Hailstones [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

touch&go

28th May 2003, 01:19

To save other browsers time in pressing your mouse button once, here's the story := := :=

Passengers on a Manchester-bound holiday jet were subjected to a horrifying ordeal when their plane was punctured by hailstones in a freak lightning storm.

Hailstones the size of golf balls smashed into the aircraft, punching a hole the size of a football into the nosecone.

The drama happened as more than 200 passengers returned to the UK from a holiday in Cyprus.

The aircraft dived as it was buffeted by turbulence at 34,000 ft sending passengers sprawling into the aisles and leaving them in fear of their lives.

The drama on the bmi Airbus A321 happened as it cruised over Germany on its way back to Manchester from Cyprus.

Passengers only realised the full extent of the mid-air drama when they got off the plane when it landed at Manchester Airport.

Bruce Johnstone, 47, a photojournalist who, with his wife Janet, owns a series of radio stations in New Zealand, took pictures of the damaged plane after he got off.

He said: "It was like a hail of bullets and then a huge thump. Everyone was screaming and we are lucky to be alive. Everyone clapped and cheered when we landed."

Flight BD8412 got into trouble two-and-half hours into the four-and-half-hour trip from Larnaca in Cyprus.

A spokesman for Manchester Airport confirmed the plane had been damaged by a lightning strike and a hail-storm. He said air accident investigators had been informed.

nitefiter

28th May 2003, 01:29

After seeing the pictures on the Beeb it must have been severe.Im not about to criticise anyone here but i want to ask why no diversion?

LGW Vulture

28th May 2003, 01:31

According to the BBC....

"The BMI Airbus 312 was flying to Manchester Airport from Cyprus when it encountered heavy turbulence"

Well done Beeb AGAIN!!

Max ROC

28th May 2003, 01:54

According to BBC (local North West NEWS)......

It was BMI baby

Didn't know they had buses!

sideshowbob

28th May 2003, 02:04

If anbody needs a good example of hail damage to an aircraft if your passing through lyon have a look in the corner of the apron and you will see a very badly damaged/written off tri motor windscreens smashed and all over dents to boot!...The only thing you can think about this incident with the bus is the weather radar was knackered or not switched on...?
Must have been fairly scary for the flight deck crew too!:sad:

JAFCon

28th May 2003, 02:29

If thats the damage to the Radome, I expect the engine,s are wrecked as well not to mention, wing leading edges, horizontal & vertical stabilizer. It would be nice to see somemore pics.

Final 3 Greens

28th May 2003, 02:44

LGW Vulture

It may have started the flight as a 321 but after that battering it probably only is a 312 now:)

hobie

28th May 2003, 02:52

certainly from the views shown by Sky News these guys got a real battering ......

BMI Buses? ....... how many do you want? ...... here's the fleet .....

http://www.flybmi.com/bmi/en-gb/sectiondetails.aspx?p=232

cheers ....

qwertyuiop

28th May 2003, 03:45

nitefiter.

Why do you think they should have diverted? A bit of fibreglass (radome) was smashed and a windscreen cracked. It's not going to cause any serious problems is it?

Mach Buffet

28th May 2003, 04:19

nitefiter,

couldn't agree more.

Some serious questions need asking as to why a captain would choose not to land at the nearest suitable airport having suffered serious and unquantifiable damage, but instead continues on cruising for another hour.

Perhaps questions need asking as to the safety culture or lack of it at Midland.

Let's not forget that it was one of their A321's that tailscraped on landing at Dublin, then had a presurrisation failure on the next departure, and continued unpressurised all the way back to LHR. That's when I stopped flying with them.

Flap 5

28th May 2003, 04:29

The question that has to be asked is why did the Captain fly in to the hailstones? That severity of weather would have shown up as purple on his weather radar. You never fly through such weather returns. To do so is dangerous, as this Captain has now found out!

As we know turbulence does not show up on weather radar, but hailstones are harder than rain and will give a very strong radar return.

unwiseowl

28th May 2003, 06:16

Turbulence does show up on most radars less than about 10 years old. Hail does not give as strong a return as would rain.

Tandemrotor

28th May 2003, 06:20

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a nagging feeling that, actually hailstones themselves, being ice, may not show up on Wx radar.

I have no connection with Midland at all, but I do know that Wx radar is not quite the perfect tool that some are implying.

