FR414 PIK-STN/ Thunderstorms
 

Just heard that FR414 (Ryanair) Came into STN- with a thunderstorm over head- and the pilot called to say they had been struck by lightening. (EGSS 041420Z 05007KT 8000 TSRA FEW020 BKN050CB 14/12 Q1012)

Whats the point of landing in a TS? The CB blew over in about 20 mins. Seems crazy to me- you just scare the passengers!

They landed safely didn't they ?
Probabely they judged the situation as being safe and continued.

By the way you can be struck by lightning in an aircraft quite far away from an actual cell and not fly in or even close.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, please STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP! I really can't stand it anymore! Ryanair here, Ryanair there, Ryanair flew around to moon to use gravity acceleration in order to save fuel and got struck by a asteroid, Ryanair did bla bla bla :mad:

Pity it didn't get struck by lightning while landing at Manchester, really.

That way the Ryanair-slaggers and the Ringway-slaggers could have had a bit of a get-together.:D

Can't blame the captain at all for landing in a TS. I'd rather get the plane on the ground than circle waiting for the storm to blow over watching the tanks run dry - then to be given two go-arounds on each approach at the last minute - nothing better for 'scaring passengers' than running out of fuel and having to land an airliner in a field! Also, you try telling an ATC who barely speaks English in, say, the Far East that you'd really rather not land because there are a few sparks around.

Landing in a TS is always hairy, but you do get used to it with experience and if you make a PA that informs and keeps the Pax relaxed then it really shouldn't be a big deal.

greatorex
 

Now There's a load of thumb-sucked, bulsh!t if ever there was any!

Mr Moderator please close or delete this thread. I never have read so much meaningless horse manure. Next will be FR land 2 feet beyond 1000 foot point..jeeeeez
.....
Capt Bear

Thats one thing FR would never do as it would mean missing the very first available exit! :D :D :D

As a pax I've landed twice in a rolling thunderstorm during my 30 years of flying. There have been other possible close encounters, but (mostly US captains) informed us about a deviation or hold (both in the air or on the ground at the point of origin).

First one during a short (Austrian Airlines) flight from FRA to GRZ in Februari 1996. Apx 30 mins before landing in GRZ at 22.10PM we entered very heavy weather, lighting all around the a/c followed almost immediately by thunderclap meaning we were stirring right in the middle of the sh*t. Flight was very uncomfortable and can be compared with a run in the Python roller coaster. Landing as such was no problem, but most pax were rather pale around the nose and I can assure the cause was not the airline food....

Second one during a (SIA) flight from KUL to SIN in 1999. Weather started fabulous in KUL but just 15 mins before landing at SIN deteriorated into a heavy thunderdstorm. At a certain moment it was pitch dark, like flying in the night although 15.00hr and lightning all around with thunderclaps very audible in the plane. Ride was not as bad as the above, still moderate turbulence. Again landing no problem.

Yes, I know we landed safely, but all of the pax were very worried and ask myself is this standard procedure?

Capt.KAOS

Don't, of course, know the full facts here - as greatorex points out, fuel could have been a signifcant concern.

However, to make comments such as "they landed safely didn't they?" betrays either a total lack of concern about flight safety generally or a total lack of knowledge of the dangers of CBs and thunderstorms. Getting struck by lightning is the least of your worries.

Severely unnerving the pax is not a good way to promote repeat bookings, either!

I find it surprising that a number of you are saying that landing in a thunderstorm is an acceptable practice. The comment about choosing to land in a thunderstorm, or run out of fuel, is very unprofessional. We all have excellent weather briefings with which to assess our flight prior to departure, it's a legal requirement, so not having sufficient fuel to hold for an extra 30 mins or so is unforgivable in my opinion. Of course we were not there on the day, and so none of us know what the picture looked like on the radar screen, but please be careful when bursting into print with comments such as this. Remember newly qualified pilots to our profession will read this and think it’s an acceptable procedure.

