To Go or Not to Go
One aspect which I do not think has been mentioned on this thread is the issue of slot times.
To an extent I think "slotmania" has exacerbated this problem. If you know that missing the slot means a (further) lengthy delay this can colour the judgement of even the most safety conscious pilot.
All accidents are a combination of circumstances but I believe that the system of flow control does not, in this respect, encourage us to ensure safe flight.
To an extent I think "slotmania" has exacerbated this problem. If you know that missing the slot means a (further) lengthy delay this can colour the judgement of even the most safety conscious pilot.
All accidents are a combination of circumstances but I believe that the system of flow control does not, in this respect, encourage us to ensure safe flight.
Paxing All Over The World
As the name says - I am Pax and can only view this topic from the back where the information I have is past experience and looking out of the window.
When I hear stories of people taking off into storms - I actively move that carrier down my preference list. I know, of course, that each f/c will make their own choice and you cannot expect the same result with every rotation. Except that, as pax, I do! I agree with fireflybob that 'slotmania' works against us all.
I want to know that my carrier will always skirt around cb activity and sit on the stand or even divert. On my regular trips to JNB I am always pleased when we sidestep the cbs over the equator. I like to see the red trail on the SkyMap showing me that the f/c want us to comfortable. That is what I am paying for.
I realise that a departure through dark cloud might turn out to uneventful. I realise that the folks sitting in the pointy end have pretty colours on the radar BUT!!!
In all of this the P/A is crucial. If you do decide to go, speak to us and reassure us that you have heard from a company a/c that just went through it. You can presume that most pax will not know how rapidly the situation can change in the five or fifteen minutes that it will take to get from the stand to line up!
Nowadays, because of wx radar and the great improvements in data transfer between a/c + met + ATC, we have much less turbulence than 20 or 30 years ago. Which means that pax are much less used to it. What is considered 'a light bounce' by the professionals might be considered 'heavy turbulence' by inexperienced pax and that view will be taken back to their friends and family, aka your customers!
I shall never forget going through an African thunderstorm at FL160 in a Viscount. Almost everyone was being ill and it seemed to go on for ever.
That was 33 years ago and the flight crew would have had little choice but any modern carrier that puts me through an avoidable storm, will not see me again.
At JNB last December, there was the usual summer storm passing through and I was VERY pleased that the J41 captain said that we would be holding for 15 mins. As we turned onto 03L, he warned that it was still going to be bumpy. It was what I would call moderate turbulence but one woman still screamed out loud - despite having been warned, twice, about the bumps. We were out of it in ten minutes.
So - talk to us and tell us why we are going to be late! Will Ops be cross that you missed the slot and had another 30 mins wait? Yes. But, to most pax, airlines are 'all the same' and the only things that you can differentiate with are cabin service. Not making the passengers scream and throw up, is also a valid service to offer.
When I hear stories of people taking off into storms - I actively move that carrier down my preference list. I know, of course, that each f/c will make their own choice and you cannot expect the same result with every rotation. Except that, as pax, I do! I agree with fireflybob that 'slotmania' works against us all.
I want to know that my carrier will always skirt around cb activity and sit on the stand or even divert. On my regular trips to JNB I am always pleased when we sidestep the cbs over the equator. I like to see the red trail on the SkyMap showing me that the f/c want us to comfortable. That is what I am paying for.
I realise that a departure through dark cloud might turn out to uneventful. I realise that the folks sitting in the pointy end have pretty colours on the radar BUT!!!
In all of this the P/A is crucial. If you do decide to go, speak to us and reassure us that you have heard from a company a/c that just went through it. You can presume that most pax will not know how rapidly the situation can change in the five or fifteen minutes that it will take to get from the stand to line up!
Nowadays, because of wx radar and the great improvements in data transfer between a/c + met + ATC, we have much less turbulence than 20 or 30 years ago. Which means that pax are much less used to it. What is considered 'a light bounce' by the professionals might be considered 'heavy turbulence' by inexperienced pax and that view will be taken back to their friends and family, aka your customers!
I shall never forget going through an African thunderstorm at FL160 in a Viscount. Almost everyone was being ill and it seemed to go on for ever.
