Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Weather Penetration Branch Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Weather Penetration Branch Thread

    An encounter with severe weather is being discussed with the latest Malaysia incident (and is big with AF 447).

    The standard talking point is that airliners cruise above 'all' weather. Of course, weather buffs know that extreme thunderstorms can exceed 40,000 feet.

    Of course, for that, the standard airliner talking point is that they can easily deviate around monster storms.

    Another standard talking point is that sensitive, on-board radar allows a lot of perfectly safe penetrations with no real risk...through holes that are not evident on the less-sensitive Weather Channel.com stuff....

    I guess this leaves the following questions: Are there some mega big storms over there that are so wide (and high) that you can't practically get around them?

    I was going to ask our professional pilots for their "stories of their worst weather encounters"- but I remember- this subject has come up before and the pilots on this forum NEVER encounter anything worse than light rain showers (even though statistics show a much higher rate when the pilots NOT on this forum are included).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    I guess this leaves the following questions: Are there some mega big storms over there that are so wide (and high) that you can't practically get around them?
    That depends on your definition of 'practical'. I think most low-cost airlines include a $ in their definition.

    And of course you must have the radar tilted properly. (see:AF447)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      The standard talking point is that airliners cruise above 'all' weather. Of course, weather buffs know that extreme thunderstorms can exceed 40,000 feet.

      Of course, for that, the standard airliner talking point is that they can easily deviate around monster storms.

      Another standard talking point is that sensitive, on-board radar allows a lot of perfectly safe penetrations with no real risk.
      All that is not very correct.

      Storms can go even above FL 400.
      Storms can throw warm (relatively, for what would be normal temp for the altitude), moist air (containing ice or supercooled water that will become ice as soon as it contacts the plane) well above the storm itself. Other than the ice danger, this warm air can seriously deteriorate the airplane performance which can suddenly find itself flying above its ceiling (and hence, unsustainable).
      Ice is not detected by weather radars (well, it is detected but will show just a green or yellow where a red should be).
      That's why it is recommended that airplanes flying above storms tilt the radar down and avoid flying over strong storms with high tops.

      And a storm never catches a plane. It's always the other way around. The plane can always avoid the storm. Whether that's always compatible to reaching the intended destination or not is another question. But any destination, even if not the intended one, is better than a smoking hole in the ground.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by me
        ...thunderstorms can exceed 40,000 feet...
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        All that is not very correct.

        Storms can go even above FL 400.
        ??? and @#%@#%!

        Originally posted by Gabriel
        ...And a storm never catches a plane. It's always the other way around. The plane can always avoid the storm...
        1) Who said the storms catch a plane?

        2) AND who says that storms cannot form (and form rapidly) all the way around the plane (and shoot up to 50 or 60K feet)? While there's usually a gap I'd say that the chances of a full circle of storms are greater than the chances of being stuck on an airliner when the pilot pulls up relentlessly and stalls the plane.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          ??? and @#%@#%!
          I deserve it!

          1) Who said the storms catch a plane?
          And who said that anybody said it?
          What I'm saying is that, because storms don't catch planes, there is always a way out.

          I was answering your question: Are there some mega big storms over there that are so wide (and high) that you can't practically get around them?

          2) AND who says that storms cannot form (and form rapidly) all the way around the plane (and shoot up to 50 or 60K feet)?
          While that's technically not impossible, I've never seen it happening.

          On the other hand...

          greater than the chances of being stuck on an airliner when the pilot pulls up relentlessly and stalls the plane.
          I've seen it happening much more times than I would have liked.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment

          Working...
          X