The radar on your aircraft probably was a conventional tilt based radar and the CX aircraft a RDR-4000. The RDR-4000 is a digital 3D volumetric scanning radar that gives very different display to the pilot. The RDR-4000 will display what is known as secondary weather which is weather which is not on your flight path as no return at all (black) or hashed out. Within 40 nm the radar can paint in magenta the enhanced turbulence detection areas, it does not work beyond that range. So you will hear crew close to an area identified by the enhanced turbulence detection feature of the RDR-4000 asking for further deviations.

So what you can see on a tilt based radar at a 80 nm range was weather much lower, where the RDR-4000 look at weather around the flight path taking into account earths curvature.

https://www.mygdc.com/assets/public_...s_RDR-4000.pdf

Maybe your question should be why are airlines like Air Busan encountering severe turbulence when there would have been CX crews who would have done two HKG-TPE return flights ( four sectors) that day without encountering any severe turbulence.

Maybe you should ask how the crew of CRK 6704 managed to injure 17 passengers on May 7 while the crews of the CX DPS, SUB, and PER flights that traversed the same weather did so without injuring any passengers.

Flying through a typhoon in cruise is a lot more comfortable and predictable at times than traversing the ITCZ.

its like trying to talk to teenagers........:{


Smile and wave boys, smile and wave. :*

You still aren't paying attention. The typhoon had moved north by then, it was somewhere over Naha. I accepted the routing having looked at satellite imagery - internet sourced, not provided by my company. They never give us anything that useful, so you better do it yourself. The picture was messy, the aftermath of the typhoon, but not the solid bands of concentrated CB activity seen in a typhoon. It was broken up enough to deviate around without requiring any magical CX skills (which of course I do not possess).

You still don't get it. You've really hooked onto that 'eye of the storm' thing.
Its the bands of intense CB activity in and around the typhoon that make it dangerous.

Get over yourself and move on.

Where?

Now this is interesting. Finally something useful!
No, we do not have your fancy RDR-4000 radar. Is that a bit like having 'shields' in Star Trek? Sounds great.
The problem for the rest of us (who don't have 'shields') is that when we ask for a re-route to avoid a typhoon our Management will say 'why you need re-route? CX is flying straight through it'. So at least now I can tell them to get stuffed, or buy us 'shields' too, like CX.

But what I really wanna know is - do CX shields really make the turbulence, icing, lightning and hail mostly 'deflect'? I mean, if there's no way through - does the shield kind of push the weather aside or what? Please explain more.

Shields up!
Honestly, I've no idea. Our company refuses to share incident info with us. **** happens all the time and all we hear is rumours of what occurred. Its really deplorable. It would never happen in CX of course.....

Incident: Cathay Pacific A333 near Hong Kong on Aug 26th 2016, windshield cracked in turbulence

All passengers discharged from hospital after CX708 turbulence incident, two crew still being treated (22:00)

Cathay crew, passengers hospitalized after turbulence

Actually no it does not, we get emailed updates with pictures and follow up action planned if any. Once the follow up action, usually if a tech issue, is carried out we get a further update as to the findings.

The three incidents over the past 8 years that you have linked to above were all reported to crew.

Which typhoon are we discussing here Algol? Typhoon MERANTI didn't track anyhere near Naha or the Naha FIR.

Bravo. That's how it should be done.

The one before Meranti. Things move fast around here, eh?

There is no issue with flying through a typhoon. There is an issue with flying through a CB. They are not the same. What appears to you on a conventional tilt based radar at 80 nm as yellow or red may not even paint on an RDR-4000. Your beam at 80 nm is around 24,000 ft, where the RDR-4000 will look at what is on your path. Have a look at that PowerPoint link above.

You are demonstrating a complete lack ATPL met knowledge here, cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons whatever the local name for a tropical revolving storm are navigated through at altitude the world over.

As for those CX incidents, one was hail, the other two CAT. As far as I know none of them occoured on cloud, unlike CRK6704 which penitrated a CB.

Typhoons are concentrated masses of CBs.

We have Digital Radar.
It's not your type. It's adequate, most of the time.

Bull****.

Hail comes from CBs, right? The shields didn't work, surprise surprise!
If I don't know what EXACTLY happened to HKA6704 - what makes you believe YOU know.
Speculation and rumour, that's all.

How's that axe grinding working for you, mate?

There's plenty of stuff you can scrutinize pilots for on a daily basis, but dodging weather succesfully without as much as a PIREP doesn't seem like one of them.

But don't worry. There will be another time and place when one of the CX flights actually makes an error in judgement. Then you can come on here and let them all have it.

I'm placing the two children on my ignore list, yes you two.

Just like having a sound proof play room for my kids.

Ahhhhh the silence is sweet.

