More on Airlines and Turbulence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike Smith
  • Start date Start date
The question is (possibly): What is the threshold of T-storm intensity that air traffic control or pilots deem too dangerous? That storm near the airport looks a little weak it may not have even had much of a Doppler signature.
 
True, it was not a strong storm. But, it was the only one in the area (look at satellite image from 15 min. after take off). Why fly through it? Deviating would have been easy in yesterday's instance.
Picture+8.png


Consider the July incident. It was a 777 enroute from IAD to LAX. If you look at the satellite image from the July turbulence encounter that caused injuries and forced the emergency landing, you find find that if had the plane diverted a 100nm south, the plane would have not only missed that thunderstorm, it would have missed the other [severe] thunderstorm complex over western Kansas and Colorado

Picture+6.png


This doesn't add up to me: Extreme caution in clear air (keeping the seat belt sign on an entire flight or virtually an entire flight) but flying through thunderstorms.
 
True, it was not a strong storm. But, it was the only one in the area (look at satellite image from 15 min. after take off). Why fly through it? Deviating would have been easy in yesterday's instance.
Picture+8.png


Consider the July incident. It was a 777 enroute from IAD to LAX. If you look at the satellite image from the July turbulence encounter that caused injuries and forced the emergency landing, you find find that if had the plane diverted a 100nm south, the plane would have not only missed that thunderstorm, it would have missed the other [severe] thunderstorm complex over western Kansas and Colorado

Picture+6.png


This doesn't add up to me: Extreme caution in clear air (keeping the seat belt sign on an entire flight or virtually an entire flight) but flying through thunderstorms.
 
This is very interesting. I myself, have had some fears when coming to turbulence. In October of 2009, I flew over to Spain. About 4 hours into the flight, we were encountering some severe storms over the Atlantic Ocean. We took off at JFK International, if anyone was wondering. As we were flying through these storms, we hit some pretty terrifying turbulence. At one point, the plane felt like it dropped about a couple thousand feet and then we stalled in mid flight. The plane shut off, everything went pitch black and was very quiet. No one on the flight made a sound. After about 15 seconds of the plane just gliding in the air, everything turned back on. The pilot of this aircraft came on the loud speaker saying we were struck by lightening.

Now, I have a question. Are planes suppose to handle being struck by lightening and NOT shut off like so?
 
StevenJohnson said:
Now, I have a question. Are planes suppose to handle being struck by lightening and NOT shut off like so?
Click to expand...

Yes, planes are designed to withstand lightning strikes. I'm pleased to report the B-737 I was on outside of Denver, that was struck by an anvil-crawler, took it just fine.

Here is a comment on my turbulence blog posting that was sent to me that you might find to be of interest:
As a licensed aircraft dispatcher(though not working as a dispatcher) imo for the most part you've hit the nail on the head with this one.

So, it appears there is a real problem here.

Mike
 
I'm not a licensed pilot, but I majored in aviation for a while. It's not a cheap major.

Part of the problem could be the airlines.
1. Being the airline's worry about injury from turbulence.

2. The pilots could be covering their own a$%es

I think it could be a combination of of the two. While I understand what you are saying. I think it's everyone covering their butts. Think about it, if you hit turbulence and didn't have the seat belt sign on, that would leave you open for law suits. Turbulence can be experienced in clear air, and a lot of pilots rely on reports from other aircraft that have been in the area. If/when pilots fly into turbulence, they are really busy trying to get the plane out of it, or to smooth the ride by using certain maneuvers.

As far as pilots flying into thunderstorms, it's up to their discretion. Time or intensity of said storm usually dictate.
Time. If the flight is on time or ahead of time they can go around. As you probably know, each flight has a scheduled time from points A to B. Even push backs are supposed to happen by a certain time.

Intensity. That's pretty self explanatory. If a storm is to rough they will go around, unless it's an overseas flight and/or the system is to large for deviation of the flight. 100nm can make a huge difference in fuel usage.

The best way to avoid turbulence is to catch an early morning flight. Before afternoon heating. Unless your on a 12 hour flight, if so, try to make it an overnight.

I hope this information helps. If not, you all just got a bunch of useless information LOL.
 
I apologize for the delay in answering the two posts above. I have been at the AMS summer meeting all week and have been swamped.

I do not know the echo tops. However, from the cloud top temperatures in the satellite image they were likely 40,000 ft. or higher.

I agree there is a lot of CYA in this, but flying through thunderstorms (of any kind) is a lousy way to CYA. It is the combination of apparent hyper-risk avoidance (seat belt sign) combined with recklessness (flying through thunderstorms) that is so perplexing.

While I agree about the fuel use, since my original posting the WSJ had an article about the most fuel efficient airlines and the airline in question is second worst. So, it does not seem to be fuel management that is driving this problem. And, in this case, 100 mi. to the south would have avoided all thunderstorms from Missouri to LAX. In other words, they would not have had to go 100 mi. south and 100 mi. back north again and it would have had a minimal effect on the schedule.

Since my original post, I have spoken with two others in the airline industry (besides the dispatcher who got in touch with me and the two pilots I spoke to at IAD) and they believe the problem is turbulence training. From what I can glean, it is essentially the same as it was 30 years ago.
 
If you feel turbulence training is out of date, dig deeper into Crew Resource Management (CRM). I would be way more concerned with this one, than turbulence training.
 
Well, there's always clear air turbulence to worry about. There may be some sort of association between pilots seeing thunderstorms, then thinking higher probability of CAT later on in the flight.

My dad has flown for American Airlines for the past two decades or so. I can recall him bringing home training/brochures written by their meteorologists about the dangers of flying near thunderstorms and their associated turbulence. The biggest issue was pilots avoiding the core, but flying directly underneith the anvil and getting everybody rocked. The last pamphlet I recall reading was that besides the safety issue, this practice costs the Airlines X amount of dollars... primarily because of their flight attendants being injured.

On the current aircraft my Dad flies, they have a weather radar, however, its sensitivity is limited to something like green,yellow,red. Red is a no-no, green is ok, and yellow is avoid if possible (or more like avoid if it allows you to not lose your position in line to land).
 
Aaron Kennedy said:
On the current aircraft my Dad flies, they have a weather radar, however, its sensitivity is limited to something like green,yellow,red. Red is a no-no, green is ok, and yellow is avoid if possible (or more like avoid if it allows you to not lose your position in line to land).
Click to expand...

I find the later very humors, because it's the truth. :D I've come real close to getting back in it, but I had to consider my age and how much longer would I qualify for a fcfp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jeff Duda
Updates on Thoughts Regarding the Mechanisms of Tornadogenesis (NCAR talk)
Replies
0
Views
255
Jeff Duda
Jeff Duda
50th Anniversary of Scientific Tornado Coverage on Television
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Mike Smith
Another NWS Warning Miss on an Obvious Tornado
Replies
8
Views
2K
Brian R.
Brian R.
gdlewen
Mesocyclone Occlusions as Viewed from the Ground
Replies
0
Views
656
gdlewen
gdlewen
Brian R.
Curious about why Iowa and Nebraska as well as Oklahoma getting hit so hard this year
Replies
6
Views
1K
William Monfredo
William Monfredo
Back
Top