T-Storms, hail, turbulence and airplanes - a recent example

Started by Live2Learn, June 04, 2018, 05:52:55 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Live2Learn

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b97224e&opt=0  It looks like this crew flew a bit closer than the FAA's recommended "20 NM" separation from T-Storms.  Take a look at the weather radar image at the bottom of the web page.  A diversion might have been the right decision.  With 20/20 hindsight and my rear view mirror it wasn't a good day to fly [there].  I wonder if any comfort critters were in the cabin, and if so, how they handled the mayhem?

SarDragon

I helped change a P-3 radome with similar damage a while back. They were flying east from Moffett Field, encountered the hail over Colorado, and continued the flight all the way to Brunswick, Maine. Not real smart.

The T-56 oil coolers were all dented, the top anti-smash light was broken, the HF long wire antenna was broken, and all of the wing-nacelle fillets were dented.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Live2Learn

Quote from: SarDragon on June 04, 2018, 07:53:28 PM
I helped change a P-3 radome with similar damage a while back. They were flying east from Moffett Field, encountered the hail over Colorado, and continued the flight all the way to Brunswick, Maine. Not real smart.

The T-56 oil coolers were all dented, the top anti-smash light was broken, the HF long wire antenna was broken, and all of the wing-nacelle fillets were dented.

Seems like the crew wasn't fully aware of the damage.

FWIW, I ran across some posts on the AOPA forum that said with respect to avoiding T-storms by at least 20 nm, that their [un-named] "company policy was [to avoid T-storms by] no less than 5 nm during approach or landing..."   That seems a bit close to me, and kinda low too.  The last place I want to experience a microburst, wind shear, strong turbulence, and/or hail would be close to the ground (i.e. in the pattern and especially during an approach).  Is a 5 mile T-storm avoidance policy during approach and landing kinda unique, or is it something other companies (and maybe the military) also do?

Mitchell 1969

#3
Quote from: Live2Learn on June 04, 2018, 05:52:55 PM
http://avherald.com/h?article=4b97224e&opt=0  It looks like this crew flew a bit closer than the FAA's recommended "20 NM" separation from T-Storms.  Take a look at the weather radar image at the bottom of the web page.  A diversion might have been the right decision.  With 20/20 hindsight and my rear view mirror it wasn't a good day to fly [there].  I wonder if any comfort critters were in the cabin, and if so, how they handled the mayhem?

I'm sure the various turtles, llamas, pigs, ferrets, armadillos, raccoons and other "emotional support" animals did just fine.  And by "just fine" I mean lots of noise, running up and down the aisles and conducting intense "internal evacuations," if you get my drift.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

SarDragon

Quote from: Live2Learn on June 06, 2018, 03:23:46 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on June 04, 2018, 07:53:28 PM
I helped change a P-3 radome with similar damage a while back. They were flying east from Moffett Field, encountered the hail over Colorado, and continued the flight all the way to Brunswick, Maine. Not real smart.

The T-56 oil coolers were all dented, the top anti-smash light was broken, the HF long wire antenna was broken, and all of the wing-nacelle fillets were dented.

Seems like the crew wasn't fully aware of the damage.

[redacted]
Well, the forward radar was inop, and there was damage to the skin above the radome visible from the cockpit. They should have at least made a precautionary landing. The message traffic afterwards was hot and heavy, and the pilot and copilot had some qualifications suspended.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Live2Learn

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 06, 2018, 07:59:40 AM
...
I'm sure the various turtles, llamas, pigs, ferrets, armadillos, raccoons and other "emotional support" animals did just fine.  And by "just fine" I mean lots of noise, running up and down the aisles and conducting intense "internal evacuations," if you get my drift.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only a little thread drift (fair warning)... 

US DOT is soliciting input for a 'Proposed Rule Making' on "comfort animals" and "service animals" in airports and in the cabin.  From my read the current rule (and a proposed rule based on input from those who wish to fly with legitimate service animals) 1) there is no limit on the number of these critters any one person can bring aboard; 2) there is no requirement that the critters have any vaccinations; 3) there is no requirement that critters be leashed or muzzled (this despite several passengers and legitimate service dogs having been attacked by a critter or two); 4) there is no requirement for documentation or actual demonstration that the critter and/or human has any training; 5) there is no requirement that the critter be deloused, deticked, defleaed, or even have a recent bath; 6) there is no requirement that the critters be trained to act appropriately in an emergency or exigency (like a cockpit fire, crash landing, cabin fire, emergency evacuation, etc.); 7) there is no requirement in the current regs drafted during a recent prior administration that prior notice be given to airlines, along with documentation of suitability [limited as it is]; 8) there is no requirement that critters (and their humans) have liability insurance sufficient to care for injuries suffered by others; 9) critters ride for free [which might be why the numbers of "service" and "comfort" critters has boomed in the past five years - along with issues; 10) "reasonable accommodation" does not include other passengers who might suffer severe allergies to critter dander, teeth, or claws; 11) only concerns about critter teeth and associated bites are mentioned vaguely in the regs.  Claws are not.

