Delta airplane got hail...!!

[AVION1]

Apparently they landed at Denver, without any incident.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/delta-plane-forced-make-emergency-landing-flying-hail/story?id=32964286

[orangehuggy]

Delta 1889 @ DEN

That'll buff out right? Might need new windshields though...

[3WE]

Wantonly blowing through hailstorms again?

Fire and fine the pilots!

[AVION1]

An Airbus?
That would never happen to a Boeing !

[Evan]

Wantonly blowing through hailstorms again?

Fire and fine the pilots!

Seriously, they should at least get a whipping. This one was clearly on radar.

Loss of WXR, damage to both engines and a forced Cat IIIc landing. One pax hospitalized and a lot scared out of their minds. Well done Delta.

[brianw999]

An Airbus?
That would never happen to a Boeing !

No, of course not

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=boeing+hail+damage&biw=1471&bih=773&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI4KX-y-ibxwIVBdUeCh0zpQcF

....and this document has some interesting facts and figures... https://www.airbus.com/.../AirbusSaf...V_WX-SEQ07.pdf

[Schwartz]

Seriously, they should at least get a whipping. This one was clearly on radar.

Loss of WXR, damage to both engines and a forced Cat IIIc landing. One pax hospitalized and a lot scared out of their minds. Well done Delta.

If you listen to the video on the news report link above, it was a merger of two storms and other planes had flown through without incident. The "expert" also noted that hail does not readily show on the weather radar.

[BoeingBobby]

If you listen to the video on the news report link above, it was a merger of two storms and other planes had flown through without incident. The "expert" also noted that hail does not readily show on the weather radar.

This was pointed out to Evan and others after the Delta encounter over China a couple of weeks ago in a 747-400. Evan likes to call for corporal punishment a lot! Must be a childhood thing with him!

[AVION1]

The "expert" also noted that hail does not readily show on the weather radar.

What radar? just take a look at the nose cone again, I am sure the weather radar dish, got damaged too.

[AVION1]

No, of course not

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=boeing+hail+damage&biw=1471&bih=773&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI4KX-y-ibxwIVBdUeCh0zpQcF

....and this document has some interesting facts and figures... https://www.airbus.com/.../AirbusSaf...V_WX-SEQ07.pdf

Oops, sorry. I am pretty sure Boeing build their airplanes with real metal rivets, real stainless steel bolts and real aluminum skin.
The Europeans are using too much glue and carbon fibers in their airplanes.

[3WE]

This was pointed out to Evan and others after the Delta encounter over China a couple of weeks ago in a 747-400. Evan likes to call for corporal punishment a lot! Must be a childhood thing with him!

Correction: It was not_Evan, but UALdave calling for punishment on the recent 747-in-China hail affair.

And, I also note a strange silence when, as an outsider, I look at facts and ask a question in the realm of the elusive middle ground.

Facts: (at least I think they are facts).

-We don't want to knowingly fly through hail like this, radomes are expensive, it's just a tiny bit dangerous, and the bad PR is a PITA.

-USA TV weather guys are (with possible useful accuracy) 'detecting' hail with radar.

-High-speed communication has never been better.

Question: Maybe, should we think about a system to convey 'new technology hail data' to aircraft. (The bolded words are important)

It doesn't have to be implimented tomorrow, and indeed, modern, turbojet aviation maintains an excellent safety record (they didn't died in either of the recent incidents). But, I think Boeing Bobby still prefers to avoid significant convective weather including hail and it would be nice if we could stop trashing cheap composite radar domes.

Of course, I'm just an ousider, so actually, I should remain silent with my questions and just trust the folks and the systems operating the plane and negotiating weather.

[Schwartz]

Correction: It was not_Evan, but UALdave calling for punishment on the recent 747-in-China hail affair.

And, I also note a strange silence when, as an outsider, I look at facts and ask a question in the realm of the elusive middle ground.

Facts: (at least I think they are facts).

-We don't want to knowingly fly through hail like this, radomes are expensive, it's just a tiny bit dangerous, and the bad PR is a PITA.

-USA TV weather guys are (with possible useful accuracy) 'detecting' hail with radar.

-High-speed communication has never been better.

Question: Maybe, should we think about a system to convey 'new technology hail data' to aircraft. (The bolded words are important)

It doesn't have to be implimented tomorrow, and indeed, modern, turbojet aviation maintains an excellent safety record (they didn't died in either of the recent incidents). But, I think Boeing Bobby still prefers to avoid significant convective weather including hail and it would be nice if we could stop trashing cheap composite radar domes.

Of course, I'm just an ousider, so actually, I should remain silent with my questions and just trust the folks and the systems operating the plane and negotiating weather.

The TV "Expert" was making comments that a passenger with internet access likely had access to better weather information than the cockpit, but that they are currently preventing cockpits from connecting to the internet for security reasons.

A simplistic, but likely accurate statement.

And yep, that weather radar certainly didn't work after hitting the hail. Apparently, those european flight computers kept working and landed the plane though, since the pilots couldn't see squat. Must have been some high heart rates in the cockpit though.

[3WE]

The TV "Expert" was making comments that a passenger with internet access likely had access to better weather information than the cockpit, but that they are currently preventing cockpits from connecting to the internet for security reasons.

A simplistic, but likely accurate statement.

Not sure we can say that...and not arguing but furthering the discussion.

Cockpits currently have 'electronic data upload and download capabilities', and I'm pretty sure that includes weather. No foul if a dude is pulling much needed information into an I-pad as long as it is not connected to a flight control computer...

In other threads it was once pointed out that "Internet Radar" lacks detail and timeliness. Where we see a solid, nasty band of red (that's 5 or more minutes old), the on-board, real time, RADAR, that the pilots have might look at a specifica altitude and find a nice 10-mile clear gap to shoot through free of hail, rain, and maybe even turbulece...so "simply" giving the pilots acess to http://www.weather.com is not "the" answer...

...and from the other 747 thread, it was emphasized that aircraft radar cannot see ice (land radar may not actually 'see' ice either, but 'infer it'...I dunno, just making ass-hat-parlour-talk speculation).

Some of this comes down to the old crux, "it ain't broke too bad, let's not fix it and make things worse"...we need to remember that. You never know when Boeing Bobby might be messing with his I-pad looking for hail locations and forget to turn on the pitot heat and then pull up relentlessly when a warning goes of...

But then again, if you are already getting terminal forecasts and winds and maintenance data, a timely hail warning from a ground-based radar system might just save Delta some paint or maybe even save an entire, albeit old, 747 from the scrap heap (assuming the PRC wanted to build and man the radar stations)...

[BoeingBobby]

You never know when Boeing Bobby might be messing with his I-pad

I don't carry no stinkin' IPad

[Evan]

The "expert" also noted that hail does not readily show on the weather radar.

No, but RED shows readily on radar. Were they seeing what I'm seeing? I retract my half-serious call for a good whipping pending the investigation, but I get the strong impression that pilots are being pressured (or pressuring themselves) to thread through canyons of chance when they should be diverting away because of chance.

(radar image courtesy of NASA and AvHerald)