Should we wait for the facts perhaps??

paulo

28th May 2003, 06:55

Tonight's telly: "...but British Midland have said that they will be checking the aircraft thoroughly."

No mention of repair though. :}

faultygoods

28th May 2003, 11:07

:O wx radar? the radar on bmi buses will show up hail.
why didnt he divert? at the time the extent of the damage was not known or even suspected to be as bad as it is. and its bad.the a/c could be grouned for days yet.:{ all engine parameters also other systems appeared normal. and to answer the question about the safety culture with midland, safety is paramount, no question and as regards to the tail scrap your info is right however i would like to point out that Team FLS as they were did the T/R inspection in DUB. NOT midland personnel. bmi Baby only operates B737s. the air bus is from bmi (mainline as its called)effectively 2 separate airlines.
ok chaps

DrSyn

28th May 2003, 12:52

I will not comment on the specific incident as, like most of the foregoing posters, I have no reliable information on it. However, I should like to post a helpful observation based on experience and would add that I have never flown an Airbus, nor with a radar that can "detect turbulence."

Modern, computer-interpreted WX radar systems (X-band) push out less energy than the earlier ones - typically with the orange CRT screens and "iso-echo holes" (C-band) which I am sure are still around in great number. We have discussed this on PPRuNe previously and there is an excellent set of threads on Tech Log (http://www.pprune.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=15), under Useful Website References.

As Tandemrotor implies, ice does not show up too well on modern equipment which is designed to bounce off water. "Benign" water is intended to show up as green on my 75/767 kit. Yellow, red (and further colours of the rainbow in other fits) are used to indicate increasing densities of moisture. After two quite exciting encounters with green returns in the cruise, I realised that above (say) FL250 anything that was green must have been flung-up from below at great speed and had no right to be there. At FL390 it was surely out of place.

Since then, when cruising "above" an active area, I have used 4-down / 40nm and flown around the returns without further incident. Obviously, in active areas, and especially in the tropics, you are routinely faced with weather penetration during climb and descent, taking the "greenest" path you can find on your screen and previously ensuring that the cabin is secure.

In the cruise, treat green as potentially dangerous. Hope this helps someone, some time.

Wig Wag

28th May 2003, 15:46

A thought provoking incident.

As usual, in these minor incidents, we never hear the story told from the pilots or the airline. Unless the damage warrants an AAIB report the wider aviation community probably won't here the full details. The pilot will submit a safety report to the airline but we won't get to read it.

Of course, the media wheel out the guy from BALPA, a few extravert passengers and their own weather expert. None of these can give any clue to the operational situation the Captain was in.

Should he have diverted? You really have to know everything about the incident to challenge the decision. The aircraft was clearly flyable at cruise altitude. If a low speed handling check was required then home base would probably be the better option with less fuel in the tanks. One hopes that the Captain
was not worried about an adverse reaction by management to a diversion. If he was worried then the airline needs to re think its safety culture. His decision would have to be respected in any case.

Could the hail have been avoided? Freak weather phenomena are a hazard. Without seeing the met for the route and having a record of the radar returns it is not possible to judge either.

What would be helpful to the wider community is a national database of safety reports. I suggest some kind of system where you can see all the incidents pertaining to an aircraft type irrespective of airline. At present reports are in company and that diminishes general learning.

blue belly

28th May 2003, 15:47

thanks for the tips...No one seems to know what exactly is the best procedure- every one has ther own ideas- I have had similar experineces with hail- it just doesn't show, luckily we could fly around it all and was very impressive to see it falling to the ground!......My technique is very simliar to yours Dr Syn...

slingsby

28th May 2003, 16:26

I note that Manchester Airport spokesperson had mentioned AAIB had been informed, interest will mount when this report if any is published.
On the subject of diverting, the thought had to have crossed his mind seeing as though there was significant upset and very obvious (windshield) damage. The bang everyone felt and heard ?? may well have been attributed to the lightning strike ?? but as we know that is not a cause for diversion unless significant internal (systems) damage has been caused ?? Every passenger will describe severe turbulence as screaming in the aisles, plane plunging, and banging and crashing about.
The captain is in command of that aircraft and he will stand by his decision to continue the flight.

Anyone have any further info on sigmet local weather where the incident occurred, as he should have reported this turbulence to ATC so others can avoid.

