How likely is it for a 787 Dreamliner to have it's wings snap or its chassis break apart during flight?

[bilateralrope]

Modern airliners can endure without damage maneuvers that would cause you to permanetly damage your underwear.

What about maneuvers with g forces high enough to cause significant injury to the humans on the plane ?

And before you panic at that statement – there was an instance of an airliner running out of fuel halfway across the Atlantic Ocean and it glided all the way to a safe landing.

How much trouble did the people who caused that incident get into afterwards ?

[Broomstick]

To be fair Broomstick, Archinist's previous post was about using his laptop as a heater and wondering why the components aren't working right... while still insisting that jackets make people colder when they put them on. Forgive some of us for thinking that Dumber Than Parrots is trolling, especially as he could have just as easily used google or wiki to find the answers he was looking for.

Yeah, I was there – in fact, I was the one who first compared him to parrots.

I'm not convinced it's all trolling (although I have been wrong in the past). I think what appears to be a serious question should be addressed as such.

Fun Fact: I'm completely terrified of flying, even though my actual job which I do every day is an order of magnitude more likely to kill me. It doesn't make any sense, but there it is.

OK, we'll say YOUR fear of flying is completely irrational if it makes you happy.

one thing to remember that in engineering there's this thing called a safety margin so when something is rated for x (where "x" repesents the amount of stress the peice can endure), it really means that piece can endure x*1.10 stress before it breaks on average and that extra 10% in the safety margin.

I'm just goin to point out that in aviation the minimum safety margin is 50%, and usually higher, like 2 or more. This is, after all, the industry that made “triple redundant” a minimum standard.

Modern airliners can endure without damage maneuvers that would cause you to permanetly damage your underwear.

What about maneuvers with g forces high enough to cause significant injury to the humans on the plane ?

You actually don't need really high g forces to hurt or even kill a person – get flung into the cabin ceiling during turbulence and land wrong you can break a bone or your neck, and that's usually what happens when people are injured during turbulence. I recommend keeping your seat belt latched across your lap while in cruise as much as possible. It doesn't have to be tight, just be enough to keep you in your seat during any bumps.

And before you panic at that statement – there was an instance of an airliner running out of fuel halfway across the Atlantic Ocean and it glided all the way to a safe landing.

How much trouble did the people who caused that incident get into afterwards ?

I don't know - no account of that incident I've seen has ever mentioned that part.

[Simon_Jester]

First of all -

Guys, don't be asshats when it comes to someone asking questions about reality. Yes, Archinist's questions are fairly basic but we know he has a certain level of ignorance about the world.

Agreed. Also... one of Archinist's questions boils down to "I know people drive a lot more often than they fly. Maybe people just die more often in cars because they spend more time in cars?" Sure, his answer was polluted by a failed attempt to make an order of magnitude estimate of the number of times a day people fly in planes... but even then, his estimate was only off by one order of magnitude in each of the two relevant variables.

Speaking in my professional capacity, I can confirm that this is, by the standards of the average high school student, a smart question.

ARCHINIST ASKED A SMART QUESTION.

We should be happy.

Archinist, keep posting threads like this where you ask questions. You will learn things, and people will start liking you more and (eventually) making fun of you less. If you'd posted stuff like this from the beginning, people would probably like you some, and not make fun of you (except maybe a little).

Second, I have long maintained fear of flying is not entirely irrational – it is actually normal to fear things you don't understand that appear dangerous. Being way high off the ground when you don't understand how the airplane stays up in the air would fall into that category.

Agreed.

[Broomstick]

I would also like to point out to our Nervous Passenger Archinist that considerable effort is expended towards giving the passenger's information to keep them safe. The "fasten selt belt" sign is there for a reason, when it's on, your seat belt should be on. Pay attention to the emergency information given prior to take off and the information folder usually present near your seat. It is extremely unlikely you will need it but you will know what to do in an emergency.

The "bumps" of turbulence can be scary because it's an unfamiliar motion, but really, it's no different than a bumpy road under an automobile or "chop" when you're out in a boat.

Engines are loud, but the loud tells you are working. Landing gear going up or down, or bits on the wings sliding around and making adjustments, can also be loud but it's the loudness of machinery working normally Hearing the landing gear going down before landing should be reassuring. (Airplanes have, rarely, had to land with damaged/malfunctioning gear. It usually messes up the airplane but the people on board are rarely hurt at all. The airplane takes the damage, not you).

