The airplane in the video cut it a little too fine for my taste. It looked like the rain shaft from the storm was centered not too far away from the runway. While they appeared to miss the worst of it, I don't see how they could have known they would. A fairly good chance of serious windshear seemed likely but didn't materialize. This time.
From the present comfort of my living room in a well rested state and with the full benefit of hindsight I can say I would have probably done it differently!
Seriously though...
Weighing the hazards associated with flying in close proximity to thunderstorms and deciding how close is too close involves a little more than can be expressed in a single simple statement. Guidelines contained in the company manual at my last outfit included the following minimum distances from thunderstorms:
Airport - 3 NM
Terminal area - 5NM
Enroute climb and descent - 10 NM
Cruise - 20NM
Additionally, the manual suggests that consideration be given to the size, intensity and motion of the storm(s) in question in determining whether the minimum distances are sufficient to avoid any lightning, hail and windshear hazards which might be present or likely.
Properly assessing the threat level of observed and forecast conditions then crafting strategies and tactics to minimize risk while maximizing the probability of mission success is the goal of that illusive quality called airmanship. Let's face it the safest thing to do is scrub the flight if the conditions are anything less than ideal. But that's not what we're here for is it?
So given the information I captured in one view of the video I believe I would have selected and/or negotiated a nice place to hold for a few minutes while the storm moved away from the airport then made another approach when I wouldn't have to fly so close to an active cell. But that's just me from the safety of my chair here at home.
Best,
westhawk