Land ASAP

28th May 2003, 16:55

Were the crew on duty doing a MAN-Cyprus-MAN (A very long day) or was it just a Cyprus-MAN?

Loved the ceefax report saying the "8 crew were applauded for their excellent landing". Big cockpits in those A321's eh?

Flap 5

28th May 2003, 17:08

It is interesting that some say that hail does not show up on radar. All of the radars I have used on A320/330 have shown it up. Maybe it is because there is always a mixture of heavy rain with the hail in the cu nim? That definitely shows up as purple! But it is not an exact science as DrSyn points out.

Kwasi_Mensa

28th May 2003, 17:18

bmi Baby only operates B737s.I flew in a BMIBaby Fokker 100 recently?

Panman

28th May 2003, 17:22

Slingsby don't forget the punters also like to use the classic "I thought we were going to die!!" quote.

amanoffewwords

28th May 2003, 18:01

Every passenger will describe severe turbulence as screaming in the aisles, plane plunging, and banging and crashing about.

I was on a night flight (a 146 I think) from Amsterdam to Gatwick 2-3 years ago when exactly that happened to us in a severe storm/gale force winds - we were informed by one of the pilots that we were GA due to an MD80 diverting (on finals I guess) ahead of us but that our aircraft was capable of handling the weather conditions.

Yes it felt like a roller coaster, yes the plane was bouncing around like a yo-yo, sometimes I couldn't even tell if we were upside down or going nose-down to the ground. In fact the wind was so severe I wasn't even aware we had landed when we did since we were severely being jostled about the runway too. There were people on the plane screaming, some were praying, some were being sick, some items flew out of the overhead bins, some of the catering equipment broke loose etc. And oh dear, even the CC looked like they'd lost of bit of colour.

I wish the w*****s that keep on stating on this forum that passengers over-exaggerate the conditions would stop treating us like idiots. We are not in control of the aircraft, we are not aware of the physical limitation of the aircraft, we do not know if the pilots are competent to handle the situation or are under pressure to get the airplane back to the correct hub (don't come telling me that it hasn't happened before).

I have been on many flights with bad turbulence, esp. mid-west USA and over the Alps - and I, and I'm sure most passengers, can tell the difference between a few bumps and the severe turbulence as described above. What do you expect, that we should come off praising the pilots for savings us from having to go to Chessington for the same experience? Don't get me wrong the whole crew of that flight were excellent in the way they dealt with it, my hat goes off to the PF for coping with the conditions, though I have a little doubt that a divert would have been preferable to save us from the experience. Unsurprisingly I haven't set foot on another plane since then and, at the moment I would rather not to since the events of that night. The comments I read from 'professional' pilots or even 'professional' aircraft maintenance engineers aren't exactly encouraging either.

If you haven't been directly involved in the incident either as crew or pax I would suggest you refrain from commenting/criticizing other people's accounts of events in such a childish manner, :mad: and especially when the facts are not out yet (ie AAIB).

'nough said.

ps. Oh yeah, we clapped too, possibly out of nervousness more than anything.

Lemoncake

28th May 2003, 19:18

Regarding AAIB reportability, as far as I am concerned there is no doubt that this incident justifies an investigation. Afterall a baggage truck striking a fuselage causing relatively minor damage is a reportable occurence according to the AAIB reports. Surely any incident causing damage to the airframe of a public transport aircraft would be checked out, and as a result recommendations made.

Bodie

28th May 2003, 19:39

amanoffewwords

For a man of few words, you can't half talk. Calm down dude.

I have been in a/c in severe conditions too. I still think the news and passengers exaggerate.

Oh, and I didn't have to resort to swearing in my post!

moggie

28th May 2003, 20:05

It is my understanding that weather radars are quite good for showing WET hail but not DRY hail.

So, if your hailstorm is a sleety one you are OK, otherwise...............

blueloo

28th May 2003, 20:16

the collins WX radar on the 767 will as mentioned by a few others only show the wetter returns....hail does not show up terribly well, and some storms you just have to go through, doing of course the best you can to avoid the yellow and definately the red/magenta returns on the wx radar....of course WX radars play up, and in many cases you can see a difference between the left and right WX radar systems. It also depends on how that WX radar had been calibrated and last but not least the individual using it.......

Everyone has different ideas about how to get the best picture from it, so there are a few variables and it is not always just a matter of "why didnt he avoid the hail"

FlyingV

28th May 2003, 21:19

Don't know much about radar, but as ice is less dense than water I would have thought hail would give a weaker return than rain?

