srjumbo
 

So you will have no problems owning up to your next cock-up here on pprune then..

But then again I suspect you don't ever make any mistakes, do you..

Get off the fence dickhe@d!!

YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS!!!!

OTB

TS and CBs - Big No NO
 

I think this case simply outlines a great misconception about Thunderstorms and Cumulonimbus. If you fly around SE Asia, youll find all the guys there avoid these things like the plague...not only because down on that end of the golfball you CANT fly over them, but also because they spray all sorts of crap everywhere...litterally...

The problem here in Europe is that nowadays aircraft can actually fly over the tropopause, and therefore over what many people incorrectly perceive to be the tops of these things...

But you have to remember, Thunderstorms have got the power of atleast 1 hiroshima bomb dispersed in the space of an hour through the various processes each storm undertakes - the most important of these is the storm's own growth.

NASA aircraft have recorded updraughts of up to 12,000 ft/min in the hearts of small to medium storms, so you can only imagine how these nasties let rip when they get uplifted over terrain (note; the Alps and Pyrennes)

Not only are conditions trecherous inside these storms, but such conditions dont get much different on the top or downwind. The biggest danger is flying over them, because as youll find will happen is before you know it, a massive updraught of cloud from a daughter cell embedded will rise up and swallow you whole - what I think must have happened in this case.

And not only that, hail balls - indeed ranging from the size of golf balls to basketballs - are carried up in the cloud...would you honestly think that with speeds of up to 120 kmph these things will suddenly stop at the top of the cloud and fall back down...

the momentem these storms generates has been known to kick ice debris up to 4,000 to 5,000 feet above the top of clouds.


So, in conclusion...stay WELL clear of CBs and TSs - EVEN if you think you can clear the tops of them.

Looks to me that OTB is friendly with the PRATS! I've read the entire report and am entitled to my opinion which is shared by lots of my professional colleagues.
Dare I ask OTB, why didn't Monarch who flew behind BD sustain any damage? Probably because they were looking out of the window (yes it does occasionally happen, especially when flying around thunderstorms) and had their radar turned ON!

This is my last posting on this topic because unlike some here I am happy to admit I have nothing of constructive value to add..

However srjumbo lets clear the first one up.. I don't know 'the prats' involved nor any other BMI flight crew..

If you really are a SFO on the 74 (which I have doubt) then you scare the hell out of me pal!

FOR THE LAST TIME;

Y O U W E R E N O T T H E R E!!!

IN EITHER AIRCRAFT MENTIONED..

YOU DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS!!

However this is a rumour forum so I suppose you have a right to spout your crap in a way..

Again, if you really are a pilot why not try posting one of your dangerous cock-up's on here so you can have everyone 'chew the fat' over your abilities without knowing ALL the facts..

If they were at fault there is nothing that can be done about it apart from excepting that things like this do happen and will happen... Because of human nature..

Maybe they were playing cards??? Having a kiss and a cuddle on the FD.. I don't know, and neither do any of you... And THATS my point..

Enjoy chewing the fat ladies...

OTB:ok:

OK OTB, you are implying the AAIB report leaves out some relevant facts. What are they?

Come on folks, lighten up.

The AAIB report states the known facts about the flight but answers little about other following flight's operations/decisions. As always speculation is rife (no quarrels here) but blame has no place in an investigation.

Agreed. But the reverse attitude which says 'We're all blameless, and there but for the grace of god...' also has no place.

"Because they're solid and multi-layered"

What are the layers in a hail stone?

etrang - layers of ice that are deposited in successive updrafts through the CB, I believe.

The policy in accident analysis and incident investigation in the last few years has been not to seek to blame people - who rarely deliberately jeopardise safety - but to identify the systematic problems that allowed the accident or incident to occur. The pilot is usually simply the last link in a whole chain of events any of which could have been broken and the incident/accident would not have taken place. Of course the pilots - particularly the skipper - have to bear some responsibility - they are the ones who sign the tech log - that's what their licence is for. But the aim is to stop things going wrong in future, not work out who was to blame in the past so that you can sue them. This has become the attitude of conscientious regulatory authorities (who are much more concerned these days about corporate responsibility than they used to be) and safety departments in airlines (who realise that the most important thing about accidents is that they don't happen again).

The fact is that anybody could be put into a simulator and made to crash an aircraft - anybody - including the ace-of-the-base pilots who have seen fit to second guess what happened in this incident. So yes, there but by the grace of God go you - the day you stop learning is the day you die - and you are only as good as your last flight. You read accident/incident reports to learn, not to blame. And if you haven't got hold of that fact yet, you don't deserve a third stripe, let alone a fourth.