I will note that airplane wings do flex during flight. That is OK. They are designed to do that, rather than remain completely ridgid. It will not hurt the airplane and the wing will not break. It's OK. If it makes you feel better, darken the window/pull down the shade and read a book.

Additional advice for your comfort: keep hydrated. The air on an airliner is dry and slightly thinner than what you're used to, so you do lose water simply by breathing. Not a lot, but drink fluids (water is ideal, but not required) to keep hydrated. Alcohol is not really a good choice, it tends to dehydrate you and can make motion sickness worse, not to mention being fully drunk and/or an asshole can get you thrown off a flight (well, not during the flight, but beforehand or after landing) Eat light so you're not flying on an empty stomach but not overfull, either. If you are motion sick ask for an airsick bag early - there's no penalty for asking for one and not using, and if you need it you'll be glad to have it and so will everyone else. Severe motion sickness and/or anxiety is a legitimate reason to ask a doctor for medication to get you through the flight and better/healthier than alcohol. Avoid flying with colds or any form of head congestion, that can result in epic pain due to air pressure changes. If you must fly with a cold use a decongestant before you get to the airport but really, avoid flying even with mild illnesses if you can.

[Korto]

Not having control causes fear. In the plane, you've got no control, your life is in someone else's hands and there's nothing you can do about it. I've ridden a motorbike all my life, and I feel completely confident on that bike (unless I do something stupid like look down at the road under my wheel and imagine what would happen if the wheel came off, which is a lot more likely than anything to do with a plane because my maintenance is kind of shit). Anyway, completely confident.
Rode pillion behind someone a few years ago--fuck, I'm not doing that again. Felt more scared than when I fishtailed down the Pacific Highway, despite the fact that he was completely stable, completely fine, all the way. I didn't have control (although it could be fairly asked how much control you have when you're fishtailing down a goddamned highway).

[bilateralrope]

Not having control causes fear. In the plane, you've got no control, your life is in someone else's hands and there's nothing you can do about it.

That's not the reason I'm a bit uncomfortable/afraid when flying. For me, the discomfort comes from how far the cabin tilts to the side. Which is something that comes up when I'm in a 4wd that takes a corner a bit faster than I like, though still at a safe speed.

[Simon_Jester]

My sympathies; just remember it's designed to do that; planes are absolutely pants at turning if they don't bank into a turn. The most powerful force the plane has is the lift holding it up in the air; using a little of that to turn a plane is much better than using the tail fins to do the same thing.

[Lord Revan]

I'm sure Broomstick can answer this properly but IIRC when on flight it's pretty much impossible for a plane to turn without banking.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Well, I was flying on a 787 today and was mostly terrified for the entire flight, having never flown in a aircraft before, ever and being normally jumpy in skyscrapers and high apartment buildings. I was sure that the plane was flying far too fast (1000 km/h according to computer from seat) at far too high and eventually some strong turbulence would rip it into pieces, but that didn't happen. Are flight speeds and heights accurate and if they are, are they normal for 787s? Also, how strong are 787s? Is it likely for them to break apart when in flight?

1,000 kph is only 620mph, well below the speed of sound. I believe that it's normal for airliners to fly subsonic, but their allowed max airspeed is dependent on several factors, such as the slice of sky assigned them by ATC, weather conditions, and other things I'm reasonably sure Broom's covered by now.

[bilateralrope]

I know that the banking is necessary. I know that it supposed to happen. That doesn't make the fear go away.

It's just something I have to deal with on the rare occasions where I take a flight somewhere. It's not strong enough to be a factor in deciding which mode of transport I pick.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Archinist, what the fuck are you smoking? And may I please hit that?

I don't know. It seems to cause paranoid delusions and some really weird hallucinogenic trips. You can probably find something better.

If it were any of his other threads, I'd be inclined to agree. It appears here that Archinist has a fear of heights, a fear which I also share, and pretty much the only thing for that is to climb heights/get a couple more flights under his belt, because you can't face that particular fear with your feet planted on terra firma.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Anyway, as I said I've never been in anything that goes in the air without a giant concrete base. Even in secure apartment blocks and skyscrapers I'm still a bit nervous, which is perfectly normal to be nervous of great heights. The plane was also very loud and there was a wind noise the entire time.

