I Know That Pilots Aren't Allowed To Fly Into Thunderstorms, So What's Up With This?... Options

[UALdave]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1097398/L/

I'm not talking about the parked plane, but read that caption-and it appears that the CRJ is heading right into it!

I don't get it; I was on a UAL flight when I was younger where we descended through some rough weather, and I saw a lightening bolt right outside the window.

[galaxy]

This is the correct link :

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1097398/L/

[AName]

I assume he isn't flying into the storm but is being vectored around it (if even departing that way).

[jumbolvr]

I assume he isn't flying into the storm but is being vectored around it (if even departing that way).

they aren't allowed, or does it just depend on the intensity of the storm? when i was flying through jfk a few months back, there was a storm 70odd miles west of us so we were stuck, sat in the plane by the runway til it passed. it got darker and darker then the storm was right over the airport. the pilot came on the tanoid, and said something like, ' as surprising as this is folks we have clearance......'

we took off 4th and flew right into the storm, and out of the window the lightning was like at the plane, in the clod we were in. BIG PINK FLASHES!! that got me a little tense. but i guess they just work out these things and wouldnt fly through them if there wasa danger..

[TAL1440]

Its totally common for a plane to be hit with lightning beleive it or not.

And they CAN survive most strikes without a problem.

[bernoulli]

I Know That Pilots Aren't Allowed To Fly Into Thunderstorms....

I am not aware of any regs which specifically prohibit penetration into a thunderstorm, nor do I need one. Generally, pilots will avoid thunderstorms like the plague, but there are notable exceptions, many of who's adventurous accounts can be found in the NTSB accident database. And no, I'm not referring to pilots who will fly amid thunderstorm "activity" as in the photo, I'm referring to those who boldly (or inadvertantly) punch right through a level 3+ cell. And I don't care how much lightning activity lights up your cabin interior, chances are you were being navigated between or away from the heavier areas of the "paint".

And as for that photo, I would venture a guess that the departing CRJ crew took whatever action necessary to avoid any direct penetration into any cell. Plus, keep in mind that photos have a way of distorting the distance perspective. They may have departed with blue sky at their "twelve", or given a quick right turn prior to any cell entry. Who knows....

As for me? If my display shows a wall of thunderstorms which I cannot circumnavigate, I will simply navigate myself on the safest route back to the nearest pilots' lounge and further navigate to the nearest coffee pot.

[UALdave]

Its totally common for a plane to be hit with lightning beleive it or not.

And they CAN survive most strikes without a problem.

Yeah, I've read that it usually leaves nothing more then a burn mark

I don't know if this is an FAA rule, but on page 152 of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067172217...ie=UTF8&s=books

the author, a former Delta pilot, writes that, "Above 20,000 feet the rule is to fly no closer than 20 miles to avoid the moderate and possibly severe turbulence."

On the same page, he also writes that, "...when a plane is within the vicinity, static electricity may build up on the plane, particularly on the nose, which is the area subject to the most air friction. Airplanes have static electricity wicks located on the wing tips and tail. These are points at which the static electricity is discharged. If the static electricity builds up faster then the wicks can discharge it, a rapid discharge accompanied by a white flash might be seen."

[glnflwrs]

As far as the picture goes, it is a time lapse, multi exposure. Only the photographer knows what the sequence of events was.

The plane could have taken off and been gone before the lightning occurred, or vice versa.

The FAA says that an airliner can expect to be hit by lightning once a year over its lifetime. In the past 40 years there has not been a crash or significant incident due to lightning.

At anytime of everyday there is a lightning strike occurring somewhere in the world, always averaging 9,000 thunderstorms in existance constantly. 24/7/365. Except on Ben Franklin's birthday. LOL!!

[Ranger]

Yeah, I've read that it usually leaves nothing more then a burn mark

I don't know if this is an FAA rule, but on page 152 of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067172217...ie=UTF8&s=books

the author, a former Delta pilot, writes that, "Above 20,000 feet the rule is to fly no closer than 20 miles to avoid the moderate and possibly severe turbulence."

On the same page, he also writes that, "...when a plane is within the vicinity, static electricity may build up on the plane, particularly on the nose, which is the area subject to the most air friction. Airplanes have static electricity wicks located on the wing tips and tail. These are points at which the static electricity is discharged. If the static electricity builds up faster then the wicks can discharge it, a rapid discharge accompanied by a white flash might be seen."

