Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shouldn't pilots be disciplined for flying through weather like this?!...

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by UALdave View Post
    There was no reason for you to act like a complete troll in this post. You're making a false assumption that those of us in this community who aren't pilots are complete morons about aviation. I can assure you that while I don't have as much aviation knowledge as you do, I still know a lot more then your average Joe about commercial aircraft.
    As a card carrying member of making overly-bold, recto-cranial-inversion statements, let me say that Boeing Bobby was not necessarily out of line in his reply. Yeah, he's a bit closed minded and sucks at explaining stuff, but you were way over the top, and displayed a strong lack of knowledge.

    To slightly embellish your statement- "Look at these stupid, reckless pilots who negligently and knowingly flew straight into severe turbulence and hail- they should be fired and charged criminally".

    Try to take this as a lesson in word choice and, in the future, pause for a moment and ask if there might be some other, underlying cause as to why some guys did something that seems to defy layman logic...which may seem to be reasonable, but unfortunately, is sometimes wrong...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by UALdave View Post
      I can assure you that while I don't have as much aviation knowledge as you do, I still know a lot more then your average Joe about commercial aircraft.
      A dubious achievement at best, especially when your claim thereto is not backed by your actions.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by UALdave View Post
        There was no reason for you to act like a complete troll in this post. You're making a false assumption that those of us in this community who aren't pilots are complete morons about aviation. I can assure you that while I don't have as much aviation knowledge as you do, I still know a lot more then your average Joe about commercial aircraft.

        Comment


        • #19
          Isn't hail generally accompanied by things that can be recognized on radar? The ice that downed AF447 was invisible but the final report has no problem in listing the decision to proceed into a dangerous system (and failure to properly orient the radar to fully detect it) as a probable cause. AFAIK there is no such thing as 'clear-air hail'.
          Hail and ice crystal icing are two completely different issues. There is absolutely 'clear air hail' - depending on your definition of clear air. IE as BB says there is a risk of hail tens of miles 'outside' a cell. Similarly for ice crystal icing.

          Naw, these guys are giving very timely and very small specific hail forecasts in rapidly evolving cells...
          This is from a relatively small number of very powerful radars (that in some cases are nearly as big as the aircraft we are flying), with rooms full of computers and meteorologists to back them up. This kind of detail is not available in every city, let alone over the oceans where the majority of weather we have to deal with exists. Our radars are getting bloody good - but they have limitations.

          We're still working in the world where the radar is used to profile a cell - see where it is the most wet, etc, and then using that information to make a prediction on what other features we will see. It isn't an exact science. Maybe one day we'll have that technology - but we're not there yet. As Evan says, yes, the things that accompany hail can be seen - but those things also exist on their own without the hail, and the difficulty is predicting just how much of a bang you're going to get out of a given return.

          They're also forecasting a very different thing. They are looking at where hail is going to hit the ground - i.e. where it is going to fall out of the bottom of the cloud. That is of minor interest to pilots (other than for landing), and is relatively easy to predict. If a storm reaches a certain size, within certain parameters, hail is likely. Usually, I couldn't give a rats a..e what is coming out the bottom of a cell. What I want to know is what is happening in a position that is going to affect me. Is my flight path going to take me over the top of the storm? Through the top? Through the middle? Upwind or downwind? We're talking activity at 30'000ft +.

          By the way- a few years ago, I was blown away that aircraft have on-board systems to detect wind shear ahead of the aircraft...

          ...that's some pretty sophisticated stuff, so (issues acknowledged) maybe better hail detection is not too far off.
          Out of interest, do you know how the predictive windshear system works? You might be interested to read up about its major limitation... it doesn't work if its dry. Same problem as ice detection.

          Comment


          • #20
            There was no reason for you to act like a complete troll in this post. You're making a false assumption that those of us in this community who aren't pilots are complete morons about aviation. I can assure you that while I don't have as much aviation knowledge as you do, I still know a lot more then your average Joe about commercial aircraft.
            Actually, no. The response had nothing to do with the age old assumption that the professionals think others are ignorant. You'd be surprised how much we never make that assumption, as aviation is a topic that a lot of people know a lot more about than you'd ever think.

            The response was directly in return to you demonstrating ignorance and calling for the completely unfounded and ridiculous punishment of professional aviators based on no knowledge of this specific topic.

            If you want to accuse professional pilots of being cowboys and being in need of discipline and retraining, then you'd better be bloody sure of your ground. You can insult our colleagues all you want, but you cannot be surprised when we bite back in defence when you are demonstrating no real understanding of the matter at hand.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MCM View Post
              This is from a relatively small number of very powerful radars (that in some cases are nearly as big as the aircraft we are flying), with rooms full of computers and meteorologists to back them up. This kind of detail is not available in every city, let alone over the oceans where the majority of weather we have to deal with exists. Our radars are getting bloody good - but they have limitations.
              Message received & appreciated ...

