Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Landing into a storm

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re:

    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Umm...how about you look at the Youtubes I posted, and I'd like to see the Youtubes you reference...They did not evacuate "minutes before". A guy is sitting at his gate, you hear stuff breaking, he ducks down for seconds and pops up to busted windows and a hole in the ceiling. (And it's all over in seconds.). In the SWA area, you see the tornadic winds hitting, someone sees a plane moved by wind AND THEN they "evacuate". Security guys dive for the bathrooms AS debris is blowing down hallway (after the building is clearly comprimised). In fact, they are lucky that this was not too big of Tornado- just busted some windows and tore off some roofing.


    However, thanks for the OKC example. Yes, I think that's a bit more in line with how it should be done...Heck, 1 hour may be too far in the other direction.
    Well those videos I had not seen before. You are correct, they had ample warning to get those people out of there-had they been monitoring he NWS warnings. I guess the footage I saw was the one you mentioned, from Concourse E and the WN gate areas. Then the airport police start evacuating the gate areas and soon after is when the tornado moved through. But that was not a small tornado, it was an EF4 with winds around 165mph. What was lucky was it hit the main terminal and not the concourses directly (thus the photo of the large cargo van on the roof of the terminal). If it had directly hit the concourses I guarantee it would have been a far worse scenario. They are "just" enough away from the main terminal at STL.

    At OKC, they evacuated the terminal about 15-20 minutes before the storm came through the area. Thankfully there was no actual on-ground tornado with the circulation and it moved just north of the airport. The nice thing about our airport is that there is a nice long tunnel that connects the parking garages to the terminal which is where everyone was moved. The lead warning time on the May 31st storm was about half an hour (since the El Reno tornado was moving very slowly). It was when the storms took a hard right and started moving southeast that the airport was in the path.

    Comment


    • #47
      Some edits:

      Originally posted by Foxtrot View Post
      But that was not a small tornado, it was an EF4 with winds around 165mph...
      I tend to disagree with this too.

      Indeed it is clasified EF-4 however the vast majority of the damage was ~EF2, and this was a small SIZED skipping tornado as opposed to the long-track monsters that nailed Joplin or the OKC area. If it had been a fully developed, long track EF4 tornado the airport would have been nearly destroyed, there'd be a bunch of dead folks, destroyed cars strewn about and baggage carts scattered for miles downwind. You'll cite the bus that got hung over a rail- but it's right side up and repairable. Again- if the tornado had really really really been fully on the ground, Full F-4, there'd crushed, upside down cars...instead the majority were right side up with busted windows.

      Go to Google Earth and find Joplin MO and the tornado track. Go find OKC and the tornado track- those are "Big" tornadoes. Then go to the STL airport and see if you can find the tornado track- and tell me if it's also "Big".

      Here is some of the worst damage from the STL tornado: http://tornadostruckairport.blogspot...1_archive.html

      Looks a lot like this example of EF2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EF...xample_(1).jpg

      Restating- sure, the tornado may have very breifly hit EF4 winds therefore that's it's classification -but we were way way way short of a major disaster/major destruction/anhilation as shown here for EF4 damage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EF...ge_example.jpg

      The full reference:



      You also imply that Southwest terminal was evaucated beforehand- this terminal is 1/4 mile away from the busted windows- and was not treated any different than the other terminal if you look at how fast the C-concourse events unfolded and watch what was happening at the E gates (Southwest), you realize that the tornado is long gone by the time the folks filming have left the gate area. There's two vidos from E- in one a guys says- wow- that plane moved (the tornado is passing then)...then you note the evacuation starts.

      The nitty gritty is that the NE track of the tornado and the NW-SE layout of STL caused the tornado to nail the C-concourse, while actually sort of missing the E concourse- thus you only see really strong winds, but the windows stay in tact.

      The bottom line is STL was lucky that this was a smaller, skipping tornado and not a long-track big tornado or there would have been tons more destruction and very likely lives lost.

      And a brief, semi-harsh, flame moment: I live here and am a weather geek and an aviation geek. Quit trying to tell me what happened in my own back yard, especially since you are wrong about so much of it.

      I dare say that the STL example probably lead to a bit more caution at OKC.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re:

        [deleted]

        Comment


        • #49
          What may I ask do these diatribes have to do with the thread of "Landing into a storm"?

          Comment


          • #50
            ^You're right, I will use pm's for this off topic stuff. .

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Not always. Sometimes people die, more often when somebody made wrong assumptions.
              sorry gabriel, you read it wrong. i said "assuming viz is within limits." in that context it means something else, as in landing would be ok IF visibility was within limits.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                No, everything is on the upper deck, and there is not much of it.
                Strange that they left the windows on the main deck, but I guess these were converted planes (AFAIK). If I were you I'd drag a couple sofas down there and maybe a ping pong table.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  What may I ask do these diatribes have to do with the thread of "Landing into a storm"?
                  It begs a question if the aviation world pays 'any' attention to Civilian weather information...and it's an interesting question.

