this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
476 points (98.8% liked)

xkcd

12461 readers
237 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

xkcd #3124: Grounded

Title text:

We should have you at the gate in just under two hours--two and a half if we get pulled over.

Transcript:

Transcript will show once it’s been added to explainxkcd.com

Source: https://xkcd.com/3124/

explainxkcd for #3124

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

I once took an in-country flight in Germany and we taxied so long that I was looking for highway exit signs because we were clearly driving instead of flying.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

They joke, but.... https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/experience/landline.jsp

A bus that boards at a gate and drives to another airport and drops off at a gate..

There was a video of someone deliberately taking these lines and included someone a bit shocked that the 'flight' they booked was just a bus...

[–] neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

I read "bridge clearance" as clearance from the ATC to detatch from the bridge and was so confused lol

[–] ksigley@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

There really is an xkcd for everything.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 127 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I was on a flight to Richmond, VA, many years ago. Delayed delayed, mechanical something. We finally board and depart, and right in the middle of the climb after takeoff, the plane turns real hard and heads back to the airport. People were kind of freaked out, they weren't telling us anything.

Back in the airport, we learn that there was some issue with the cabin pressure. They thought they had fixed it, they hadn't. Eventually, they decided, "Fuck it, we're going to fly across the country in this 737 at 7000 feet." Maybe a third of the passengers got back on the plane, I was one. It was cold as fuck.

[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Call me an over paranoid wuss, there is no way in hell my ass would be back on that plane

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 10 hours ago

Silver lining of depression is taking risks and having mildly entertaining stories after.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 day ago (7 children)

why was it cold, because they couldn't maintain an internal cabin atmosphere, including temperature?

Also, I had to look it up, but just wanted to confirm 7000 feet is much lower than typical 737 cruising altitude, which is usually 30,000 - 40,000 feet.

7000 feet is still pretty high and around where oxygen saturation decreases - could you tell any effect? I just assume they were able to still oxygenate the cabin even if they couldn't go as high 🤷‍♀️

[–] genuineparts 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

why was it cold, because they couldn’t maintain an internal cabin atmosphere, including temperature?

No pilot or Jet mechanic but afaik the pressurisation is happening with bleed air from the turbines that is then cooled down to comfortable levels. So there is no "heater" for the cabin so to speak as for a warmer cabin you just cool down the bleed air less. As such without pressurisation there is also no cabin heat.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

You just causally knew that offhand, and it's not even your industry??

[–] genuineparts 4 points 20 hours ago

I am weirdly nerdy about planes. Always wanted to be a pilot as a kid.

[–] mr2meows@pawb.social 4 points 22 hours ago

prolly went down a wikipedia rabbit hole or something

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

7000 ft is relatively common for small planes like cessnas, they don't even keep pressurized cabins, but It's fine if you stay low. So there's nothing wrong with that altitude, but it's awfully low for a jet. The jet will be flying at low fuel efficiency the whole way and it certainly won't have much wiggle room if something really goes wrong. (You can lose 7000 ft of altitude very quickly)

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (3 children)

ah, I wasn't sure because I was reading this:

The oxygen saturation of hemoglobin determines the content of oxygen in blood. After the human body reaches around 2,100 metres (6,900 ft) above sea level, the saturation of oxyhemoglobin begins to decrease rapidly.[2] However, the human body has both short-term and long-term adaptations to altitude that allow it to partially compensate for the lack of oxygen. There is a limit to the level of adaptation; mountaineers refer to the altitudes above 8,000 metres (26,000 ft) as the death zone, where it is generally believed that no human body can acclimatize.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_high_altitude_on_humans

it seemed like between 7,000 and ~~8,000~~ 26,000 the air is not suitable, but I figured the pilot wasn't likely to be taking risks like that, so there must be some explanation

edit: mixed up feet and meters

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're mixing up feet and meters. The death zone is at 8 km, i.e. 26k ft.

