Did the FAA jump the gun on Harlem Shake?

Profile picture for user Matt-100

Member for

7 years 2 months

Posts: 569

Earlier this month it was being reported that the FAA would be investigating this incident (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG6p0z_W2Bo). My initial thoughts were if this were a turbo-prop or the seat belt signs were illuminated, fine that's one thing. But it was a cruising A320. http://news.yahoo.com/faa-looking-safety-sky-high-harlem-shake-dance-190610983.html Then today I saw this on facebook from British Airways. The world record for the highest Harlem Shake ever performed at 43,000 feet (part of their Speedbird flight 1988 for comic relief)... I wonder when the CAA will be investigating? :D http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151781835395830&set=a.10150342987235830.427830.76903425829&type=1&theater
Original post

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 652

My initial thoughts were if this were a turbo-prop or the seat belt signs were illuminated, fine that's one thing. But it was a cruising A320.
What difference does it make if it were a Turbo-Prop??
Profile picture for user Matt-100

Member for

7 years 2 months

Posts: 569

What difference does it make if it were a Turbo-Prop??
Well, they're smaller and lighter so coordinated movements in the cabin can have a larger effect on flight stability. Don't quote me on that, I'm no expert, perhaps Deano could comment? But this crash springs to mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Bandundu_Filair_Let_L-410_crash

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 652

OK, but there are very small commuter jets and larger turbo-props. What you are talking about is size, nothing to do with powerplants.
Profile picture for user Dazza

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 1,407

OK, but there are very small commuter jets and larger turbo-props. What you are talking about is size, nothing to do with powerplants.
Garry, the Let 410 is a small turboprop, not a small commuter jet... -Dazza