Yes anybody can cock things up! However we are talking here about a very basic level of airmanship. The AAIB report is fact. Fact is that they believed there was no need for the WX radar to be on. Fact was that they did not see the embedded CBs due to the high level cloud. The fact that they were encountering high level cloud which restricted their outside view should have prompted them to immediately switch the wx radar back on. The premise for them originally switching off the radar had disappeared. This is very basic airmanship.

All true, but there are times when an individual is clearly at fault, Tenerife, for instance. Likewise there are times when operating procedures are at fault and we as an industry shouldn't shy away from saying so in either case. Furthermore, reading an AAIB report is hardly second guessing the cause of an accident although this report seems remarkably short on conclusions.

In this particular case I'm not saying the pilots were neccessarily to blame. It seems to me to hinge on the 'normal procedures' the AAIB report mentions then ignores. If it is a BMI SOP to turn the radar off then one would have hoped the AAIB would have questioned the motivation behind that SOP and the CAA inspectors that approved it and then commented on the validity of the procedure. If it was not SOP then the decision to turn the radar off becomes critical, particularly as the report shows the thunderstorms were visible on radar to the following aircraft that did have its radar turned on.

So what do we learn from this report? OTB hints that relevant facts were not included but doesn't explain himself. The report itself doesn't even comment on whether or not the 'normal procedure' of turning the radar off is acceptable.

It would also be interesting to know the background and experience level of the crew.

What sort of training have they had concerning avoidance of hazardous weather enroute?

All these things are part of the "system" which has produced this particular incident.

What steps are being taken to prevent future events of this type?

Yes, it would be interesting to know the background and experience level of the crew. But would it make flights safer? Would it decrease the likelihood of the same thing happening in future? Or would it just be to give people a feeling of smug self-righteousness?

What is important? Well, for those pilots who might find themselves in that situation:
- make sure you have radar switched on
- know how to use it to get the information that you need from it (which requires active management of the WXR system, not simply setting it up and going back to the newspaper)
For those training departments who don't want to find themselves dealing with the aftermath of a similar incident (and there were at least two more very similar around that time, I believe - one shorthaul and one longhaul - so any mistakes that were made were evidently not just one offs)
- make sure that pilots understand how to use WXR, and understand the meteorology of CB's.

>Yes, it would be interesting to know the background and experience level of the crew. But would it make flights safer? Would it decrease the likelihood of the same thing happening in future? Or would it just be to give people a feeling of smug self-righteousness?<

Young Paul, I think we are both coming at it from the same angle but I think "background and experience level" can and do make a difference in the sense that attitudes taught at the basic training level can have a big effect later on. That is not to say that someone who is very experienced is never going to get into a spot of bother, of course!

The training staff themselves must also have suitable background, experience and ability to teach said matters to trainees.

It is my perception (and by the way this is not pointed at BMI or any particular airline) that many of the tried and tested ways of doing things are steadily being watered down and having a damaging effect on flight safety. Things like number of sectors of line training spring to mind, all in the cause of "economy" - there certainly isn't much money saved in the event of an incident like this one.

BMI Hailstones
 

Radar or no radar the safe flight path is always to fly clear especially if they were VMC. Old and bold comes to mind.

This alias is new to Pprune, but I was around in its infancy.

The crew involved were, surprisingly enough for BM, not reprimanded.

I understand that there are two types of radar fitted to BM airbus. One is better than the other. One is able to see weather to which DJ was subjected, the other, cheaper (surely not as BM never cuts corners) or is it lighter? does not.

The Captain involved is experienced and able enough in his own right, to STILL command an airliner.

For those of who who fly, perhaps you should know better, for those who don't, a moonless night isn't all that good for seeing something like a dark cloud beneath, nor in front of you. If it's not on the radar, why would you look for it?

Flame away if you please, BUT note well, for once the company did NOT sack, nor endeavour to humiliate, its staff...

Deja Vu?

Turning off something that does not seem important?


http://www.kegworthvillage.com/history/air_disaster.php

Pole Hill Billy

you appear to have an agenda.

your last post is crass and insensitive.

suggest you retract it.

Duffgen, I'm struggling with this:

"For those of who who fly, perhaps you should know better, for those who don't, a moonless night isn't all that good for seeing something like a dark cloud beneath, nor in front of you. If it's not on the radar, why would you look for it?"

It is many years since I flew, I grant you, but I can still read an accident report. It says the incident happened around 1512, mid afternoon, not on a moonless night, and the reason the cloud didn't show up on the radar was that the radar was turned off.

What on earth are you talking about?

Pole Hill Billy, you should be very careful making remarks like this. Remember that your IP is logged and you can be held to account. The statement you make does no justice whatsoever to the events leading up to the crash at Kegworth or the events leading up to the hail damage more recently.