2100m is barely mountaineering, you can bring grandma and the newborn hiking there and at most you'll notice a mild shortness of breath.

In fact normal cabin pressure at cruising altitude is equivalent to 7000 ft. Besides a lot of ear popping most people don't even notice it, though mild altitude sickness (i.e. a small headache) is possible, but ultimately harmless.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 23 hours ago

ah, that explains my confusion - thank you for clearing that up!

[–] Dempf@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

7-8k is fine. There are many towns in the U.S. at or above that elevation.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

it seemed like between 7,000 and 8,000 the air is not suitable, but I figured the pilot wasn't likely to be taking risks like that, so there must be some explanation

Yeah, I mean the atmospheric pressure at altitude varies, it's definitely not black and white. And it's true, pressure does start to really drop off around 7000ft, but it's just starting to drop significantly at that point, that just makes 7k a good ceiling.

So yeah, this all seems pretty much consistent.

[–] ours@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It also seems low for crossing mountains.

I frequently fly at 10 to 12 thousand feet msl and have no issues. Supplemental O2 is only required from 12500 to 14000 for durations longer than 30 minutes. It is required above 14k for the crew according to the regs. At 15k, everyone on board needs oxygen or a pressurized cabin.

[–] thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

~~actually, cabins are typically pressurized to around 10,000 ft, not sea level, iirc. so this was actually a higher pressure than is typically experienced in a pressurized cabin.~~

I'm wrong

I got mixed up. the limit for unpressurized cabins is 10,000 ft, so if you're flying a small plane without supplemental oxygen you can't go higher than that

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Do you have a source for this? My only reference here is hiking at > 10 000 ft (3000 m), and from that I can say that this seems very unlikely: If you stay at 3000 for a couple hours without acclimating first, you will definitely start to feel the effects. To be fair, you're usually not moving around a lot in an aircraft, but a couple hours at 3000 m can make you feel sluggish and weak, and even a bit light-headed, you could even get a mild headache from oxygen deprivation.

Note that not everyone will see severe symptoms already at 3000 m. Plenty of people can go to 4000 m before seeing significant symptoms. However, given that I've never heard of anyone experiencing altitude sickness in a properly pressurised aircraft, it seems unlikely to me that they're pressurised to 3000 m.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No oxygen problems that I recall. I don’t think there’s a hypoxia risk until 10K feet? Cold I’m sure because it was like flying with a window open. The heaters for the cabin air probably couldn’t keep up.

[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 day ago

Hypoxia risk is usually around 14k feet. 7k feet is like skiing town tree line altitude, cold as fuck but not dangerous. Fascinating story, thanks for sharing.

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The heaters for the cabin air probably couldn’t keep up.

This made me curious if planes use "free" excess heat from the jet engines, same as a car would, or if they need to burn fuel to heat the cabin. And it turns out the latter is the case, so not only could the heaters probably not keep up, attempting to even do so would have wasted a ton of fuel.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago

Fuel that was already being burned at a high rate because of flying down in thicker air.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

just assume they were able to still oxygenate the cabin even if they couldn't go as high

Aircraft are typically pressurized to the equivalent of about 5000-7000 feet altitude.

They do not oxygenate the cabin. The oxygen supplies on board are usually in the form of chemical generators, sometimes known as "oxygen candles", and can only provide about 15 minutes supply. That should be plenty of time to descend below 10,000 feet, where everyone can come off oxygen. They don't "burn" those chemical generators except in actual emergencies.

Pilots and crew have a sufficient supply of bottled oxygen. Pilots and crew are required to go on oxygen if they spend more than 30 minutes above 12,500 feet cabin pressure, or any time over 14,000 feet. Passengers are required to be on supplemental oxygen above 15,000 feet cabin pressure.

Above 35,000 feet flight altitude, at least one pilot must either be on oxygen, or have a mask that can be donned in less than 5 seconds.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Anecdotally, the highest altitude I've ever been at hiking was around 11,000ft, and the group I was hiking with started feeling it a little bit around 9000-10,000 ft.

