JFK Thunderstorms
Let us not forget the L1011 tradgety at Dallas/Fortworth .
No two Thunder cells the same. Do not, i repeat do not underestimate the power within and in the proximity.
Better and more experienced pilots than most of us have been caught out. As the OP quite rightly suggests, why run the risk? Think of your passengers and crew, as we owe them that much at least.
We humans may think we have aviation "kicked to death". But we haven't and we never will
No two Thunder cells the same. Do not, i repeat do not underestimate the power within and in the proximity.
Better and more experienced pilots than most of us have been caught out. As the OP quite rightly suggests, why run the risk? Think of your passengers and crew, as we owe them that much at least.
We humans may think we have aviation "kicked to death". But we haven't and we never will
Last edited by Dan_Brown; 30th Jul 2019 at 08:20.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: constantly crossing the equator
Age: 38
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought PWS works on the principle of measuring velocity of droplets, not changes in airflow?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a well known manufacturer's FCOM:
The “W/S AHEAD” message is displayed on each PFD. The color of the message depends on the severity and location of the windshear.
Note:When a predictive windshear alert (“WINDSHEAR AHEAD” or “GO AROUND WINDSHEAR AHEAD”) is triggered, the flight crew must carefully check that there is no hazard. If this is the case, the flight crew can disregard the alert, as long as both of the following apply:
‐ There are no other signs of possible windshear conditions
‐ The reactive windshear system is operational.
Known cases of spurious predictive windshear alerts were reported at some airports, either during takeoff or landing, due to the specific obstacle environment.
However, always rely on any reactive windshear (“WINDSHEAR”).
The “W/S AHEAD” message is displayed on each PFD. The color of the message depends on the severity and location of the windshear.
Note:When a predictive windshear alert (“WINDSHEAR AHEAD” or “GO AROUND WINDSHEAR AHEAD”) is triggered, the flight crew must carefully check that there is no hazard. If this is the case, the flight crew can disregard the alert, as long as both of the following apply:
‐ There are no other signs of possible windshear conditions
‐ The reactive windshear system is operational.
Known cases of spurious predictive windshear alerts were reported at some airports, either during takeoff or landing, due to the specific obstacle environment.
However, always rely on any reactive windshear (“WINDSHEAR”).
Known cases of spurious predictive windshear alerts were reported at some airports, either during takeoff or landing, due to the specific obstacle environment.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you guys citing accidents from way back when WS was not so easily detected nor trained for?
The Delta accident was in 1979 (and on landing).
There were several contributing factors such as the lack of adequate equipment on the airport and on board the aircraft to detect the possibility of WS. The NTSB also determined that a lack of specific training, policies, and procedures for avoiding and escaping low-altitude wind shear was a contributing factor.
The point I'm making is that a great deal has evolved since then. For that reason I remain unconvinced that neither Delta nor KLM took any "risks".
The Delta accident was in 1979 (and on landing).
There were several contributing factors such as the lack of adequate equipment on the airport and on board the aircraft to detect the possibility of WS. The NTSB also determined that a lack of specific training, policies, and procedures for avoiding and escaping low-altitude wind shear was a contributing factor.
The point I'm making is that a great deal has evolved since then. For that reason I remain unconvinced that neither Delta nor KLM took any "risks".
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR, I don't disbelieve that for a moment. Not at all. I also don't for a moment believe that the Delta and KLM crews took any unnecessary risks at the exact time they departed. It's pure supposition by the OP. Finally, if the OP just wished to make a general point, why name one operator? Agenda?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discussing this few days ago.The imaginative mind can see problems that do not exist,but on the converse,a lack of imagination in our industry can bring on its own problems..
Jim_A puts it well,in the following post!
Jim_A puts it well,in the following post!
Last edited by Yaw String; 3rd Aug 2019 at 23:37.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: FL
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the inherent problems with this type of scenario is that it probably happens more often than we would like to admit, and having no unpleasant consequence the crews learn the wrong lesson. The phrase "normalization of deviance" comes to mind. Then something bad happens and everyone starts taking the radar returns serious again.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the twilight zone
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These things can still happen. Thankfully this time nothing serious happened.
Respect Convective Weather!
Respect Convective Weather!