I was there on the day and the WX radar was RED for the whole departure / arrival area around BKY and downwind for 05 at STN. There was fork lightning clearly visible to the west, northwest and on finals for 05. In the end London stopped accepting departures on the CPT and BUZ SID's. Watching aircraft decend on TCAS through a 10 mile long red cell is "interesting" (appreciate TCAS isn't always accurate in azimuth - but they were following the usual procedure for 05). Watching some depart was even more interesting! It was MUCH better after about 35 mins (which is still quite a while by UK standards).

If it's forecasting CRAP (everywhere) - just carry the extra gas, that way your hand isn't forced into something you may regret.

If anyone has heard the CVR of the Delta (?) Tristar that attempted landing in a TS at Dallas - it quite sobering hearing the guy willing the aircraft to "lift!, lift!, lift!, lift!" Just before impact.......... :(

AlphaFour

well said alpha 4
 

I concur with Alpha 4,
carry the extra jet A1 - it makes sense & keeps us out of the headlines :-) - then everyones happy, particularly the pax !

Hmm 'right is clear' just shows his naievity of the perils of thunderstorms. Having been struck by lightning 3 times myself, when flying, lightening is not a major worry. The microbursts, downdrafts etc are what many accident reports are full of, and what the recent AIC regarding winshear also emphasises.

As for Ryanair bashing... yes it does get a little tedious to me too.
But dont Ryanair seem to provide the subject matter more than most?

I think we're all getting carried away here. The metar produced by Goforfun states broken CB at 5,000'. That's fifteen miles finals, chances are the Ryanair flew around it and made his approach well under it. A4 says he was there on the day, but not when. Thunderstorms tend to move around. My guess, and I stress it is a guess, is that the Ryanair quite correctly avoided the worst of the cells and made a perfectly normal approach and landing. He took a strike at some point, but that could have been in a very minor cell, or even some way from one. Let's leave the Ryan-bashing for when it really matters.

Herod, as you say, we do not know all the facts.

However, for you to suggest that flying under an active CB is sensible practice is lunatic and irresponsible in the extreme.

Saying landing in thunderstorms yes or no is far to black or white.

I generally steer clear of active CB's.

However I have landed in reasonably bad weather within Europe and although operating at an increased level of alertness, with a possibly amended approach, I have never felt, few only just got away with that!. If I waited for every thunderstorm or CB to move away from the airfield I would be "holding off" frequently which is a poor balance of risk. Also although from the ground the cells may seem well spaced I am sure many pilots will agree that even at the slower operating speeds finiding a bit of clear air to "hold off in" in already crowded airspace is not always easy and not without risk.

There is a lot of info about CB's and thunderstorms and put together with experience you get a feel for what is and what isn't acceptable.

I certainly wouldn't want to fly an approach through a super cell!!

I think Ryanair are very nice people.

Very very nice people.


ps remember if there's going to be a fight out in the car park there's likely to be more of them than us nowadays...

This is pure rubbish and a sad reflection on the direction that postings have taken in the last few months. How about generic postings not mentioning the airlines? Rather, the post could focus on the alleged incident and proper follow-up with a final review of official reports et cetera? Maybe there can be an initial report and discussion (all Joseph Goebbels and spin doctor/axe grinding nonsense removed - or result in disbarring the PPrune account?). A strict format could be applied to reduce the potentially libelous and commercially damaging misinformation. In effect there should be SOPs on this darn site - DON'T YOU GUYS LIVE YOUR LIFE BY THEM? Or is this more like a coffee morning with a ciggie and a biscuit to dunk in your coffee???

Unimpressed by your rascist, incoherenta and mismanaged approach to serious issues.

Get your act together and show the same professionalism as you constantly demonstrate in the air and on the ground.

I know a rigid reporting structure might take away from the initial impact of postings but their long-term relevance would be of greater and more widespread academic interest and more importantly - more accurate.

I agree with paxmanwithinfo. Maybe with should have some SOPs for the site and keep company names off postings.

Alright, many of us will guess the company from the context, place, aircraft etc (think of most of the posts about Rynair or Easyjet with the names blanked; they'd still be recognisable!!) but it might reduce the silly aurguments that erupt either with fact-free 'bashing' post or at the other side of the coin, people shouting a perfectly valid post just because it is about Fr or Ej.

Sorry to go off thread....