Commando

28th May 2003, 23:35

Ice is only VERY slightly less dense than water! Pardon my grammar!

Touch'n'oops

29th May 2003, 00:03

From the ever correct JAR centre in the Netherlands:-

*Wet hail gives the best returns
*Dry SMALL hail gives very small returns!

There we have it, the almighty and accurate JAR word has been spoken!! :rolleyes:

Bring on the RNAV paper!!!!

EH8

29th May 2003, 01:43

Amanoffewwords........Well Said!!!!!!!!

hailstone

29th May 2003, 02:16

who called ?

:D

birdstrike

29th May 2003, 02:55

Am I the only one who finds it sickening that the 'expert' David Learmonth finds it necessary (Daily Mail 28 May) to instantly place the blame on the crew. Why is this guy given any credence whatsoever?

lomapaseo

29th May 2003, 03:06

Hailstone
who called ?

Just look at what you've done to a perfectly good airplane

for shame :O

Tandemrotor

29th May 2003, 04:56

birdstrike

Ah David Learmouth!

Don't get me started. The guy is a complete gasbag, who makes me cringe every time I see him on my TV, or read his name in a paper. But he's got to do something to bring home a crust on the basis of no talent or scruples whatsoever!

'credence' - You said it!

UncleFester

29th May 2003, 05:14

Well, coming out of Split in a C130 a few years ago we had a similar incident. Following a procedural departure, a route check as well, nothing severe showing on (lets face it a crap e290) radar. We hit the most severe turbulence and hail I have experienced going back some 40 years!. The pax, all marines, were strapped in and thought it was great fun. We had no indicatios of damage in the cockpit so continued to Edinbrough. On taxying in the marshallers eyes were like organ stops!! When we looked the nose cone was completely shredded, spinners dented, IR pods trashed and leading edges dented in a few places!!! There was no change to the radar picture even with this nose cone damage. If there was an easy way of posting pictures I could show you this lot.

The point is, don't blame the pilots, there may not have been anythign showing on the radar. Its all too easy these days to point the finger without knowing the full facts.:}

timmcat

29th May 2003, 06:07

I flew in a BMIBaby Fokker 100 recently?

So did I.. (in standard BMI livery) I understand they use 146's too on occasion.

pigboat

29th May 2003, 09:34

Depending on the size of the storm, you can encounter hail a fair distance - say five miles or so - downwind of the actual cell while in the clear.

flappless

29th May 2003, 12:11

I flew in a BMIBaby Fokker 100 recently?

bmi mainline Fokker 100's have been helping out at bmi baby. A couple of weeks ago there were still one or two at EMA. I don't know what the latest is. Be assured that bmi baby do NOT operate anything other than B737 aircraft.

As for the issue raised in this thread.....

Its all too easy these days to point the finger without knowing the full facts.

I agree. NONE of us have any HARD facts about what happened on this flight. Some of the press reports I saw yesterday were even worse than usual as far as coverage of an aviation incident is concerned. My understadning is that the AAIB HAVE to be involved in this one and therefore there WILL be a report which I have no doubt we will all be able to see. Let us make our judgements then !

Have a good day !

Ramp van

29th May 2003, 19:37

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I flew in a BMIBaby Fokker 100 recently?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So did I.. (in standard BMI livery) I understand they use 146's too on occasion.

Right now youv'e confused me, what is BMI's standard livery nowadays:=

clockworkclown

29th May 2003, 22:02

The 321 wx radar does not seem to work as well as 320 radar. I have flown into weather which was not painting on the radar. Apparently, the radome material and the design of the radome have been changed to allow the predictive windshear to operate at its optimum. The radomes have subsequently been fitted to all 321's whether or not they have PWS fitted. The result of this is that the non PWS weather radar does not work as well as the PWS fit radar.

Max Angle

29th May 2003, 23:18

Interesting comment about the radomes, I have always felt that the A320/A321 radar was not as good as it was on the 737 and maybe thats the reason. Can't recall if the A321 seems worse than the 320 but I will have a think about it next time I use it. I often seem to look out of the window and think "well that should be painting" and the radar shows nothing.

NigelOnDraft

30th May 2003, 00:20

While we're on a topic about Wx Radar performance, what difference does the radome being painted black make?

