Thunderstorm on approach.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thunderstorm on approach.
Dear all,
Apparently flying towards a thunderstorm on approach is more a current affair than we may think.I can say ive done it but never again.
The minima and crews decision are the only ways to restrict an AC to fly in such conditions.
Why couldnt it be simply forbidden by law?
Couldnt we,lets say,restrict an AC from starting such an approach where convective windshears are known in a fixed distance around the field..10NM maybe?
I remember the tower in Springfield telling me since i was "the only dude up there" to start the approach whenever i wanted when i asked her the latest winds on the field..that was while i was slaloming between cells around the field.
Safe flying,
M.85
Apparently flying towards a thunderstorm on approach is more a current affair than we may think.I can say ive done it but never again.
The minima and crews decision are the only ways to restrict an AC to fly in such conditions.
Why couldnt it be simply forbidden by law?
Couldnt we,lets say,restrict an AC from starting such an approach where convective windshears are known in a fixed distance around the field..10NM maybe?
I remember the tower in Springfield telling me since i was "the only dude up there" to start the approach whenever i wanted when i asked her the latest winds on the field..that was while i was slaloming between cells around the field.
Safe flying,
M.85
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vector aircraft around thunderstorms for the approaches all the time, but occasionally a pilot will surprise me and want to do the approach with level 4 or higher weather on the final.
Most of the time all the pilot has to do is hold for ten to fifteen minutes for the storm to move off the airport. Often there is also a major wind shift with the storms passage so we end up changing approaches.
But I agree, something needs to be done to prevent the Bold Pilot Want to Be from pushing the envelope.
Mike
Most of the time all the pilot has to do is hold for ten to fifteen minutes for the storm to move off the airport. Often there is also a major wind shift with the storms passage so we end up changing approaches.
But I agree, something needs to be done to prevent the Bold Pilot Want to Be from pushing the envelope.
Mike
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some countries will actually close their airfields because of severe weather.
As FW NATCA says, such storms will pass in about fifteen minutes so holding off should be the only option, apart from diverting, which is a bit drastic. Carrying a bit of extra fuel to cover the possibility of forecast thunderstorm activity is the 'norm' in most airlines.
As FW NATCA says, such storms will pass in about fifteen minutes so holding off should be the only option, apart from diverting, which is a bit drastic. Carrying a bit of extra fuel to cover the possibility of forecast thunderstorm activity is the 'norm' in most airlines.
Interesting question! But there is no easy answer.
Some years ago I took a B737 into CDG when CB's were forecast. The weather was not bad enough to cancel, or delay, the flight. I took about 40 minutes of holding fuel. Approaching RW27 from the north a line squall painted red parallel to, and north of, the ILS centreline for about 30 miles. Rather than penetrate any red cells I held off for (about) 30 minutes. During this time there was continuous landing traffic. The wind was very light and the cells didn't budge an inch.
I arrived at a position where there was no option but to take an approach vector to the localiser through a line squall. BANG, an immediate (but non damaging) lightning strike. We conducted an Autoland in virtually calm conditions in heavy downpour. The engineers were expecting a lightning strike and we took a 40 minute tech delay.
Now, as I recall, the Company Ops Manual gave specific advice about extra holding fuel and avoiding active cells. That covered my decision to hold off. A diversion in the Paris area might not have helped the matter; there were too many static cells to avoid. If I had returned to our UK base well, I would have been the only one! CDG had continuous landing traffic whilst I was holding. I don't recall other traffic holding off.
Moral of the story? Well, you can only do your best.
Some years ago I took a B737 into CDG when CB's were forecast. The weather was not bad enough to cancel, or delay, the flight. I took about 40 minutes of holding fuel. Approaching RW27 from the north a line squall painted red parallel to, and north of, the ILS centreline for about 30 miles. Rather than penetrate any red cells I held off for (about) 30 minutes. During this time there was continuous landing traffic. The wind was very light and the cells didn't budge an inch.
I arrived at a position where there was no option but to take an approach vector to the localiser through a line squall. BANG, an immediate (but non damaging) lightning strike. We conducted an Autoland in virtually calm conditions in heavy downpour. The engineers were expecting a lightning strike and we took a 40 minute tech delay.
Now, as I recall, the Company Ops Manual gave specific advice about extra holding fuel and avoiding active cells. That covered my decision to hold off. A diversion in the Paris area might not have helped the matter; there were too many static cells to avoid. If I had returned to our UK base well, I would have been the only one! CDG had continuous landing traffic whilst I was holding. I don't recall other traffic holding off.
Moral of the story? Well, you can only do your best.