That was 33 years ago and the flight crew would have had little choice but any modern carrier that puts me through an avoidable storm, will not see me again.At JNB last December, there was the usual summer storm passing through and I was VERY pleased that the J41 captain said that we would be holding for 15 mins. As we turned onto 03L, he warned that it was still going to be bumpy. It was what I would call moderate turbulence but one woman still screamed out loud - despite having been warned, twice, about the bumps. We were out of it in ten minutes.
So - talk to us and tell us why we are going to be late! Will Ops be cross that you missed the slot and had another 30 mins wait? Yes. But, to most pax, airlines are 'all the same' and the only things that you can differentiate with are cabin service. Not making the passengers scream and throw up, is also a valid service to offer.
Thread Starter
Tan:
I owe you a huge apology. I had fondly hoped that you might have had an interesting input to make to the debate but I now see that constructive dialogue is not your best suit. I deeply regret having made such a fundamental error of judgement.
I owe you a huge apology. I had fondly hoped that you might have had an interesting input to make to the debate but I now see that constructive dialogue is not your best suit. I deeply regret having made such a fundamental error of judgement.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's worth pointing out that yesterday provided exceptional Cb activity with hail stones measured at 15mm in diameter at the Met Office in Bracknell (15 miles west of LHR). Yesterday was not a day to discover what it's like to reach Aa in the midst of a 'red return' with Mod/Sev Continuous Turbulence whilst your leading edges and fan blades are being given that 'brushed metal' look that our wives keep asking for in our kitchen appliances these days....
Unfortunately I have read too many weather-related accident reports (of commercial airliners), one in particular involving an Fk-28 not all that far from home. Consequently, I too am a little nervous (as pax) about flying through severe wx. At work I have over the years noted the different attitudes of airmen. Consequently, I too have drawn up a mental list of airlines I will always avoid flying with. To all you cautious types I say thank you for considering the comfort of your passengers. Keep it that way. Tan , I think you are missing the point and too focussed on putting JW411 down. I'd rather have him flying me than you.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tan,
I note your planning doesn't take into account passenger comfort.... So you plan to fly through the face of a Cb regardless of what your pax might think? Just because its within aircraft limits (or your own personal limits), does it mean its within pax limits? What a way to start a trip - "my captain is going to kill me!"
You think a Cb takes account of any planning you might have made for any eventuality?? Just because the crew in front got through OK, does that mean you will? How do you plan for nature? Do things never change between flight planning and the flight deck?
I'd argue that JW411 WAS there yesterday - were you? He sounds expereinced enough to be able to tell an active Cb from a bit of Cu, and they weren't small cells either. Cb activity in the South East UK yesterday was pretty exceptional, and being acutely aware of of what a Cb can do to your day were you to fly through it, why take the risk when its planted itself right in front of you? It'll move soon enough....
Tell me what carrier you are with, and I'll make sure I never fly with them.
I note your planning doesn't take into account passenger comfort.... So you plan to fly through the face of a Cb regardless of what your pax might think? Just because its within aircraft limits (or your own personal limits), does it mean its within pax limits? What a way to start a trip - "my captain is going to kill me!"
You think a Cb takes account of any planning you might have made for any eventuality?? Just because the crew in front got through OK, does that mean you will? How do you plan for nature? Do things never change between flight planning and the flight deck?
I'd argue that JW411 WAS there yesterday - were you? He sounds expereinced enough to be able to tell an active Cb from a bit of Cu, and they weren't small cells either. Cb activity in the South East UK yesterday was pretty exceptional, and being acutely aware of of what a Cb can do to your day were you to fly through it, why take the risk when its planted itself right in front of you? It'll move soon enough....
Tell me what carrier you are with, and I'll make sure I never fly with them.
Well Tan, I note that most professional pilots on this thread appear to agree with JW411. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Just for your information I have been involved with aviation in a professional capacity for 35 years and one thing is for sure, there are cowboys in every profession - including yours!
Mental Floss Prevents Moral Decay
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sim City
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr.Tan, would you be so kind to reveal the Airline you're flying for? Companies who employ gung-ho types like you will not get my patronage in the future. Seems you feel no responsability for pax whatsoever.
Recently my flight BKK-SIN was delayed for 45 mins because of a vicious thunderstorm. Not a single plane was departing.
