DeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1364 times:
Does anyone know just how bad a storm can be before they cancel a flight trying to land or take off in it? And what are the effects of storms on planes landing, taking off, and cruising through them? Is there really much risk involved in flying through them? I know that sometimes airlines make pilots take off into storms that are really bad because they are really money crazy and don't want to lose much money (like the Singapore Airlines Crash). How worried should I be flying through a medium intensity t-storm?
JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 30 Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1299 times:
Ypou seem very uninformed considering your statments and perceptions about "money hungry risk taking pilots". You obviously have no clue and thats why I'm here to help.
First the singapore pilots hit a crane when taking off from the wrong runway. The weather wasn't a factor. Pilot error was.
Now for info on thunderstorm avoidance.
Thunderstorms have the potential to cause catastrophic devestaion to aircraft flyin in and in the vicinity of thunderstorms.
Thunderstorms are associated with softball size hail, severe windshear, torrential rains, and severe winsheaer and extreme turbulence. All having the potential to to bring down any airliner encountering these conditions.
You should be extremely worried about flying through a medium intensity thunderstorm. The FAA says you should be concerned when flying within 20 miles of a thunderstorm.
Pilots do not intentionally fly through thunderstorms. Modern advances in weather radar make avoiding thunderstorms possible in all but the worst circumstances.
Planes flying through thunderstorms have a better than good chance of not making it out in one piece.
Luckilly those money hungry pilots know how to avoid them.
DeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 1268 times:
I didn't mean ( I don't think I even said) that the pilots were money hungry, but I have heard quite a few stories of the actual Airlines making a pilot take off into a rough thunderstorm and causing problems. Someone I know actually flew through a typhoon. Also, as I recall, the Singapore Airlines crash was blamed on "Tunnel Vision" as the pilot wanted to get off just before the Typhoon hit and in his haste he used a closed runway and couldnt see the machinery on the runway. His tunnel vision was blamed on him being worried that the company would lose money and he'd be fired if he didn't take off on time.
BA747-436 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 1264 times:
OK a few more resons for the SIA crash are:
The lit up sign for the inactive runway was very dim and could not be seen properley from the 744.
There was no big cross at the start of the inactive runway, this would have stopped the aircraft emidiatley.
The pilotchose to use another runway to the usual one due to the weather conditions and thus was confussed when he apprached the inactive runway as it ran paralel with the active runway he was surposed to go on.
The control tower didn't know exactley were he was due to some of the ground navigation systems on board the 744 being inoperative, or not working well due to the weather.
So you can't just say that it was pilot error and leave it at that.
BA747-436 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1234 times:
Oh sorry mate, i didn't realise you were there and saw everything. You should talk to the FAA and there crash investgation team, becasue they still don't know what exactely happend and who was to blame. You realy should let them know why you are so sure it was 100% pilot error.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1213 times:
There aren't many airlines that will take off when the FAA has put a ground stop in effect for a given airport.
Airlines are not money hungry enough to face the liability stemming from making a pilot take off/land or fly into a thunderstorm. Look at the damage that hail did to jetliners in OMA and DEN that were parked at the gate...How much damage do you think would occur should an airliner encounter that at 300 or 400 mph?
Wang_Wei From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 1156 times:
At my airline (Yunnan) we receive the radar track to inform about the location of the storms. The problem is mostly for landing/rotation. But if storm is 'moderate' we avoid the landing if alternate airport is nearby. If severe storm, never landing at the airport - this big danger for plane 'slip' in rough air you see.
In the air, can fly around the storm, but sometimes have category called CAT (clear Air Turbulence). This very rare and difficult to track and can cause big problem, but modern civil plane is very strong built. Boeing wing is very flexible, and tail can move like fish so no problem, like suspension on the car! Russian plane like the tank also!
HeavyJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months ago) and read 1135 times:
>>Yup indeed there is a world outside the US.<<
Really, son? And I suppose you as a 13-15 yr old have seen it all, huh?
I got news for you. ALL thunderstorms, no matter where in the world they form, have the potential for producing hail, severve turbulence, destructive winds (windshear)and torrential rain. It's just the nature of the beast.
DeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1126 times:
Does anyone know the requirements to stop all inbound and outbound flight concerning storms?
I know some people that have both taken off and landed in some pretty rough storms at night. Thanks.
Leigh Pilgrim From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
We all have our own oppinions, and yes pilot error is to blame for the SIA crash but I dont think it was 100%, I asked one friend at my work and ATC inform pilots which runway to take off from, and also to inform them when it is clear to take off, the pilot should only go when they are told to by ATC, and ATC cleard them for take off which as we know now was wrong because they were on the wrong runway and as mentioned there were no clear signs to say runway closed,
JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 30 Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1115 times:
According to federal regulations the PIC is the sole and final authority as to the safety and operation of the aircraft.
