Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 17, 2018, 07:59:20 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: T-Storms, hail, turbulence and airplanes - a recent example
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: T-Storms, hail, turbulence and airplanes - a recent example  (Read 635 times)
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 625

« on: June 04, 2018, 01:52:55 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?
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,342
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2018, 03:53:28 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.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 625

« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2018, 11:23:46 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?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 11:29:26 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 776
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2018, 03:59:40 AM »

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
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 04:13:22 AM by Mitchell 1969 » Logged
_________________
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
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,342
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2018, 04:10:11 AM »

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.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 625

« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2018, 09:12:14 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.  :)
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,190

« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2018, 09:24:13 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.
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 625

« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2018, 10:36:19 AM »



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.).
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,099

« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2018, 11:47:48 AM »



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.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: T-Storms, hail, turbulence and airplanes - a recent example
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.057 seconds with 25 queries.