Some years ago I was regularly travelling through ATL and experienced several delays between 30-60 mins due to thunderstorms, once in a plane on the taxi ramp, together with 5 other planes standing in line. I never heard a pax complain about the delay.
Recently my flight BKK-SIN was delayed for 45 mins because of a vicious thunderstorm. Not a single plane was departing.
Some years ago I was regularly travelling through ATL and experienced several delays between 30-60 mins due to thunderstorms, once in a plane on the taxi ramp, together with 5 other planes standing in line. I never heard a pax complain about the delay.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah Tan, you're funny. 
Being a fully paid up aviation meteorologist gives me some idea of what I'm talking about, and possibly gives me a professional opinion on this subject. Have you got a professional opinion? Being a frequent passenger, possibly on one of your flights, gives me another reason to be concerned with this thread other than professional.
Anyway, what I guess you were trying to say with your previous post was that if you feel its unsafe, then you wont take off - yes? However, if someone else decided it was safe and took off, then thats their problem, not yours. Its not for you (or I guess any of the contributors to this thread) to comment on? yes? isn't flight safety everybodys problem? (sure that used to be a flight safety poster...)
This is a flight safety issue, and I guess wht the question really is, is what is it that makes someone go when its clear they are taking off into an active Cb? It doesn't just affect passenger (my)comfort, but aircraft safety (hey, you can check the history books if you dont believe me)
Being a fully paid up aviation meteorologist gives me some idea of what I'm talking about, and possibly gives me a professional opinion on this subject. Have you got a professional opinion? Being a frequent passenger, possibly on one of your flights, gives me another reason to be concerned with this thread other than professional.
Anyway, what I guess you were trying to say with your previous post was that if you feel its unsafe, then you wont take off - yes? However, if someone else decided it was safe and took off, then thats their problem, not yours. Its not for you (or I guess any of the contributors to this thread) to comment on? yes? isn't flight safety everybodys problem? (sure that used to be a flight safety poster...)
This is a flight safety issue, and I guess wht the question really is, is what is it that makes someone go when its clear they are taking off into an active Cb? It doesn't just affect passenger (my)comfort, but aircraft safety (hey, you can check the history books if you dont believe me)
Last edited by Postman Plod; 15th May 2003 at 06:36.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of things...
First, dgutte, as to the LGA departures being stopped and
-- as per FAAO 7110.65 (ATC Handbook--really not a PRIMARY source in this case, but hey, it was handy...): "Legally, only the airport management/military operations office can close a runway." Further:
3-3-2. CLOSED/UNSAFE RUNWAY INFORMATION
If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or unsafe runway, inform the pilot the runway is closed or unsafe, and
a. If the pilot persists in his/her request, quote him/her the appropriate parts of the NOTAM applying to the runway and inform him/her that a clearance cannot be issued.
b. Then, if the pilot insists and in your opinion the intended operation would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation will be at his/her own risk.
********
The other thing I wanted to mention had to do with lining up to take a look at the weather. From my jaded ATC point of view... excellent idea. However, don't forget to communicate in addition to aviate.
There I was on a stormy afternoon, working departure control at a major (top 5) US airport (I'm trying to avoid names here). There's a big old cell camping about 3 miles off the departure end of the runway. I'm monitoring the tower freq as well, while I'm working departures. I hear the heavy jet talking to the tower.
Aviator: "Tower, ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, ah, we'd like to line up here on the numbers for just a minute or so to let the radar take a look at that cell off the departure end if that'd be ok."
Tower: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, approved. Taxi into position and hold. Let me know when you're ready to go."
Aviator: "Thanks. Be just a minute."
60 seconds later...
Aviator: "Tower, ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy is ready to roll."
Tower: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, cleared for takeoff."
Aviator: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy is rolling."
30 seconds later...
Tower: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, contact departure. Good day."
Aviator: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, good day."
Now in my headset...
Aviator: "BigAirport Departure, ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy is with you out of eight hundred for five thousand and we need a 60 degree turn to the right for wx avoidance right now."
Me (quietly to myself): eeek!
Here's the deal (and I use that word advisably): anything more than say, a 25 degree turn would take this aircraft through the following, in this order:
-Departures from a parallel runway at the same airport (being worked by another controller)
-Arrivals to the same airport (being worked by still another controller)
-Departures from a second airport
-The airspace just off the departure end of a third airport, and
-Into rapidly rising terrain.