I am an airline captain and understand my duties and responsibilities.
One of the last things I do before releasing the brakes and one of the most important is to make sure my compass and the runway correlate. Not to mention checking the runway number as I hold short, or approach the hold short line.
If there is any question in my mind as to what runway I am entering I will hold and verify with whatever means available to me where on the airport I am.
If the captain was cleared to take off or not....he should never accept a clearance that would put his aircraft in danger which is what he did due to poor CRM and crew situational awareness.
It comes down to PIC responsibility. He's the final authority.....thats how it works.
DeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1087 times:
Well lets look at the SIA crash this way...the pilot wouldn't have tried to use the closed runway if there were not moderate to severe storms in the area because he would have noticed that the runway was closed. This shows that the crash was not 100% pilot error, even though it was probably mostly pilot error.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4104 posts, RR: 38 Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1085 times:
DeltaOwnsAll... the FARs specifically states that "the buck stops here" for the PIC. The basic thing is that the pilot screwed up. The PIC has the option to reject any ATC clearance if deemed neccessary. There were contributing factors, yes... but as far as the FAA or NTSB or whoever is concerned, it is the pilot's fault for not being fully aware of where he was on the airport before spinning those engines up.
HeavyJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1079 times:
No accident ever occurs because of one thing. It's a chain of events or several little things that lead up to an accident/incident. We always talk about "links" in a chain of events and how to recognize them and break those links to prevent accidents.
Had it not been storming the crew probably wouldn't have lined up on the wrong rwy, been in a hurry, have gotten distracted, or all of the above. I'm sure the crew was probably very distracted with the weather in the area and their route of flight out of there once airborne. If it had not been storming the tower might have seen the crew's mistake and corrected it. They also probably would have made it if there hadn't been a crane on that rwy (even if it was the wrong one), or if the rwy lights had not been on the rwy they used. Had the crew looked at their moving map and seen the aircraft symbol was not on the rwy symbol which may have given them a clue that they weren't lined up on the correct rwy (assuming they had selected the correct rwy in the FMC data base).
As you can see, there were several links in this chain of events that led up to the accident.
While checking the rwy alignment with the compass is a good idea (a moving map is better!), in this accident it was a parallel rwy that the accident occurred on and wouldn't have affected the outcome. However, JETPILOT, I know what you're saying and I make it a habit also along with checking the flaps are down before hitting TOGA.
B727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
In Australia, we have cricket ball sized hail in severe thunder storms LOL
Seriously, probably knowing a bit more about the physics involved in meteorology than in aircraft design and behaviour, you should never treat a storm with contempt. This is particularly true at certain times of the year (depending on region).
There has been enough research into storms now to know how they will affect an aircraft, whether on takeoff, in flight, or landing. I would imagine there is a threshold point that a storm must reach before airlines and ATC would start moving things around it (I also imagine this is well before the local Bureau of Meteorology would classify the storm as "severe").
Just out of interest, in Australia a thunderstorm is rated severe when one of the following events occur. 1) intense radar echoes are observed above a height of 8km; 2) hail stone exceeds 2cm in diameter; 3) wind gusts exceed 90km/h; 4) flash flooding is reported; 5) tornadoes are spotted.
Chances are that once a storm tower has headed through 8km in height, you are going to get some of the other stuff anyway. This is also the point where you close the airport if it is in the storm path.
On 14 April, 1999, a storm like this went right over the top of Sydney Airport. Hail was measured at 9cm in diameter, causing many thousands of dollars damage to aircraft. Some of the parked aircraft had to have wing panels and control surfaces replaced (up to B767 size aircraft).
Aria From Iran, joined Oct 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1059 times:
No Wang Wei....it is not a joke, that storm did occur & cause the damage as reported....severe storms are common around the tropics, and many other parts of the world...as is CAT....frequently encountered, especially around jet stream activity, and can be extremely uncomfortable
B727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1047 times:
The storm that went through Sydney in 1999 is listed as the most expensive natural disaster in Australian history. Total cost was estimated at AU$2.3 Billion.
Both Ansett and Qantas had a number of their domestic fleet grounded for up to a week to have panels replaced due to the damage. Appart from this, it is estimated that 63,000 cars and 22,000 homes were damaged or, in the worst cases, destroyed. The hail was so large that it literally smashed roof tiles to rubble.
Amazingly, only one life was lost - due to lightning strike.
If you want to read more about this particular event, or weather in general, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has a great site set up.