Noticeable the older aircraft had black radomes, and newer aircraft / and or "maketing driven" airlines paint them all sorts of other colours...

NoD

TopBunk

30th May 2003, 01:29

One thing I personally dislike about the A320 radar is that the brightness control is independent of the ND brightness control - I think that they should be the same thing.

The design means that you can have the radar switched on, but not visible because the brightness is well down. Not clever design IMHO.

30th May 2003, 03:36

Phew, I think I'll have a pint or two after that! (http://www.pbase.com/image/17186428)

hobie

30th May 2003, 04:50

AJ .... that was just the photo I was looking for ......

cheers ......

javelin

30th May 2003, 15:28

I beliebe that the radar on the 320 and 321 are different in as much as the 320 sweeps but the 321 does not and is more of a phased array. I saw the aeroplane this morning at MAN with it's new green radome. Didn't see any other damage but our lot had a similar occurence a while ago that did many many thousands of dollars of damage with cracked windscreens and tail leading edges. Beware big blobs on your screen !

arcniz

31st May 2003, 04:25

Or on your couch, in the sock drawer, coffee, etc.

Training Risky

1st Jun 2003, 03:10

I read somewhere that bmi are re-naming the A321 to 'Daniella' in honour of said actress....

.... due to the aircraft's nasty encounter with snow, sustaining serious nose damage while flying high!

:)

FlightDetent

1st Jun 2003, 04:01

It has been mentioned that A320's radar MAY be inferior to those on 737s.
On the contratry, the wise man beside me (A310, ATR, 737 in that order) claims that 737 has the least useful radar he has flown. I myself have little relevant experience on 737 as of yet, but from what I have seen last week over Balkan and associated WXR returns, I'd agree it's good for keeping the ship in one piece perhaps, but not for avoidance required to keep the drinks pouring.

Anyone here with experience on both types dare to compare? Or perhaps just a link to a proper post?

jshg

1st Jun 2003, 18:38

The wx radar on the A300-600 is not particularly good. If gain is left in 'cal' - as Airbus recommend - it picks up nothing except at very, very short range when it's too late to do anything. I leave it on 50% gain.

320DRIVER

2nd Jun 2003, 06:54

Its time to get your boss to buy you one of these (http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/WXR-2100.html?smenu=104).

Anthony Carn

2nd Jun 2003, 14:22

Its time to get your boss to buy you one of these.
Even that may not be good enough for some -- you still have to remember to turn it to "ON" yourself. :rolleyes:

dicksynormous

3rd Jun 2003, 02:04

Stop all the waffle, its blatently obvious it was pilot error either in avoidance or use of the radar. lets call a spade a spade. any night summer charter pilot who thinks differently will surely be next.
1. radar on
2 monitor
3 correlate with radio trafic and visual indications where you can.
4 scan down (100 feet per degree per mile.)
5 do what you get paid for. avoid conservatively.
its not your ego thats paramount its pax safety and comfort.

put down paper/hosty/ high horse and get on with it.

only one thing can save them and that is a proven faulty radar.

and i dont want to hear any nonsense about second guessing some commander on the day. if you do somethin stupid or careles when exercising this holier than god command you will be answerable.

rant over.

unwiseowl

3rd Jun 2003, 06:52

Dixy, I hope you get the same consideration if you have a mishap. And I know we can expect a more intelligent response fron the AAIB.

Anthony Carn

3rd Jun 2003, 18:00

And I know we can expect a more intelligent response fron the AAIB.
They are the least of the crew's (sorry, Captain's) worries, I suspect !

Lets see how BALPA do on this one ! No prizes for guessing correctly.

(I'm assuming a non-management Captain)

"All hail to the management" ? -- sorry, could'nt resist !

stormcloud

4th Jun 2003, 18:39

dicksynormous,

Think you got it wrong mate, should be egosynormous and presumably your halo glows as well.:yuk:

The company and the AAIB will ask the appropriate questions and all will be revealed in time.

1. It may have been u/s.
2. If it was on then you have to monitor it 'cos its on the ND.
3. They may have been avoiding more obvious weather.
4. See 3
5. They did what they are paid for and got it down safely.

They may only need saving from YOU.:mad:

No I don't fly for bmi!

Anthony Carn

4th Jun 2003, 20:24

stormcloud
No I don't fly for bmi!
If that's the case, then you're in no position to have any experience of the culture within that company, nor to know what sort of questions they ask in situations such as this.