Here's the deal, folks. While there aren't any regs that specifically address flying within close proximity to a t-storm, an airline's flight ops manual (FOM) will dictate how to circumnavigate them. What Dave quoted is a pretty common directive from a FOM to the pilots flying for that company.

Static wicks are fairly effective in dispersing the static charge generated by a lightning strike or a static build-up from air friction. One of the more interesting phenomenons that a pilot might experience is a static discharge. An airplane flying at close to supersonic speed builds a wave of air in front of it. That air is referred to as a bow wave. When there is a lot of static electricity in the air the bow wave becomes electrically charged. There is the possibility that the wave will get fully charged and suddenly flash that static electricity causing something similar to a lightning flash. If you turn the lights down when this phenomenon is building up you can clearly see the wave in front of the airplane along with the electrical charge moving along and through it. In some cases after a lightning strike has been taken there will be two holes somewhere in the skin of the aircraft roughly 1-2 inches across. One is the entry hole of the strike, the other is the exit hole.

[Tpattyii]

I wish someone would call my company and tell them that we arent allowed to fly through T-storms. I seem to only get trips to places with storms these days. Come winter time maybe I can convince them that we arent allowed to fly into icing conditions either

[27driver]

On the same page, he also writes that, "...when a plane is within the vicinity, static electricity may build up on the plane, particularly on the nose, which is the area subject to the most air friction. Airplanes have static electricity wicks located on the wing tips and tail. These are points at which the static electricity is discharged. If the static electricity builds up faster then the wicks can discharge it, a rapid discharge accompanied by a white flash might be seen."

It's true, and it's cool lookin'. Same with the St Elmo's fire that shoots across the screens.

[UALdave]

Here's the deal, folks. While there aren't any regs that specifically address flying within close proximity to a t-storm, an airline's flight ops manual (FOM) will dictate how to circumnavigate them. What Dave quoted is a pretty common directive from a FOM to the pilots flying for that company.

Static wicks are fairly effective in dispersing the static charge generated by a lightning strike or a static build-up from air friction. One of the more interesting phenomenons that a pilot might experience is a static discharge. An airplane flying at close to supersonic speed builds a wave of air in front of it. That air is referred to as a bow wave. When there is a lot of static electricity in the air the bow wave becomes electrically charged. There is the possibility that the wave will get fully charged and suddenly flash that static electricity causing something similar to a lightning flash. If you turn the lights down when this phenomenon is building up you can clearly see the wave in front of the airplane along with the electrical charge moving along and through it. In some cases after a lightning strike has been taken there will be two holes somewhere in the skin of the aircraft roughly 1-2 inches across. One is the entry hole of the strike, the other is the exit hole.

Thanks for the info, Ranger! So, if that standard is used in most FOM's, why doesn't the FAA just make it law?

In any case, I thought that the biggest danger posed by thunderstorms to aircraft was windshear.

[Ranger]

Thanks for the info, Ranger! So, if that standard is used in most FOM's, why doesn't the FAA just make it law?

In any case, I thought that the biggest danger posed by thunderstorms to aircraft was windshear.

I'm not an aviation lawyer. Nor am I smart enough to try to outguess the legal eagles that work for da feds. My pure, line dog guess is that the FAA isn't particularly interested in micro-regulating air commerce. There are regs that would, by extension, cover this type of situation. Terms such as "safe operation" appear in several different parts of the FAR's. And flying in close proximity to, or worse yet, through, a t-storm would hardly be considered a safe operation.

Windshear is THE issue, but not the only one. T-storms have a nasty habit of spitting out a lot of hail. And that hail can be flung many, many miles away from the core of a storm. It's not a desireable thing to fly through a wall of hail. It tends to do a lot of damage to an airframe and even rattles otherwise fearless aviators. That is why we are generally restricted from getting within 20-25 miles of a level 5 storm. They are very bad mo's.

[SF3aviatrix]

T-storms have a nasty habit of spitting out a lot of hail. And that hail can be flung many, many miles away from the core of a storm. It's not a desireable thing to fly through a wall of hail. It tends to do a lot of damage to an airframe and even rattles otherwise fearless aviators....

Like the BAX crew that was pelted with tennis ball size hail at 35,000ft over Alberta Aug 10th???

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

[Ranger]

Like the BAX crew that was pelted with tennis ball size hail at 35,000ft over Alberta Aug 10th???

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Yep. Great pix, Trixie. Mother Nature can be a real Mother.