Not normal, but fairly common(heights and flying scare me to death). My worst experience flying was from Heathrow to Frankfurt during a student trip another lifetime ago, and watching the wing flex like a wet noodle...which is perfectly normal, but still a bit unsettling.

If there's one piece of advice I can give you for an airplane ride it's this: Never get a window seat. It'll make you less jumpy.

How safe is flying high in the air in general?

As others have mentioned, very, more so than riding in an automobile. Aircraft, if anything, tend to be overengineered, to anally precise tolerances, and the rare fatality is due almost exclusively to human error, either in the cockpit, or slipshod maintenance practices.

Is it possible for the airplane to hit a stupidly thin pocket of air and the engines to become useless and cause the plane to freeze solid and plummet? Or what would happen if the plane went up too fast and could not slow down quickly enough? Could it a very lightweight airliner with powerful engines go up so far that it's air brakes became useless, causing it to keep rising until it completely left the atmosphere?

To sum up what others have told you upthread: No, no, and definitely no. There less air pressure the higher up one goes in the atmosphere, but jet airliners don't have the power or the fuel to reach those altitudes.

Your third question puts me in mind of a very old, very shitty made for TV movie, which starred Lee Majors, if failing memory serves. Even then, it featured a hypersonic airliner with ramjets/scramjets, something most modern jetliners are not equipped with, and wouldn't be able to handle even if they were.

The premise made for piss-poor television and it's impossible in reality.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Not having control causes fear. In the plane, you've got no control, your life is in someone else's hands and there's nothing you can do about it. I've ridden a motorbike all my life, and I feel completely confident on that bike (unless I do something stupid like look down at the road under my wheel and imagine what would happen if the wheel came off, which is a lot more likely than anything to do with a plane because my maintenance is kind of shit). Anyway, completely confident.
Rode pillion behind someone a few years ago--fuck, I'm not doing that again. Felt more scared than when I fishtailed down the Pacific Highway, despite the fact that he was completely stable, completely fine, all the way. I didn't have control (although it could be fairly asked how much control you have when you're fishtailing down a goddamned highway).

^Very much this. I feel more comfortable when I'm in control of my mode of transport. But, that's not always a reality, so all you can do is relax, and enjoy the following in-flight video:

[Simon_Jester]

[1,000 kph is only 620mph, well below the speed of sound. I believe that it's normal for airliners to fly subsonic...

As Broomstick noted, they're designed to survive above Mach 1, but not to go there except in a dangerously steep dive.

1000 km/hr is dangerously close to the sound barrier at sea level; it's in the range of "transsonic" speeds. World War II aircraft tended to fall apart in that regime, or their controls locked up entirely. Modern aircraft don't have that problem because we know how to stop the pressures associated with the 'sound barrier' from building up to destroy the plane. As I understand it, though, the transsonic speed range isn't a particularly healthy place for aircraft to be even now- because your airflow transitions from subsonic to supersonic at various places along the plane's body.

[Terralthra]

Modern planes will also rapidly slow if they go supersonic, because the bow shock wave from the pressure front of the air striking the engines will disrupt the airflow to the jet engine, which will immediately stall. Aircraft designed to go supersonic use a variety of cones, panels, and rams to break up the shock front and get subsonic flow into the engine, but commercial jetliners...don't.

[Elheru Aran]

Supersonic travel is largely a waste of effort anyway because it's ridiculously expensive and/or impractical at current tech level. Better to tune commercial jetliners for high efficiency at high sub-sonic speeds in a variety of atmospheric conditions.

[LadyTevar]

Avoid flying with colds or any form of head congestion, that can result in epic pain due to air pressure changes. If you must fly with a cold use a decongestant before you get to the airport but really, avoid flying even with mild illnesses if you can.

THIS. SO MUCH THIS.
When Nitram and I were returning from England, I had caught a headcold. I made the mistake of taking Sudafed to clear it up just before getting on the 8hr flight home.
By the time we reached DC, I needed be taken off in a wheelchair because congestion and dehydration made me unable to walk. Nitram, with ascites from his cirrhosis, was in even worse shape. Even the worst sinus infection is only a few teaspoons of fluid inside the sinus and ear cavities. Nitram had 3-5 LITERS of fluid free-flowing inside his abdominal wall.