You obviously assume that "appropriate questions", to quote you again, are the norm within all companies.

stormcloud

5th Jun 2003, 02:00

AC,
Any company will ask questions to find out what happened which would be appropriate. If they are not happy we will presumably hear of the outcome.
I don't think its 'blatantly obviously pilot error' as stated by dicky and that was my point.
I may have been at bmi in the past, you don't know.
Having done the union rep time and been there when the questions were asked I may have more insight than you give me credit for!
I also assume that the AAIB will ask the appropriate questions as well if they are involved.
By the tone of your post you appear to have been bitten in the past. Some support for your colleagues would'nt go amiss instead of the guilty as charged stance you appear to support.

stormcloud

Uncle Cracker

5th Jun 2003, 15:52

Sideshowbob

Didn't do the pax much good either, I can tell you.
:eek:

PS Sorry I'm late - I was sat on a Welsh mountain with no laptop.

hanger35

6th Jun 2003, 02:23

Has anybody read the book "The Day the Sky Fell Down The story of the Stockport Air Disaster" by Steve Morrin. The book says that British Midland has had 6 fatal air crashes since 1961 did anyone no that?

dicksynormous

7th Jun 2003, 17:46

Storm cloud , your point 2, word one, says it all.

also whats it got to do with ego. there is a good chance that if they had been doing what they are paid for in the first instance , they wouldnt have had to do what they are paid for later on.

proper use and monitoring , followed by a very wide berth of weather will keep you out of most trouble. as i was out and about the same time i know there was nothing around out of the ordinary.

you state in a later post that we should give a colleague more support or words to that effect. dont assume that because i share a qualification with other people that i have some sort of brotherly bond. nothing could be further from the truth particularly in an industry (uk aviation) infested with pomposity , snobbery and general arrogance.

oh by the way cute little icon, wash your mouth out.

wooof

8th Jun 2003, 00:39

Smalldick said-

"nothing could be further from the truth particularly in an industry (uk aviation) infested with pomposity , snobbery and general arrogance."

I don't know about pomposity and snobbery but you sure as hell fit the arrogance catagory very well.

Training Risky

8th Jun 2003, 00:58

Hear hear Woolf, Dickistiny sounds like a guy who doesn't like his job, the way he describes it.

How about jacking it in to let the rest of us have a go eh? If you think UK civ air is full of what you so elegantly describe.

stormcloud

8th Jun 2003, 05:36

Smalldick,
Interesting to see that Flight are quoting BMI as saying the 'radar did not show the hail'.:ooh:
Blatant mis- representation I expect you to say.:{ or are they all out to get you
;)
Toodle pip.

Dispatcher

8th Jun 2003, 23:37

I hear this aircraft is now in Toulouse with an expected repair time of 3 months !?!

Can this be true ? Anyone have any more info, seems an incredibly long time for what damage there was.

Anthony Carn

9th Jun 2003, 03:19

dicksynormous sounds to me like a straightforward guy who's been round the block a few times, lives in the real world and states his opinion directly and honestly.

It might be worth a review of his posts, especially if some of you do think of "having a go" yourselves. Some outfits are not for the naive.

Chillyfly

9th Jun 2003, 19:56

Hey guys

Don't post on here very often, but just wanted to pass on a word of support to the poor guys at the centre of this sitting at home and maybe reading some of the 'all seeing, all knowing' postings on here.

Firstly having flown for BMI in the past for 5 years I can say that they are as committed to a safe operation as any I have known, and have always taken the view that every incident has many solutions, and very few are all right or all wrong. Secondly, they don't give Commands away, and the man in the left hand seat was as competent and receptive to suggestions as any I have ever flown with, with BMI or my present employer.

I have flown aircraft with a supposedly properly calibrated and serviceable WXR that wasn't painting anything other than pastures green when I was looking straight at a text-book cell 20 miles on the nose. I have also flown with experienced skippers that elected to fly us straight through a red return in a 60 knot wind saying that the windspeed was causing a large doppler return, and that it was just precipitation. And guess what? They were quite right, not even a bump. I would never have believe it myself...

As for the diverting, well without wishing to get too embroiled, but personally if I didn't have any adverse engine readings, there were no pressurisation restrictions on a cracked screen, and the aeroplane was flying normally then I too would continue to the home base, an airfield I was familiar with, rather than strand it 700 miles from home. You've got to land it somewhere, just as much risk landing anywhere. And I'm sorry, but at least 50% of experienced crews would agree I'm sure. But as ever, it's always the detractors who shout loudest.