[The Airbuser]

Like the BAX crew that was pelted with tennis ball size hail at 35,000ft over Alberta Aug 10th???

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Oh crap!!! They got a real scare for sure!

[galaxy]

Like the BAX crew that was pelted with tennis ball size hail at 35,000ft over Alberta Aug 10th???

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

However,the comments on each photo are confusing .

Dear Pilotguy71, The aircraft was is not a BAX aircraft. It was not flight 705BX. It was not in cruise flight. It was not at 35,000 feet. There was no way to measure the size of the hail much less compare it to sporting equipment. Only half of the landing lights were destroyed. Not only did we not make a "Blind" emergency landing we don't know what a one is. The Flight Engineer and I did not quit. And the aircraft was not a total loss. Pretty much the only thing you got right is that it was over Alberta, Canada. Please do some research next time.

http://spotted.blufftontoday.com/pages/pho...&gallery=260523

[AirRabbit]

Just a couple of things – first, Ranger is, again, right on target. The FAA isn’t interested in “micro-regulating” every flight. Even if they were, it’s my opinion that there’d be no realistic way to write or enforce such a thunderstorm regulation. That brings me to my second point. While it may sound simple to say something like “thou shalt not fly into a thunderstorm;” there would always be someone who would say something like, “OK, what is your definition of a thunderstorm?” When you get wet? When you “hear” thunder? When you see lightning? When you “see” rain? When the rainfall exceeds a certain volume per minute? When the radar return shows at least (fill in the blank)? And, of course, you’d have to provide parameters for both monochrome and color radar returns – as well as the mode of radar operation. The point is navigating over, under, around, and, yes, sometimes “through” storms is the only option open. The business of establishing regulations is to provide a “floor” of safe operation that everyone has to meet. Sure, it’s generally not considered safe to knowingly fly into a thunderstorm. But outlining the parameters of such a rule wouldn’t be all that easy to do. If the FAA can’t be specific about what requirements would be levied, they’re not going to just “take a stab at it.” Don’t get me wrong – as many have said on this thread, there are all kinds of warnings, and guidance, and “helpful hints,” and company operating procedures that should steer flight crews away from thunderstorms. And, as Ranger correctly points out, the basic premise, at least for airline operations, is to operate with the highest possible degree of safety. Actually, that's a good practice for anyone getting into an airplane with the intentions of leaving the ground in it.

[SF3aviatrix]

Dear Pilotguy71, The aircraft was is not a BAX aircraft. It was not flight 705BX. It was not in cruise flight. It was not at 35,000 feet...Pretty much the only thing you got right is that it was over Alberta, Canada. Please do some research next time.

Technically, it was ex-AA 727 N708AA operated by Capital Cargo International Airlines. (Pretty obvious from the colors it's Cappy.) BAX Global has a wet-lease contract Cappy and they operate as BAX flights. The rest is unsubstantantiated but the story around the net.

[baxgirl]

However,the comments on each photo are confusing .

Dear Pilotguy71, The aircraft was is not a BAX aircraft. It was not flight 705BX. It was not in cruise flight. It was not at 35,000 feet. There was no way to measure the size of the hail much less compare it to sporting equipment. Only half of the landing lights were destroyed. Not only did we not make a "Blind" emergency landing we don't know what a one is. The Flight Engineer and I did not quit. And the aircraft was not a total loss. Pretty much the only thing you got right is that it was over Alberta, Canada. Please do some research next time.

http://spotted.blufftontoday.com/pages/pho...&gallery=260523

Interesting.

MY research says:

YYC-MSP-TOL is ALWAYS flt 705BX *unless* there's a diversion or change in aircraft. It was flt 705BX z-date 11-Aug-06. The airturn was 1705BX, and the freight was recovered and placed on 2705BX. I was going to ask if you knew the tail number but I see someone already indicated that. I also know who the CA, FO, and FE were (names, DOB, and license numbers too if you want to get down to it - however, I will not release that info in a public forum). As far as altitude and location, I can't be sure. The airturn YYC to YYC was a total of 95 min. Since I have zero knowledge of Canada, I don't know how far that'd get you. I don't know how the pics got on the web, but I do know they were sent to just about everyone in the company (BAX Global). What we were told was that radar and some lights were out (not all). Seeing as how that same tail number just moved as of today (25-Jan-07), I think it's safe to say that it was not a total loss. On a positive note, ATC did say we were lucky to have such a knowledgeable and experienced crew.

baxgirl