Let's just say that me and the captain, we worked something out. He avoided the weather, the traffic, the other airports and the terrain, and I avoided ending my career.
--Flash forward-- So, I'm sitting in the jump seat of a DC10 a few weeks later flying coast to coast in the US (different carrier). The FO and myself are chatting, and I think we're both learning something. Anyway, I tell this story. When I finish, the captain speaks up: "Well, what would you have had that captain do? Fly through the weather? I don't think you understand what a thunderstorm can do to an aircraft..."
See, this was a turning point for me. I've spent an entire career trying to bridge this pilot/controller gap whenever possible, and here I've apparently come off as either an ass or a fool in the midst of some impromptu continuing education. Clearly I was sending the wrong message...
As I explained to the captain (well enough to keep things friendly for the remaining three hours of the flight anyway), I am perfectly happy to bust my butt to make these kinds of things work. That's my job and I truly enjoy providing service. However, the airplane in question sat in position for more than a minute painting that cell. If the chaps in the pointy end of the aircraft developed a plan based upon what they'd seen, I would have sincerely appreciated it if they'd shared it with the local controller (tower) before they started to roll. You know, "Tower, it looks like we'll be needing a substantial crank to the right after departure to steer clear of the weather. Would you be kind enough to pass that on to departures?" Really. That's all it would have taken to save me the ulcer. I can still see that scope in my mind, with the airplane turning right to avoid the blob of weather but heading right for other airplanes, airports, and freaking houses. I remember thinking at the time "rock and a hard place."
Long story for a pretty succinct suggestion: share your plan. That's all I'm asking.
You know, it just occurred to me that this happened pretty close to 20 years ago. I might have to send PPrune a check to cover the psychoanalysis... I feel a little better!
Dave ;-)
First, dgutte, as to the LGA departures being stopped and
Occasionally the runway would open and someone would depart, I guess as ATC saw fit.
3-3-2. CLOSED/UNSAFE RUNWAY INFORMATION
If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or unsafe runway, inform the pilot the runway is closed or unsafe, and
a. If the pilot persists in his/her request, quote him/her the appropriate parts of the NOTAM applying to the runway and inform him/her that a clearance cannot be issued.
b. Then, if the pilot insists and in your opinion the intended operation would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation will be at his/her own risk.
********
The other thing I wanted to mention had to do with lining up to take a look at the weather. From my jaded ATC point of view... excellent idea. However, don't forget to communicate in addition to aviate.
There I was on a stormy afternoon, working departure control at a major (top 5) US airport (I'm trying to avoid names here). There's a big old cell camping about 3 miles off the departure end of the runway. I'm monitoring the tower freq as well, while I'm working departures. I hear the heavy jet talking to the tower.
Aviator: "Tower, ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, ah, we'd like to line up here on the numbers for just a minute or so to let the radar take a look at that cell off the departure end if that'd be ok."
Tower: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, approved. Taxi into position and hold. Let me know when you're ready to go."
Aviator: "Thanks. Be just a minute."
60 seconds later...
Aviator: "Tower, ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy is ready to roll."
Tower: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, cleared for takeoff."
Aviator: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy is rolling."
30 seconds later...
Tower: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, contact departure. Good day."
Aviator: "ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy, good day."
Now in my headset...
Aviator: "BigAirport Departure, ThoughtfulAir 22 heavy is with you out of eight hundred for five thousand and we need a 60 degree turn to the right for wx avoidance right now."
Me (quietly to myself): eeek!
Here's the deal (and I use that word advisably): anything more than say, a 25 degree turn would take this aircraft through the following, in this order:
-Departures from a parallel runway at the same airport (being worked by another controller)
-Arrivals to the same airport (being worked by still another controller)
-Departures from a second airport
-The airspace just off the departure end of a third airport, and
-Into rapidly rising terrain.
Let's just say that me and the captain, we worked something out. He avoided the weather, the traffic, the other airports and the terrain, and I avoided ending my career.
--Flash forward-- So, I'm sitting in the jump seat of a DC10 a few weeks later flying coast to coast in the US (different carrier). The FO and myself are chatting, and I think we're both learning something. Anyway, I tell this story. When I finish, the captain speaks up: "Well, what would you have had that captain do? Fly through the weather? I don't think you understand what a thunderstorm can do to an aircraft..."