Fortunately CAP rarely transports critters in the cockpit.  :)

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Live2Learn on June 06, 2018, 01:12:14 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 06, 2018, 07:59:40 AM
...
I'm sure the various turtles, llamas, pigs, ferrets, armadillos, raccoons and other "emotional support" animals did just fine.  And by "just fine" I mean lots of noise, running up and down the aisles and conducting intense "internal evacuations," if you get my drift.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only a little thread drift (fair warning)... 

US DOT is soliciting input for a 'Proposed Rule Making' on "comfort animals" and "service animals" in airports and in the cabin.  From my read the current rule (and a proposed rule based on input from those who wish to fly with legitimate service animals) 1) there is no limit on the number of these critters any one person can bring aboard; 2) there is no requirement that the critters have any vaccinations; 3) there is no requirement that critters be leashed or muzzled (this despite several passengers and legitimate service dogs having been attacked by a critter or two); 4) there is no requirement for documentation or actual demonstration that the critter and/or human has any training; 5) there is no requirement that the critter be deloused, deticked, defleaed, or even have a recent bath; 6) there is no requirement that the critters be trained to act appropriately in an emergency or exigency (like a cockpit fire, crash landing, cabin fire, emergency evacuation, etc.); 7) there is no requirement in the current regs drafted during a recent prior administration that prior notice be given to airlines, along with documentation of suitability [limited as it is]; 8) there is no requirement that critters (and their humans) have liability insurance sufficient to care for injuries suffered by others; 9) critters ride for free [which might be why the numbers of "service" and "comfort" critters has boomed in the past five years - along with issues; 10) "reasonable accommodation" does not include other passengers who might suffer severe allergies to critter dander, teeth, or claws; 11) only concerns about critter teeth and associated bites are mentioned vaguely in the regs.  Claws are not.

Fortunately CAP rarely transports critters in the cockpit.  :)

This isn't applicable to Part 91 operations. This is more in regard to Part 121 air carrier operations, and, to a lesser extent, Part 135.

Live2Learn

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on June 06, 2018, 01:24:13 PM


This isn't applicable to Part 91 operations. This is more in regard to Part 121 air carrier operations, and, to a lesser extent, Part 135.

Agree, generally and with some reservations (see below).  However some of us do travel in the back of 121 carrier aircraft for CAP (and other) purposes.  For example, several members of my wing (and squadron) have traveled on CAP business for training, participation in predator escort flights, SAR/DR, etc.  Hence, critters are a relevant point of interest and safety awareness for members who travel on CAP business.

Regardless, if CAP does transport a search dog in the cockpit on an authorized mission, which may happen under some limited circumstances, the finer points mentioned might be relevant during passenger pre-flight briefs (i.e., control or crated, use of muzzles, leashed, vaccinations, training and accustomed to small aircraft, handler capability and familiarity with aircraft travel, special emergency procedures, etc.).

PHall

Quote from: Live2Learn on June 06, 2018, 02:36:19 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on June 06, 2018, 01:24:13 PM


This isn't applicable to Part 91 operations. This is more in regard to Part 121 air carrier operations, and, to a lesser extent, Part 135.

Agree, generally and with some reservations (see below).  However some of us do travel in the back of 121 carrier aircraft for CAP (and other) purposes.  For example, several members of my wing (and squadron) have traveled on CAP business for training, participation in predator escort flights, SAR/DR, etc.  Hence, critters are a relevant point of interest and safety awareness for members who travel on CAP business.

Regardless, if CAP does transport a search dog in the cockpit on an authorized mission, which may happen under some limited circumstances, the finer points mentioned might be relevant during passenger pre-flight briefs (i.e., control or crated, use of muzzles, leashed, vaccinations, training and accustomed to small aircraft, handler capability and familiarity with aircraft travel, special emergency procedures, etc.).

Every dog that I have seen CAP transport has been in a carrier. The handlers prefer it since the dog is used to being in the carrier and you can secure the carrier.
Not to mention that if there is an "accident" it stays inside the carrier.