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".

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?

Typical arrogant condescending and certainly NOT professional attitude. I forgot that incidents NEVER happen with UK operators...

Dum canem caedimus, corrosisse dicitur corrium.

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 :E

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....

Why did the commentator depart?
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.

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.

Respectfully suggest that such would be an AF matter, given the anecdote of another crew deviating to avoid weather, which investigation would include

"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.

Hail oddly enough has low reflectivity characteristics and is not readily detected by most wx radar systems....

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.

Yes, the standard is 20 miles, but I was in trail of a American Airlines 727 years ago and we were all diverting around the front of a line of thunderstorms going into the New York City area. We were at FL 240 and were about 50 miles in front of the line when the American flight encountered the hail and declared an emergency.

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.

AF343
 

Thank you for quoting GOD himself..

Still has to learn about hail and moreover about modesty .

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

Windjet A319:

Incident: Windjet A319 near Catania on Oct 1st 2009, severe turbulence and hail

Wow, I just read Squak7700s post. (scroll down the page) I wish 411A was here to comment this.

Squawk7777

Talk about contradicting yourself.

How professional are you? :D

CON ..1nm for every knot of wind works real well for downwind....

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.

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.

Tilt
 

They don't understand how to use the tilt!