See, this was a turning point for me. I've spent an entire career trying to bridge this pilot/controller gap whenever possible, and here I've apparently come off as either an ass or a fool in the midst of some impromptu continuing education. Clearly I was sending the wrong message...
As I explained to the captain (well enough to keep things friendly for the remaining three hours of the flight anyway), I am perfectly happy to bust my butt to make these kinds of things work. That's my job and I truly enjoy providing service. However, the airplane in question sat in position for more than a minute painting that cell. If the chaps in the pointy end of the aircraft developed a plan based upon what they'd seen, I would have sincerely appreciated it if they'd shared it with the local controller (tower) before they started to roll. You know, "Tower, it looks like we'll be needing a substantial crank to the right after departure to steer clear of the weather. Would you be kind enough to pass that on to departures?" Really. That's all it would have taken to save me the ulcer. I can still see that scope in my mind, with the airplane turning right to avoid the blob of weather but heading right for other airplanes, airports, and freaking houses. I remember thinking at the time "rock and a hard place."
Long story for a pretty succinct suggestion: share your plan. That's all I'm asking.
You know, it just occurred to me that this happened pretty close to 20 years ago. I might have to send PPrune a check to cover the psychoanalysis... I feel a little better!
Dave ;-)
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respectfully, Tan, criticising a less than prudent decision to depart into bad wx is not the same as armchairing an accident.
I put this to you: Would you still sit back and not criticise a captain for taking off with an engine fire if 'HE thought it was prudent to do so'? I suspect not!!
If you have the facts (or observed the same conditions), and then base your judgement on those facts and observations, judging a bad decision as a bad decision, is reasonable.
Alot of pilots fly with luck as their co-pilot, unaware of it until one day, somewhere- the luck runs out.
Accident investigation agencies are filled with reports of captains who thought the weather was a go!
I put this to you: Would you still sit back and not criticise a captain for taking off with an engine fire if 'HE thought it was prudent to do so'? I suspect not!!
If you have the facts (or observed the same conditions), and then base your judgement on those facts and observations, judging a bad decision as a bad decision, is reasonable.
Alot of pilots fly with luck as their co-pilot, unaware of it until one day, somewhere- the luck runs out.
Accident investigation agencies are filled with reports of captains who thought the weather was a go!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Two hundred baro
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, if I'm flying with an F/O who won't question a decision I have made that in their mind is wrong, I'd rather not get airborne at all. Weather or no weather. The idea of taking off with someone in the right hand seat who is s***ing themself and hasn't the balls to do anything about it, frankly, scares me more than a cb.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, now please take it easy. I think you are a bit harsh to Tan. I believe that he ment was that it easy to comment or armchair judge others decisions, but without having:
it is just only that: armchair judgment. Nevertheless talking about commercial pressure or flying in bad waether is an interesting and necessary topic. But it should be held based on actual facts, personal experiences, and maybe not on what I saw outside the window looked like....
- an actual picture of the radar
- actual weather and wind reports
- ATC observations
- PIREPS
- etc
it is just only that: armchair judgment. Nevertheless talking about commercial pressure or flying in bad waether is an interesting and necessary topic. But it should be held based on actual facts, personal experiences, and maybe not on what I saw outside the window looked like....
Thread Starter
At the risk of wandering slightly off-topic, I had a recent conversation with an engineering friend on the subject of lightning strikes and he told me something that I never knew before.
Apparently if any rivets behind the initial strike location (as often as not, the radome) are also struck then they have to be drilled out and replaced. These "secondary" sites are sometimes quite hard to spot and might just appear as paint discolouration. This can be quite time-consuming and might be rather difficult to achieve at some destinations.
Burger King:
You have a perfectly valid point but I don't entirely buy it. I don't think it is absolutely necessary to actually be in the cockpit in order to start a discussion. Nobody on pprune at the moment was on board AMR587 but they have so far managed 15 pages of comment on the subject.
How many of you who make comments about Ryanair speeding on the ground have actually taxied a 737?
I have more than 40 years of professional flying experience (so far) and I thought it was reasonable to "express surprise" and hopefully start a useful discussion.