[Broomstick]

I'm sure Broomstick can answer this properly but IIRC when on flight it's pretty much impossible for a plane to turn without banking.

Not exactly true - airplanes can be induced to turn without banking via use of the rudder but it's considered "uncoordinated" and the sensation for most people can be even more uncomfortable than a shallow bank. In some situations an uncoordinated turn can be more hazardous than a bank and thus they are avoided unless there is a specific need for them (as an example, they are occasionally used in cross-wind landings to provide course correction while avoiding having a wing ding into the ground, which is an appropriate use.)

If a banking airplane bothers you then I suggest you not get a window seat and on take off and landing look straight ahead, or even close your eyes. In a properly done bank if you close your eyes you should still feel like you're sitting upright and still, or at least going in a straight line. Avoid looking out the window and you should be good.

[Broomstick]

1,000 kph is only 620mph, well below the speed of sound. I believe that it's normal for airliners to fly subsonic, but their allowed max airspeed is dependent on several factors, such as the slice of sky assigned them by ATC, weather conditions, and other things I'm reasonably sure Broom's covered by now.

People have made careers out of determining "appropriate speed" for airliners, it would be a bit much to cover in a thread, even what small slice of the science I know. But yes, there are several variables, and additionally the difference between true airspeed, indicated airspeed, and ground speed.

0.80 Mach could be considered a good rule of thumb number for maximum airliner cruise airspeed in level flight. Note, however, that with a jetstream tailwind it would be easy to achieve that as a ground speed while in fact having a lower airspeed. Wind speeds aloft are an important factor in long distance air travel. If airliners can take advantage of the jetstream they will, just as boats will happily take advantage of strong ocean currents that are going the same way they are.

It should also be noted that 1.0 Mach, the speed of sound, varies based on air density which is significantly affected by temperature and humidity and expressed as "density altitude" as referenced to a "standard atmosphere". Again, more than we probably want to get into in a thread such as this.

[K. A. Pital]

Flying is, per trip (not per pass-km) far from being the safest mode of transport. Then again, walking, biking and especially motorcycling is quite dangerous on a per-trip base as well.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Flying is, per trip (not per pass-km) far from being the safest mode of transport. Then again, walking, biking and especially motorcycling is quite dangerous on a per-trip base as well.

What figures are you looking at to arrive at this conclusion? A cursory Google search on my part pretty consistently finds flying to be at the top of the list. A few sources indicate rail travel MAY be safer on a per-trip basis, but it certainly exceeds flying on a per-distance-traveled basis. I can't find anything that doesn't put flying at or near the top. Where do you get the idea that it is "far from being the safest"? Then what is the safest?

[K. A. Pital]

Figures per trip - which I do not have at hand as I am at work, but then again, a calculation per person-travel-hour can also be a crude approximation of safety of different modes of transport on a per-travel time and not a per-km basis:

As one can see, per travel time airline travel is more dangerous than bus, rail and ferry. Travelling on foot, in personal car or on cycle is twice as dangerous. Motorcycles are simply death traps far outside anything else (but that's well known to all).

Per distance measures for commercial airline flying remained low even in the past - the great average trip distance would matter more than the actual fatality numbers here, as they tend to be spread over flown kilometers and make commercial airline flying the safest per kilometer.

As for the safety of flying in general, it has had less than stellar performance thanks to general aviation, and this is well known:
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/n ... iving.html
http://www.livescience.com/49701-privat ... afety.html

[K. A. Pital]

A cursory glance at Wikipedia (me be damned for this forever) revealed a source with similar, but per trip stats:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm

Per trip, air travel turned out to be the third most dangerous, only topped by cycling and motorcycle death traps.

[TimothyC]

To answer the question in the OP, the 787 has been tested for 150% of the maximum load encountered in regular service - which includes any minor turbulence you encountered. The last major aircraft tested to failure that I know of was the infamous 154% test on the 777:

[Broomstick]

As for the safety of flying in general, it has had less than stellar performance thanks to general aviation, and this is well known:

We're not discussing general aviation, why are you including it in the discussion?

Some of the flying I used to do was an order of magnitude (at least!) more dangerous than motorcycles. So what? It is has little or nothing to do with the safety of commercial aviation.