All I'm trying to say here is, there is always a small element of luck involved in this profession, our job is to minimise or negate it's effects on the safe outcome of the flight. But sometimes even the most competent get caught out. And of course we also occassionally witness the most incompetent getting through by the skin of their teeth. What we do all hope is that if we happen to be the poor ba****ds that get caught out or run out of preferrable options then our colleagues offer a little more professional courtesy and support, and not uninformed, presumptuous opinion.:ok:

Hudson

9th Jun 2003, 22:11

From "Your Guide to Weather Radar" - published by Rockwell Collins. Page 19. Quote:
The reflectivity factor for some forms of precipitation is difficult to determine. Hail, for instance, occurs in many forms such as dry particles, water coated particles and melted particles. Additionally, hailstones are irregular in shape and do not provide a consistent return. Water reflects about five times more radar energy than solid ice particles of the same mass. Unquote.

Further to my above. At high altitudes where the tops of Cb may be invisible on radar due dry ice crystals, some radar manuals recommend you switch from Cal. gain to Max gain. This extra power will often reveal a small return from the tops of a Cb - enough to alert a cunning pilot at night or in IMC that something big ahead is waiting to belt the daylights out of the aircraft. Simply adjust the tilt for confirmation. I have trundled around a hundred such monsters using that technique.

Also if obvious unhealthy clouds simply refuse to show up on radar except at very short range, then tell the technicians to closely examine the radome for pin hole leaks. Water gets into the inside of the radome and freezes. This coats the inside with ice and the radar is severely attenuated - that is, has little penetration. Hence apparent short range.

It is usually ground tested serviceable because by then the water has melted. Then on the next climb the moisture inside the honeycomb re-freezes - and so on. We found this by photographing various Cb when spotting them visually and then photographing the radar screen. Then we sent the results to the Bendix Radar people in USA and they in turn told us to check out the radome. Our techs did just that and located the pin hole leaks. The radome is removed and baked in a special oven to dry out the moisture and the holes repaired. Hey presto! a fully serviceable radar next time.

Chillyfly

10th Jun 2003, 01:37

"Water gets into the inside of the radome and freezes. This coats the inside with ice and the radar is severely attenuated - that is, has little penetration. Hence apparent short range."

Well there you go, I never knew that! Thanks for that. Makes you wonder why there isn't a more thorough training into practical use of WXR, for example nowhere within a/c tech manuals have I ever been able to find out the most basic information, like the cone angle, I've always had to dig it up elsewhere on tech forums.

dicksynormous

10th Jun 2003, 01:56

Stormcloud, do i detect a sense of humour lurking in the background?

training risky: i consider myself duty bound to stay in this fir and stop you getting a job.

anthony : thanks for your post its very difficult to voice a dissenting or non establishment post with out the standard british captain or their sycophantic wannabe apologists trying to shout you down.

my point, been there with and without radar in some stormier areas and in 12000 hrs not had that sort of problem with the modern facilities available so it is as obligatory to question the obvious possible errors as it is to give benefit of the doubt based on what happened and the sort of mistakes i've seen and made.getting away with stuff doesnt mean it wasnt potentially my fault.

however it seems to be a greater offence in general to question this god given command authority than voice an opinion.:ok: :E

stormcloud

10th Jun 2003, 21:43

Dicky,
As your 12,000 and my more humble 8,000 will show, a sense of humour comes near the top of the list.;)
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but equally, we should all be entitled to be properly judged and not damned by the 'GUILTY until proven innocent' line you rather blatently bellowed in your post.
I concede your point that we should question the obvious possible errors but questioning is very different from your original posting - 'obvious pilot error'.

dicksynormous

11th Jun 2003, 02:41

For the last time its dickSy,

ok remove "obviously" and insert "based on my experience it was probably".

By the way recent interaction in europe between bmi baby and ba.

ba requested 40 right to avoid. controller asked baby if they wanted the same as ba. Following same track.

no , followed by sarcastic comment from baby followed refering to ba qualifications.was the answer.

10 minutes later baby asked for 20 left to avoid same weather.(now downwind of extensive embedded)

Rather innapropiate considering recent events. also not a little damning