Apparently if any rivets behind the initial strike location (as often as not, the radome) are also struck then they have to be drilled out and replaced. These "secondary" sites are sometimes quite hard to spot and might just appear as paint discolouration. This can be quite time-consuming and might be rather difficult to achieve at some destinations.
Burger King:
You have a perfectly valid point but I don't entirely buy it. I don't think it is absolutely necessary to actually be in the cockpit in order to start a discussion. Nobody on pprune at the moment was on board AMR587 but they have so far managed 15 pages of comment on the subject.
How many of you who make comments about Ryanair speeding on the ground have actually taxied a 737?
I have more than 40 years of professional flying experience (so far) and I thought it was reasonable to "express surprise" and hopefully start a useful discussion.
Last edited by JW411; 15th May 2003 at 16:38.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I paraphrase a well-known saying “A superior pilot is one who uses his superior judgement to avoid the need to use his superior skill”.
Now Tan does make a valid point that many of us were not even at the airport when this incident took place! But when one observer mentioned lightning strikes close enough to one aircraft for him to be unsure if the aircraft were hit, then I would have to agree with most others on this forum. These crews seem to have been replying on superior skill rather than judgement!
If I had been a passenger on these aircraft I think I would take my business elsewhere in future! There really is no excuse for taking these sorts of chances with the paying publics lives. Obsession with on time performance and fuel policy may prove to be the root of such decisions.
I held on the ground at Gatwick a few years ago due to a line of thunderstorms, two other aircraft taxied out behind me from other operators. A Britannia aircraft made the same decision without any hesitation but the third aircraft from another well known operator was very keen to go but could not get past us. In the following few minutes the wind picked up to around 50kts and the rain reduced visibility to about 2000m. Within just a few minutes the wind swung 180 degrees. Ultimately we were on the ground for just over 15 minutes and had to taxi to the other end of the airfield due to a runway change. The Captain who had been keen to go returned to stand for more fuel!
Now Tan does make a valid point that many of us were not even at the airport when this incident took place! But when one observer mentioned lightning strikes close enough to one aircraft for him to be unsure if the aircraft were hit, then I would have to agree with most others on this forum. These crews seem to have been replying on superior skill rather than judgement!
If I had been a passenger on these aircraft I think I would take my business elsewhere in future! There really is no excuse for taking these sorts of chances with the paying publics lives. Obsession with on time performance and fuel policy may prove to be the root of such decisions.
I held on the ground at Gatwick a few years ago due to a line of thunderstorms, two other aircraft taxied out behind me from other operators. A Britannia aircraft made the same decision without any hesitation but the third aircraft from another well known operator was very keen to go but could not get past us. In the following few minutes the wind picked up to around 50kts and the rain reduced visibility to about 2000m. Within just a few minutes the wind swung 180 degrees. Ultimately we were on the ground for just over 15 minutes and had to taxi to the other end of the airfield due to a runway change. The Captain who had been keen to go returned to stand for more fuel!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are other ramifications here that are not being discussed.
As an engineer a lightning strike is a right pain in the proverbial butt. In most cases once a strike has been entered into the Techlog it entails a lengthy inspection that will put a aircraft out of service for hours and often lose whole days flying.
As previously reported rivets often have to be replaced, engine filters checked , undercariages electrically checked/de-gaussed for residual magnetism, Airials replaced (ADF seems to particulary vulnerable), whole wing tips repaired, compass swings c/o etc. The Maintenance Manual checks runs into pages and pages. In a worst cases I have seen an entire row of cockpit EFIS screens having to be replaced at the cost of thousands of pounds or aircraft grounded for DAYS. This does not even calculate the extra cost in Engineering manpower, pax inconvenience from cancelled flights, incurred expenses due to bringing in chartered aircraft, the list is endless.
If you are on approach and you get struck then no complaints (not much room for manouevere) , however to take off just because of (say) a tight slot is not really thinking of the pax or operation as you are not just taking a risk on this one flight but all the other knock on flights that the aircraft has to do.
As an engineer a lightning strike is a right pain in the proverbial butt. In most cases once a strike has been entered into the Techlog it entails a lengthy inspection that will put a aircraft out of service for hours and often lose whole days flying.