This Algol character is like having a petulant child in the classroom, refuting any answer he's been given that doesn't comply with his anti-CX agenda (I'm not associated in any way with CX). Even the (interesting) information regarding the RDR-4000s was snidely met with calling them 'shields'.

I think the best idea is just to nod your heads and agree that, yes, all Cathay pilots know nothing and are very bad at flying in and around typhoons. Perhaps that will shut the derisive child up and he can go back to his FS2000.

I reckon ACMS's post has much merit, also.

CX has its 70th birthday coming up next weekend. The airline has been flying in a typhoon prone area its entire life, but according to Algol we have learnt nothing in all that time. Apparently we should wet our pants and go running to mummy any time there's a typhoon in the vicinity. Give me a break...

Algol just added to my ignore list. Can't take any more of his rubbish. Please don't respond to him/her.

Algol hits nail 'near' the head.
 

It's time to get off the fence, stop being coy and agree with Algol, with the minor correction that it's not our specially funded Hi Tech Radar Cloud Pushers that clear our way, it's just that we're so awesome that cloud parts for us.

Discuss.

And another one joins my ignore list. Welcome, it's getting bigger.

Hail is known to exist 30+ nm from CBs in clear air, as it is solid it is not picked well by Wx radar, you get very light returns. More basic ATPL met.

The info comes from the prelim accident report. On Jun 16th 2016 Indonesia's NTSC released their preliminary report stating in the factual part:

During the pre-flight, the pilots concerned to the weather chart which depicted significant clouds surround the planned route over Kalimantan Island. Respecting to the weather, the pilot requested additional fuel onboard for the weather diversion and also advised flight attendants that the flight would encounter turbulence in one hour after departure and make sure that the passengers secured the seatbelt when the seatbelt sign on.

The pilot noticed on the weather radar a clear path between build up cells on the right direction of the flight and the distance between build up cells was approximately 40 Nm. Thereafter the aircraft was turned to the right toward the clear path.

While flying in Flight Level (FL) 410 with seatbelt sign on, the pilot elected to fly on a clear path between build up cells. In the middle of the buildup cells, the pilots started to see a magenta color displyed on the radar and this was about 5 Nm ahead, the pilot decided to fly straight as buildup cells were on the left and right of the aircraft track.

At 1834 UTC, the flight encountered severe turbulence for about 2 minutes. The autopilot disengaged and the pilot flew the aircraft manually for about 6 minutes.

Three flight attendants and 11 passengers injured. After assessed the situation of the injured occupants, the PIC decided to return to Bali.

The NTSC reported that the aircraft encountered vertical accelerations between -0.63 and +1.9G and altitude deviations between 40,704 and 41,312 feet MSL (standard pressure) during the turbulence encounter. After assessing injuries on the way back to Bali ground stations were informed about serious injuries of two flight attendants and 5 minor injuries on board. After the aircraft landed, the NTSC provided a count of 3 cabin crew and 11 passengers receiving minor injuries, there were no serious injuries.

ACMS

Irony (from Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία (eirōneía), meaning "dissimulation, feigned ignorance"[1]), in its broadest sense, is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event in which what appears, on the surface, to be the case, differs radically from what is actually the case.

We do have this in Australia, but maybe not your Oztralia?

Gosh Mr White. Are you trying to appear clever? Hasn't worked BTW........

Jesus wept!

Don't feed the FS trolls.......

Got a reference for that? Not saying it not true - just interested in why you quote particular number.
The CX flight that encountered hail was climbing out of HKG according to AVHerald. Pretty busy airspace. Yet it was the only aircraft that seems to have reported a serious hail encounter. How come? Did all the rest succesfully avoid it (even without magic radar)?
You've missed the point mate, just as you've done all along. The point being '**** happens'. To EVERYBODY. The three examples of CX turbulence/CB encounters were not attacks on CX crews - they were an illustration that your attacks on OTHER crews are stupid and arrogant. You are as vulnerable to the elements as the rest of us.
I guess we'll have to wait for the outcome of the Official Report on that CX incident to find out exactly how many NM(30+?) they were from the nearest CB, and why nobody else took a hit. Were they not on a SID? Did they deviate into the WX?
Just bad luck I guess you'll say. Maybe it was indeed. **** HAPPENS.

Thanks for that Indo Report on HX6704. Never saw it before - pity we have to get our Air Safety data from PPRuNe, but thats the situation.
The report (in its crappy english) says the crew went for a gap between two cells 40Nm apart. The books say avoid severe CB cells by 20NM. So they apparently did what the book says, yet still got hammered. Tell us what you'd have done? Not forgetting of course that YOUR WX radar is far more advanced, and may have magical powers to make CB's dissolve before YOU get there.