AF 747 hit severe weather between Rio and Paris
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a 737 that encountered hail over Saudi Arabia of all places. The paint was stripped from the nose,engine inlet bullet fairings and nosecowl lips were dented and misshapen - no blade damage. Leading edge of the horizontal stab was beaten flat - wing leading edges not so bad presumably due to the sharper profile.Cleared for ferry flight only from Riyadh to Jeddah for extensive repair.
The question for me is why did they get airborne if weather was causing problems on the departure routes. A commentator on the avherald who departed before AF states that he had to deviate off the SID due to weather. Did AF fly the SID or did they deviate?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's just be thankful for small mercies - they didn't crash. A positive for AF.
Dum canem caedimus, corrosisse dicitur corrium.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We flew into a plume of hail during climb-out and OUT OF CLOUDS at about 16'000 feet. T'was daylight too, we never saw a thing. 10 seconds of sheer noise and terror. Paint neatly sandblasted from the nose-cone, no other significant damage. Luckily the MD-80 nosecone was cheap to replace.
Of course, as it was on departure from Catania, our wx-radar was being "spiked" by the equipment of the nearby AF-base, so in the long-standing tradition of proone, i blame the yanks
The point is though, we were clear of the CB tops, as much as we could afford to be while on a terrain-critical SID, and we did not see it coming in daylight, so it's hard to blame AF for hitting that stuff at night.
OTOH, around the same time i was allowed to inspect the nose and windshield of a korean 747 who thought it was a good idea to fly Milan-Zurich without a weather radar on a day with embedded CBs. The windshield was so shot to sh#t that after doing an autoland in ZRH he had to stop on the runway and be towed home....
Of course, as it was on departure from Catania, our wx-radar was being "spiked" by the equipment of the nearby AF-base, so in the long-standing tradition of proone, i blame the yanks
The point is though, we were clear of the CB tops, as much as we could afford to be while on a terrain-critical SID, and we did not see it coming in daylight, so it's hard to blame AF for hitting that stuff at night.
OTOH, around the same time i was allowed to inspect the nose and windshield of a korean 747 who thought it was a good idea to fly Milan-Zurich without a weather radar on a day with embedded CBs. The windshield was so shot to sh#t that after doing an autoland in ZRH he had to stop on the runway and be towed home....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question for me is why did they get airborne if weather was causing problems on the departure routes. A commentator on the avherald who departed before AF states that he had to deviate off the SID due to weather. Did AF fly the SID or did they deviate?
Should we ground all aircraft just because there is weather somewhere along the route? No, we fly, and deviate as needed.
Every now and then, not often, someone gets hail damage. It happens.
It happened, was dealt with, end of story.
BTW, bcgallacher, CBs in Saudi Arabia are very common.
Pegase Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dove :
I am not sure there will be a report published by BEA. This could be just normal ops, like electing to return afer a cracked windscreen due hail ?
It is the combination of the airline involved, the weather avoidance and the route, that makes it headlines news. It might be nothing more.
If on the other hand you have a crew blindly following a SID through a Cb , then you migh have a problem worth investigating, . But for the moment we do not know if that is thecase or not.
But let's wait the report to be published.
It is the combination of the airline involved, the weather avoidance and the route, that makes it headlines news. It might be nothing more.
If on the other hand you have a crew blindly following a SID through a Cb , then you migh have a problem worth investigating, . But for the moment we do not know if that is thecase or not.
If on the other hand you have a crew blindly following a SID through a Cb , then you migh have a problem worth investigating, . But for the moment we do not know if that is thecase or not.
"OK, crew flies into a CB, costing us a load of dough to repair the bird, are they nitwits or do our procedures allow them/encourage them to do this?"
A hard inward look might turn up some SOP or training issues, or it might not.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Catania
somewhere I have photos of a Windjet A320 written off by hail close to Catania, and it WAS written off ! The engineers showed me the radar antenna which was twisted like a piece of modern art. If somebody knows how to post images here I will send them across.
Lethal stuff.
Lethal stuff.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We used to teach that you keep 20 miles away form TS cells / lines since hail can be projected out of tops for some miles. From the AIM, IIRC. Con, your anecdote (50 miles) makes chills go up my spine.