As previously reported rivets often have to be replaced, engine filters checked , undercariages electrically checked/de-gaussed for residual magnetism, Airials replaced (ADF seems to particulary vulnerable), whole wing tips repaired, compass swings c/o etc. The Maintenance Manual checks runs into pages and pages. In a worst cases I have seen an entire row of cockpit EFIS screens having to be replaced at the cost of thousands of pounds or aircraft grounded for DAYS. This does not even calculate the extra cost in Engineering manpower, pax inconvenience from cancelled flights, incurred expenses due to bringing in chartered aircraft, the list is endless.
If you are on approach and you get struck then no complaints (not much room for manouevere) , however to take off just because of (say) a tight slot is not really thinking of the pax or operation as you are not just taking a risk on this one flight but all the other knock on flights that the aircraft has to do.
Paxing All Over The World
Just an engineer's setting out of the consequences of a strike, remind me of the bean counting a relative of mine encountered.
The maintenance crew at his base (not in this country) said that they would like the strobe lights turned off as soon as possible after reaching cruise - or even before cruise. This was because the stobe bulbs were very expensive.
Someone asked them if they knew that it was actually more expensive to replace the aircraft than the strobes ...
The maintenance crew at his base (not in this country) said that they would like the strobe lights turned off as soon as possible after reaching cruise - or even before cruise. This was because the stobe bulbs were very expensive.
Someone asked them if they knew that it was actually more expensive to replace the aircraft than the strobes ...
Thread Starter
Just an Engineer:
Thank you very much for your contribution. It was quite illuminating (no pun intended) to hear your side of the problem. In my company a lightning strike is an automatic tech log entry and a mandatory occurence report has to be raised. I also take your point about being struck on the way down is bad luck but on the way up (if it can be avoided) is careless.
In the case in point I can see several scenarios. (For the reasons of simplicity I will take flooded runways, microbursts, hail damage and turbulence out of the equation).
You take a lightning strike immediately after take-off whilst headed for a distant destination with, let us say, 300 passengers. You discover that everything still seems to be working so you press on to your destination. On arrival it is discovered that a new radome is needed and 20-odd rivets, etc, etc need to be replaced. The inbound passengers, apart from the state of their underpants and their mental health are glad to get off but the returning 300 passengers are less than happy to discover that the aircraft is going to be tech for some considerable time. The company is less than thrilled with the situation because, apart from anything else, they don't have hotac for the 300 outbound passengers and don't want to pay for it anyway.
Alternatively, you take off and take a lightning strike and then decide to return to have the aircraft checked. This will involve dumping lots and lots of expensive fuel and now 300 + another 300 passengers are going to be pi**ed off.
My alternative is to sit on your a**e for 20 minutes and avoid all of the angst and inevitable paperwork. The few people on this thread who cannot seem to accept the obvious would also appear to have no regard for the passengers who pay their wages and even object to them having access to pprune.
How sad.
Thank you very much for your contribution. It was quite illuminating (no pun intended) to hear your side of the problem. In my company a lightning strike is an automatic tech log entry and a mandatory occurence report has to be raised. I also take your point about being struck on the way down is bad luck but on the way up (if it can be avoided) is careless.
In the case in point I can see several scenarios. (For the reasons of simplicity I will take flooded runways, microbursts, hail damage and turbulence out of the equation).
You take a lightning strike immediately after take-off whilst headed for a distant destination with, let us say, 300 passengers. You discover that everything still seems to be working so you press on to your destination. On arrival it is discovered that a new radome is needed and 20-odd rivets, etc, etc need to be replaced. The inbound passengers, apart from the state of their underpants and their mental health are glad to get off but the returning 300 passengers are less than happy to discover that the aircraft is going to be tech for some considerable time. The company is less than thrilled with the situation because, apart from anything else, they don't have hotac for the 300 outbound passengers and don't want to pay for it anyway.
Alternatively, you take off and take a lightning strike and then decide to return to have the aircraft checked. This will involve dumping lots and lots of expensive fuel and now 300 + another 300 passengers are going to be pi**ed off.
My alternative is to sit on your a**e for 20 minutes and avoid all of the angst and inevitable paperwork. The few people on this thread who cannot seem to accept the obvious would also appear to have no regard for the passengers who pay their wages and even object to them having access to pprune.
How sad.