It wasn't dramatic, where we really noticed it was after we'd made camp, we had a little downtime and there was a bit of an open area, so we started throwing around a Frisbee, and running around chasing the Frisbee we could feel we were getting winded a bit quicker than we usually would.

Age, fitness, genetics, etc. will of course factor into that, but I suspect that most reasonably healthy people sitting in an airplane probably wouldn't feel much at 7000ft. Maybe they would if they were jogging up and down the aisle of the plane, but even then it probably wouldn't be anything too obvious, and if they didn't know anything about altitude sickness they'd probably chalk it up to being tired from the mental stress of air travel- getting to the airport, making the connection, security, lost baggage, etc.

[–] PoliteDudeInTheMood@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

I was in Ecuador recently, Quito which is 9350ft. The second the plane door opened, I felt it. Leaving the plane the air was so thin I could barely stand up. The altitude sickness was alot more for me than "being tired". And I had started altitude sickness pills 2 days before my flight.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago

and the group I was hiking with started feeling it a little bit around 9000-10,000 ft.

Hiking. Physical activity. You'll feel it a lot sooner than if you're just sitting in your seat, bored out of your skull.

Legally, the FAA doesn't require passengers to be on oxygen until cabin altitude is above 15,000 feet. Most aircraft are pressurized to the equivalent of 5000-7000 feet pressure altitude.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 44 points 2 days ago

I think it was a co-worker who told me about flying once from one of the main NYC airports down to Raleigh or Charlotte and they’d been delayed, delayed, delayed by weather. Finally the pilots decided to Leroy Jenkins it and do the entire flight under 10k feet and using the weather radar to maneuver around storms that were dotting the east coast that day. I’m sure it was more formal than I’m remembering but he said it was by far the most unusual commercial flight he’d ever taken. This was within the last 15 years or so, well past when that was common.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

"How many of y'all haveheard of the Dambusters?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sxan@midwest.social 5 points 1 day ago

Sometimes it do be like that

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 65 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

Yeah, I will need an explanation on this.

Do they plan to taxi all the way to the destination? (Are those bridges clearance charts about height clearances for trucks on the kinds of bridge that passes over a road?)

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 12 hours ago

I got thrown for a loop by the word bridge too. It having multiple meanings made me wonder if there's a bridge in flying parlance that meant something else. Clearance is also very unspecific.

[–] obstbert@feddit.org 66 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's how I understand it. Return to bus.

[–] zqwzzle@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

They might be referencing this American Airlines “flight” that is actually a bus.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/travel/american-airlines-bus-service-landline-guide

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

You know, those jet engines are LOUD. Sure, they can technically move the plane on regular roads too, but the noise is just astounding.

In a big airport you might not have noticed, because you were either in the terminal or inside a plane when that happened. However, if you’ve visited a smaller airport, you may have stood just outside the fence when someone reved up their jet engines. Imagine that, but even louder, and moving on normal roads. Should be fun for everyone.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Sure, they can technically move the plane on regular roads too

Well, not really. Or technically, they can if they move fast enough. If they stop, wherever they are will stop being a road quickly.

And there's that entire problem of making room for the wings. It's one of the largest problems when designing airports.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago

"Beep beep I'm a plane!"

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

Yes, the wings are a huge problem. Not that many roads can handle something as wide as a plane.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

Imagine that, but even louder, and moving on normal roads. Should be fun for everyone.

Of course it'll be fun for me. Im in the airplane, getting to my destination on time.

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 day ago

If it were the sound of the Concorde, may she RIP, I think it’s a loud I could tolerate. Sonic booms from like a city block away would relax my nerves.

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

11-foot-8! 11-foot-8!

plane arrives at its gate without the top two feet of its tail fin

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago

Can opener bridge ~~strikes~~ is struck again!

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago

Yeah, drive the plane on the ground since the storm makes it hard to fly!

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

Yes and yes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›