.
 
Back
Top