              ...just the parting shot that a zillion dollar plane full of hundreds of people might be a valid reason for the big ass radars and rooms full of meteorologists to provide reasonably timely hail data to aircraft via some electronic data stream?!?!?...

              ...and I will repeat that hail doesn't seem to be a particularly big factor on bringing down airliners (other than trashing classic 747's and getting obscure discussion boards all worked up), so I won't kick and scream and yell that this new safety item (thought up by pimple-faced-arm-chair-flight-simmers) should be instated IMMEDIATELY or all pilots will be shot.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                As a card carrying member of making overly-bold, recto-cranial-inversion statements, let me say that Boeing Bobby was not necessarily out of line in his reply. Yeah, he's a bit closed minded and sucks at explaining stuff, but you were way over the top, and displayed a strong lack of knowledge.

                To slightly embellish your statement- "Look at these stupid, reckless pilots who negligently and knowingly flew straight into severe turbulence and hail- they should be fired and charged criminally".

                Try to take this as a lesson in word choice and, in the future, pause for a moment and ask if there might be some other, underlying cause as to why some guys did something that seems to defy layman logic...which may seem to be reasonable, but unfortunately, is sometimes wrong...
                I never indicated in the slightest that I thought that the pilots were stupid, or that they should be fired. "Disciplined" is what, AFIK, the Asiana Airlines pilots who crash landed that 777 in KSFO went through. AFIK, they were never fired.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                  A dubious achievement at best, especially when your claim thereto is not backed by your actions.
                  How was it not backed my actions?? If you're going to insult someone, at least explain what you're talking about. The reason I reacted the way I did is that, although I know that radar on commercial aircraft cannot detect hail, it can still detect severe weather, and there is an unwritten rule (it's not a law) that you don't fly within 20 miles of a thunderstorm. If you want a source for that, it's in this book, which was written by a Delta Airlines pilot: http://www.amazon.com/Take-off-Landi...=ed+sternstein Yes, thunderstorms can build up quickly, and yes there can be a very long wall of them, but there are also alternate airports on every flight like this, and pilots do talk to and warn each other about bad weather.

                  And before anyone brings this up, I am a firm believer that ALL airline passengers need to keep their seat belts fastened while seated, regardless of whether or not the fasten seat belt sign has been switched on.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    What if the crew was dealing with Chinese and North Korean airspace and ATC refused to let them deviate. Would that change your thinking on this incident?

                    With that said, you always have the option of declaring an emergency and taking the matter into your own hands, but it gives you something to think about.
                    Parlour Talker Extraordinaire

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by MCM View Post
                      Hail and ice crystal icing are two completely different issues. There is absolutely 'clear air hail' - depending on your definition of clear air. IE as BB says there is a risk of hail tens of miles 'outside' a cell. Similarly for ice crystal icing.
                      But MCM, while I stand corrected on 'clear air hail' (I'm aware that lightning can also strike far from a storm center), this incident was apparently a case of flying into a nasty weather system. While the radars might have misjudged the precip, could something like what is described in the story be painted as benign on radar (assuming the tilt is where it ought to be)?

                      Curious... looking at the damage to the radome, with no apparent damage to leading edges and no report of fan damage or engine surges... are civilian transport radomes as robust as they should be? Are they as robust as military jets? Military jets traditionally had black radomes as the polyelastomer paint used to protect them was only available in black. That is no longer true. It can now be color matched with modern products, so it can also be applied to commercial liveries.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I would say in these cases its not a case of the weather seeming benign, but just not seeming as bad as it was. We fly through weather you wouldn't describe as benign all the time - its a case of putting on the seatbelts and choosing the best path through. Once in a while it turns out the weather is a lot worse than you thought, which is probably what happened here. They wouldn't have been expecting no weather/turbulence, just nothing compared to what they actually encountered.

                        As for Radomes, I suspect it is because they are considered largely expendable. They're a separate, readily removable/replaceable part that isn't structural. New technologies are unlikely to be retrofitted to existing fleets, but you might see them on new types.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by UALdave View Post
                          How was it not backed my actions?? If you're going to insult someone, at least explain what you're talking about.
                          A wise policy indeed, and one you'd do well to follow yourself.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            B
                            ... are civilian transport radomes as robust as they should be?
                            This should be good. Just how robust SHOULD they be?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by UALdave View Post
                              I never indicated in the slightest that I thought that the pilots were stupid, or that they should be fired. "Disciplined" is what...
                              I never indicated in the slightest that you indicated in the slightest...

                              I suggested you evaluate word choice, just like I chose to use the word "embellish"...
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Back on topic please. Stop the squabbling please.
                                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X