So since then I used at least 50 miles as my buffer distance when downwind from thunderstorms, when I could get it. I also remember that the jet stream that day was really unusually strong for that time of year.
I was flying a Jet Commander, so tells you just how long ago this was.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wengen
Age: 53
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT
I have to say “excuse me safetypee not having given due attention and consideration to your post at the very first glance”.
If I had kept such an attitude I would have committed a serious offense against you, me, and all of our colleagues.
You state:
And this is the reason why prior to each flight we consult the flight dispatcher who informs us about the flight plan (route, time, distance, fuel consumption), Notams concerning more or less temporary changes on maps of the airport of departure , route, destination and alternate airports.
We are also informed about the significant weather conditions & forecasts and when necessary we are also given satellite photos.
If you mean that each of us has the bounden duty to know by heart systems, limitations, Emergency & abnormal procedures of his airplane, you're breaking through an open door.
It’s not with no reason that we are subjected to checks of all kinds every six months.
Because:
And the process of:
- Perception
- Identification
- Evaluation
- Intervention
Takes some time and attention, we have to divide the tasks between pilots: Crew coordination (SOPs are subtly emerging)
In the FOHB of all Carriers I flew for, for instance, is written, in capital letters, that it is forbidden to take off and land if there is a thunderstorm over the field. And so on…
Let me disagree.
Where do the SOPs come from?
Once upon a time we, young copilots, were forced to keep a small notebook in the pocket with the annotation of all the foibles of the various commanders..
With the advent of SOPs not any more.
I like to remember that nowadays we have also a procedure “Subtle Pilot Incapacitation.
" If a crew member does not respond after two calls, or one call during a deviation from the SOPs ... He can deduce the incapacitation of the other member and declare the ‘Emergency Authority’".
And:
During flight activity risky or dangerous situations may occur that need to be addressed and resolved.
Easy is the solution if the problem is covered in the QRH and / or manuals
The problem is by no means different is if it’s entirely new.
In this case, investigators will be forced to intervene after the event with:
- Engineering solution
Radical solution that substantially change the technical detail. Effective but very expensive.
-Control Solution
The danger or inconvenience is monitored using physical protection of Guarding a switch etc., Or changing STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.
Therefore, we must adhere to the SOPs if only for a debt of gratitude to those who have written them in blood.
Is it possible to deviate from SOPs?
Certainly! When it is necessary to reach a higher degree of safety.
So Long
I have to say “excuse me safetypee not having given due attention and consideration to your post at the very first glance”.
If I had kept such an attitude I would have committed a serious offense against you, me, and all of our colleagues.
You state:
Knowing that something is dangerous is an essential starting point,…
We are also informed about the significant weather conditions & forecasts and when necessary we are also given satellite photos.
…but it is the personal knowing…
It’s not with no reason that we are subjected to checks of all kinds every six months.
Because:
…at the time that the hazard which determines the threat – it has to be recognised and action chosen. …
- Perception
- Identification
- Evaluation
- Intervention
Takes some time and attention, we have to divide the tasks between pilots: Crew coordination (SOPs are subtly emerging)
...The choice (the forbidding) does not come from someone else...
…– SOP dependency, it’s you who has to consider the circumstances and apply personal rules – the ‘forbidding’ is guidance –..
Where do the SOPs come from?
Once upon a time we, young copilots, were forced to keep a small notebook in the pocket with the annotation of all the foibles of the various commanders..
With the advent of SOPs not any more.
I like to remember that nowadays we have also a procedure “Subtle Pilot Incapacitation.
" If a crew member does not respond after two calls, or one call during a deviation from the SOPs ... He can deduce the incapacitation of the other member and declare the ‘Emergency Authority’".
And:
During flight activity risky or dangerous situations may occur that need to be addressed and resolved.
Easy is the solution if the problem is covered in the QRH and / or manuals
The problem is by no means different is if it’s entirely new.
In this case, investigators will be forced to intervene after the event with:
- Engineering solution
Radical solution that substantially change the technical detail. Effective but very expensive.
-Control Solution
The danger or inconvenience is monitored using physical protection of Guarding a switch etc., Or changing STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.