                  I gotta say, the Weather Channel has gotten almost worthless as it tries to be entertainment. And who says that the local media is any better? News isn't news any more and showmanship and exageration abounds.

                  However, there's a reasonble number of aviation incidents- including aircraft crashes- where civilians were aware of official NWS thunderstorm warnings, but pilots were not.

                  The STL example has some relevance as a whole airport (the tower, the loading crew, and the airport itself) sat there doing business as usual while the local media tracked a tornadic circulation for two hours as it aimed at the airport, and the NWS issued tornado warnings. In this instance no one was trying to land- but the "trend of ignoring civil weather sources" seems to be at play.

                  Foxtrot cites the timely evacuation of the OKC airport- evidence that things may be changing...

                  Thoughts BB?
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    It begs a question if the aviation world pays 'any' attention to Civilian weather information...and it's an interesting question.

                    However, there's a reasonble number of aviation incidents- including aircraft crashes- where civilians were aware of official NWS thunderstorm warnings, but pilots were not.

                    Thoughts BB?
                    You seem to think that there are separate weather services for civilians and the aviation community. There is not! NWS services both and the information is disseminated to all that subscribe to the service. I will say this again although I seem to repeat it over and over through out many of the threads here. When humans are involved there will always be mistakes from time to time. It is part of our make-up, we occasionally F up. Then there are the mechanical problems that happen. Some of which are a statistical thing and some caused again by a human that made a mistake.

                    Weather is one of those things that you have to deal with as a pilot. Most of us that have done this for some time have learned when to continue the approach, and when to wait it out. In my opinion, and I think after 43 years as a professional pilot and 25k hours I have earned the right to mine. Landing when there is a strong cell right over the field if you do not have to because of low fuel or a mechanical is just foolish. As Mr. TeeVee seems to think it was just a lot of rain, you never know what else is in there or about to develop.

                    I have also been a diver for 40 plus years and have spent many hours in the water with large sharks. I treat them the same a a thunderstorm. I am not afraid of them, I respect them.

                    B.B.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                      You seem to think that there are separate weather services for civilians and the aviation community.
                      Don't tell me what I think

                      That being said I'll confess that I may have sounded like there's separate services but I'll play a word game with you and say that there are separate services.

                      As a civilian, I don't routinely see TAFs, AIRMETS, SIGMETS, Icing, Turbulence, PIREPS and probably a few other forecasts.

                      And, when you look over the history of "jet aviation", there's a few instances where pilots unknowingly flew in thunderstorms that the general public were told were severe (note the italics). (I just remembered the Southern hail dual engine failure crash as another example).

                      So- there's some differing services- but yeah, they come from the same organization...

                      Sure, all of this is an over-simplification, but I still say, some of those historical instances where planes flew through thunderstorms where the general public was told they were severe, and pilots may not have been...

                      ...it's interesting.

                      Of course, one modern twist is that wikipedia, weather and other www.internet.com services are now available in cockpits.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Of course, one modern twist is that wikipedia, weather and other www.internet.com services are now available in cockpits.
                        Don't have WiFi yet at Atlas!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          It isn't about not listening to civilian sources, just that they have a different risk profile.

                          The forecasts for both come from the same weather model - the difference is what the individual forecaster makes of that model, and what risk he assigns each phenomenon.

                          You can have two fully trained met officers working from the same model produce different forecasts even for Aviation - so for the civilian world its even more.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Apologies- I've hijacked Gabe's thread on LANDING in a storm versus OPERATING in a storm.

                            But my list keeps growing and getting more recent too...

                            -Ozark airlines- Severe Thunderstorm warning not conveyed to pilots.

                            -Pan Am New Orleans- known thunderstorm, takeoff into it

                            -Southern Airlines dual flameout- Severe thunderstorm over the Rome VOR not conveyed to pilots

                            -Delta 191- Latest radar report about "near-severe" cell not conveyed to pilots.

                            -AA-Little Rock- (Ok no issues with ineffecient weather data sharing here but a plane lands into a known, severe storm...what's that policy that was enacted after Delta 191 that Boeing Bobby cited?)

                            -Air France 36000 ft stall- that happened from operating in a thunderstorm.

                            I need to say that in the majority of cases, there was on-board weather radar and lots of other nuances, subtleties and swiss cheese...arguably, the storm may not have been the PRIMARY cause (Attenuation in the case of Southern along with engine mis management, and Air France where relentlessly pulling full nose up didn't register as something that goes against traditional airmanship...)

                            The pros here say that THEY avoid operating in storms...Fine, but I still think the industry tempts fate with some regularity...and of course, the stats say they do a really really really really really really really good job, though, not quite perfect.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              -Air France 36000 ft stall- that happened from operating in a thunderstorm.
                              um...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                Apologies- I've hijacked Gabe's thread on LANDING in a storm versus OPERATING in a storm.
                                Air France Flight 358 @ Toronto.
                                American Airlines Flight 331 @ Kingston.
                                Austral Flight 2255 @ Ezeiza.

                                All of these happened in recent years, and a tragedy was avoided more by sheer luck than anything else.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X