AF 747 hit severe weather between Rio and Paris
 

Reports this morning of an Air France B747 en route from Rio to Paris to have hit severe weather and returned to Rio last night. Those who saw the aircraft said there was significant damage to it .
More info later today no doubt.

Violent hailstorm forces Air France jumbo jet to turn back

Accident: Air France B744 at Rio de Janeiro on Nov 12th 2013, hail strike

The nose cone shows some damage.

Globo News reports the flight returned two hours after departure due to shattered windscreen.

Photos show damaged nose cone, windscreen and landing light cover.

Highest temp so far this year approaching 42C, with thunderstorms and hail.

Again Captain in a back and FO as cruise relief??

And luckily the pitot remained uncorked!!!

Wait! According to some posters on this forum this flight should have continued to its destination :rolleyes: :ugh:

No worries, even if the pitot did get clogged up, they couldn't possibly repeat AF447; Primarily due to the fact the PNF would feel the yoke in his gut if the PF was attempting to follow the footsteps of his counterpart on AF447, this would probably lead to the PNF slapping the him into pushing forward! :ouch:

Something wrong with the WX radars on both Airbus and Boeing a/c belonging only to AF :confused:

Let's just be thankful for small mercies - they didn't crash. A positive for AF.

"Something wrong with the WX radars on both Airbus and Boeing a/c belonging to AF".

Or, alternatively, something wrong with the pilots operating the WX radar. I have flown with a depressing number of pilots who really did not know how to operate their WX radar properly.

Reading comprehension problems...or axes to grind?
 

This flight never reached cruise phase. Hit hail on climbout and leveled off at FL150. Likely never got more than 60 miles (100 km) from Rio. Most likely effect on pitots (if any) would be to dent them or knock them loose - not plug them.

If anyone wants to "overcook" the sparse relationship between this event and AF447, go ahead - but presumably we won't see you getting all huffy with "the media" when they "overcook" future incidents.

Right? Right!

Perhaps an indication of the quality of their trainers.

Their could also just come to PPRuNE where experts are at hand 24/7. Some are even so good that actually having flown an aircraft is unnecessary.

Girls, girls, let's play nicely together.

Hail is a much underestimated threat. If as pure ice alone, vs hail-rain mix, hail is difficult to detect on radar. The management of radar is important, adjacent storms with rain or rain at lower altitudes could provide some warning, but during the climb the radar scan may be biased towards the climb altitude.

Hail damage can be very severe and not normally detectable on the flight deck, particularly holes or reduced strength of composite structures – nose cone and wing fairings.
A damaged nose cone might affect drag; a damaged wing fairing could affect lift and drag with severe consequences. Also consider other potential hazards - an overlooked CB, windshear, turbulence.

TEM; first avoidance if detected, or reduce the effects if encountered - reduce speed, then manage the results – slow speed, check, inspect, return. Select a safe course of action.

Safety is not about counting accidents or errors, it requires an understanding of how people manage the hazards in everyday operation; just think about the situations, decisions, and actions.
Celebrate the successes and consider what might we learn from this incident.

Let's put it anyway we want. We all know how dangerous it is, and therefore forbidden to take off, to land, even flying near a Cb cloud, and we have at our disposal all means (folder meteo, wx radar, other traffic, air traffic control, etc..) To avoid it.
-Did they take off in the vicinity of a thunderstorm?
-Did they dump fuel (they were certainly above the maximum landing weight)?
-Was it a wise decision to return to landing rehearsing through the hell they came from?

If an inconvenience occurs more than once, it means that someone has to intervene in some way: on training?
But let's wait the report to be published.

I have seen aircraft that had encountered hail from thunderstorms while they were nealy 50 miles down wind from the cells.

It can happen. You cannot paint hail on the vast majority of aircraft radar, unless it is really large sized hail and you know what to look for. As for visually seeing hail, yes you can, just after you hit it.

So assuming that this AF crew blindly or willingly flew into a thunderstorm, maybe completely wrong and probably is.

But, assuming is what this forum is famous for and I don't think I'll live long enough to see that change. :p

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.

A friend of mine in a T-34C, back in the 80's, got lucky as he flew in New Mexico/West Texas area on a navigation flight, FL 230 or so.
Bigger hail might have done more damage than was done.

Got peppered with hail, lots of damage to the cowlings, cracks to the canopies, had to put her down and wait for a maintenance crew to come and patch it up before it returned to home station. Could have been worse.

DOVES, careful how you make your points; I hope that I have not misunderstood.
Knowing that something is dangerous is an essential starting point, but it is the personal knowing at the time that the hazard which determines the threat – it has to be recognised and action chosen.
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 – does the SOP know if hail has been detected or not, etc.

Inconvenience, no; it was a choice of action. We can assume that the decision in this instance was made with the evidence, beliefs, and knowledge at that time (if not why not), thus all such decisions are good. It’s only with hindsight that decisions are categorised, good, poor, but not ‘wrong’, only opportunities to learn and improve.
If the inconvenience reoccurs then it’s another opportunity to learn; it’s not for the industry to point at the crew and suggests more training. Such action is no more than blame and train; perhaps the industry, other operators, and pilots might learn from such experiences.

That's exactly what I long for.

Ain't THAT the truth?! Especially when the mods consistently support such "experts".