Therefore, we must adhere to the SOPs if only for a debt of gratitude to those who have written them in blood.
Is it possible to deviate from SOPs?
Certainly! When it is necessary to reach a higher degree of safety.
So Long
Thank you DOVES.
The ‘knowing’ (not the best of terms), might represent your trust in the dispatch information; not the dispatcher, it’s the information. Weather will change, ATC will reroute, etc, expect them; this will require adaptable, flexible thought in managing the flight – your process - thinking.
SOP points – agreed; but SOPs are generally constraining – or more often pilots use them to constrain their thoughts. SOPs need not necessarily achieve a higher level of safety, but equivalency particularly where there is a choice, and where an SOP might not fit a situation as you see it; but most importantly you have to perceive the real situation, not just ‘know it’ based on dated information.
The 6 month check has no relation to how safe your next flight will be, nor will the FCOM restriction, particularly if the CB is not in sight – forecast yes, but 30 nm away; (was the CB over the airfield in this incident) – and how might ‘over the field’ be interpreted.
The ‘knowing’ (not the best of terms), might represent your trust in the dispatch information; not the dispatcher, it’s the information. Weather will change, ATC will reroute, etc, expect them; this will require adaptable, flexible thought in managing the flight – your process - thinking.
SOP points – agreed; but SOPs are generally constraining – or more often pilots use them to constrain their thoughts. SOPs need not necessarily achieve a higher level of safety, but equivalency particularly where there is a choice, and where an SOP might not fit a situation as you see it; but most importantly you have to perceive the real situation, not just ‘know it’ based on dated information.
The 6 month check has no relation to how safe your next flight will be, nor will the FCOM restriction, particularly if the CB is not in sight – forecast yes, but 30 nm away; (was the CB over the airfield in this incident) – and how might ‘over the field’ be interpreted.
Last edited by safetypee; 16th Nov 2013 at 22:46. Reason: typo
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dearest safetypee
Since your very first flight your instructor told you for sure that you have to stay ahead of your airplane, and not behave like what Demosthenes reproaches his fellow Athenians: "While Philip acts, you are here to discuss and make like the boxer who covers after he took the shot."
This translates to: plan , plan , plan and predict events, as far as it is humanly possible.
Today, also thanks to I-pad, I-phone etc., you can have a real-time enough detailed picture of the operating environment in which you are going to make your flight , and then decide in advance what to do, if necessary to postpone the departure or approach, divert, proceed to the alternate.
This does not mean of course (and here I come to you) that the unexpected is definitively overcome, indeed!
A shining example of management of the unexpected was offered to us by Captain Chesley Sullenberger on 15 January 2009, who was forced to make an emergency landing in the Hudson River shortly after takeoff , due to a bird strike that damaged both engines of his Airbus A320.
He found himself in a position like the engine failure in a single engine, and acted accordingly:
- Airpeed
- Best Place
- Check list
- Declare
- Emergency landing ( ooops! : Ditching )
With regard to the incident involving Air France 747, object of this post, let's wait and read something official to learn from their experience.
Since your very first flight your instructor told you for sure that you have to stay ahead of your airplane, and not behave like what Demosthenes reproaches his fellow Athenians: "While Philip acts, you are here to discuss and make like the boxer who covers after he took the shot."
This translates to: plan , plan , plan and predict events, as far as it is humanly possible.
Today, also thanks to I-pad, I-phone etc., you can have a real-time enough detailed picture of the operating environment in which you are going to make your flight , and then decide in advance what to do, if necessary to postpone the departure or approach, divert, proceed to the alternate.
This does not mean of course (and here I come to you) that the unexpected is definitively overcome, indeed!
A shining example of management of the unexpected was offered to us by Captain Chesley Sullenberger on 15 January 2009, who was forced to make an emergency landing in the Hudson River shortly after takeoff , due to a bird strike that damaged both engines of his Airbus A320.
He found himself in a position like the engine failure in a single engine, and acted accordingly:
- Airpeed
- Best Place
- Check list
- Declare
- Emergency landing ( ooops! : Ditching )
With regard to the incident involving Air France 747, object of this post, let's wait and read something official to learn from their experience.