Summer Storms

[schnitzel2k3]

Safely?

Were they in an accident or incident you did not mention?

They were 2 minutes ahead of getting their windshield smashed in on the same runway.

I do hate to repeat myself but, I did ask questions. Where did the AC flight encounter the hail?

They landed in what I would consider very heavy rain, windshear, and weather bordering on hail.

I would call it luck of the draw.

I was right beside the end of the runway.

S.

Unless you actually had instrumentation to validate your opinion, then that is exactly what we are discussing. Your opinion. I just find it interesting that all of your concern is centered on the aircraft that had no damage and not the one who landed with damage. I have not seen you question their approach and landing and I am curious why? Was the weather better 2 minutes later when Air Canada landed? Is it just that you don't like WestJet? Other reasons not mentioned or guessed at?

What are you getting at? I don't need instrumentation to feel and see the wind, rain and storms approaching when they are basically on top of the airport. I am questioning their decision making to continue an approach to landing when the risks were very high and the conditions bordering on severe as I was standing in said rain watching them touch down.

I was reminded of Air France in Toronto...

Just because they managed to plant it on and taxi in doesn't automatically validate their decisions, they got lucky. Air Canada did not and diverted AFTER sustaining damage.

S.

[Mach1]

I am asking for more detail on the situation to determine the actual level of danger. Why one aircraft was damaged and one was not. I am asking what you are getting at. You stated there was windshear... in your opinion. You have stated that an Air Canada flight arrived with damage after the fact and have avoided answering any of my legitimate questioning on where that aircraft encountered it's damage. I am after the reason you are so upset about this WJ flight landing in whatever conditions you deemed inappropriate but refuse to apply the same standard to the AC aircraft that, in your words, arrived 2 minutes later.

If you have some sort of axe to grind with WJ, go ahead and grind away. However, be somewhat honest that this is about a personal grudge against one airline. Were it not, you would be discussing the arrival of both of those aircraft and your concerns about both of those arrivals. You are not. You are obsessed with one and only one arrival and not the other even though they are 2 minutes apart.

Are you actually concerned about arrivals during storms or just arrivals by one company during storms?

I was reminded of Air France in Toronto...

For the record, a 737 (or a 320, for that matter... even though you seem unconcerned by their arrival) on a 15,000 foot runway is not a 340 on a 9,000 foot runway.

[schnitzel2k3]

I am asking for more detail on the situation to determine the actual level of danger. Why one aircraft was damaged and one was not. I am asking what you are getting at. You stated there was windshear... in your opinion. You have stated that an Air Canada flight arrived with damage after the fact and have avoided answering any of my legitimate questioning on where that aircraft encountered it's damage. I am after the reason you are so upset about this WJ flight landing in whatever conditions you deemed inappropriate but refuse to apply the same standard to the AC aircraft that, in your words, arrived 2 minutes later.

If you have some sort of axe to grind with WJ, go ahead and grind away. However, be somewhat honest that this is about a personal grudge against one airline. Were it not, you would be discussing the arrival of both of those aircraft and your concerns about both of those arrivals. You are not. You are obsessed with one and only one arrival and not the other even though they are 2 minutes apart.

Are you actually concerned about arrivals during storms or just arrivals by one company during storms?

I was reminded of Air France in Toronto...

For the record, a 737 (or a 320, for that matter... even though you seem unconcerned by their arrival) on a 15,000 foot runway is not a 340 on a 9,000 foot runway.

First of all, if you are reading me being upset, far from it.

July 30th, 2016, YYC.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-ne ... windshield

I have no idea or interest in finding historical aviation data, but you may absolutely fill your boots mon ami.

S.

[Diadem]

Air Canada continued their approach until their windshield shattered. They had the same information as WestJet, and they also elected to continue until they sustained damage; if anything, they would have had more info, since they would have had reports of aircraft ahead of them. Why aren't you criticizing them for proceeding?

[schnitzel2k3]

Air Canada continued their approach until their windshield shattered. They had the same information as WestJet, and they also elected to continue until they sustained damage; if anything, they would have had more info, since they would have had reports of aircraft ahead of them. Why aren't you criticizing them for proceeding?

AC paid the price AND had to abandon the approach, I had already mentioned I was criticizing the decisions made by both sets of crewmembers, not just those of WS. The conditions for AC were absolutely worsening, but would've have been bordering on that weather for the previous aircraft.

It's amazing how much flak you get for calling out a cowboy when they didn't crash and burn. That's apparently just great airmanship I was witnessing and should celebrate said hero.

When I fly, I don't have a pilot group or union to fall back on, so if I bust an aircraft due to foreseeable worsening weather conditions, my job is ABSOLUTELY on the line, not to mention the comfort of the passengers. It's not about riding the razors edge to make a gate time, it's about knowing when to divert to try again later, or staying put altogether.

Know when to hold them, know when to fold them...

S.

[complexintentions]

Do you disagree that the majority of runway excursions due to landing, usually ill-advised, in severe convective weather occur in SE Asia?

What a facile argument to try and support your obvious attempt to denigrate Asian carriers. Can't really track the motivation, I assume it's to try and make some point about how superior western pilots are?

How about this: do you disagree that the majority of runway excursions due to landing, usually ill-advised, on runways contaminated by ice, snow, and slush occur in Canada and other countries with similar climates?

The point is only that every part of the globe has its risks. I'd be willing to bet that given the exponentially higher number of aircraft movements in places outside the relative backwater of Canada that the per capita number of incidents is actually higher in the Great White North.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative. But if some Asian guy showed up and started sneering at the beginning of winter about the impending rash of incident reports about to be filed about airplanes sliding off frozen runways - as they are, every year - you'd probably have a better understanding of how ignorant your remarks come across as.

[rookiepilot]

Hey FICU,

How many accidents -- just to pick one I've flown on -- has Cathy Pacific had?
Last I heard they were a major Southeast Asia based carrier.
How many has AC had?
Both large flag carriers.

Your bias is ignorant.

[FICU]

Do you disagree that the majority of runway excursions due to landing, usually ill-advised, in severe convective weather occur in SE Asia?

What a facile argument to try and support your obvious attempt to denigrate Asian carriers. Can't really track the motivation, I assume it's to try and make some point about how superior western pilots are?

Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative. But if some Asian guy showed up and started sneering at the beginning of winter about the impending rash of incident reports about to be filed about airplanes sliding off frozen runways - as they are, every year...

Holy sensitive and defensive, do you fly in that part of the world by chance?... my post has nothing to do with who's better and is based on the volume of incidents and accidents as reported by AvHerald. If by chance some Asian made those remarks... I really wouldn't care if he could support it with a rash of reports of Canadian 705 jets skidding of runways into snow banks last winter.

Oh and I wouldn't put my family in the back of an Asian ULCC for all sorts of reasons.

[FICU]

Hey FICU,

How many accidents -- just to pick one I've flown on -- has Cathy Pacific had?
Last I heard they were a major Southeast Asia based carrier.
How many has AC had?
Both large flag carriers.

Your bias is ignorant.

Considering my statement about excursions in severe convective weather my statement is based on fact.

FWIW I have flown Cathay to Nepal and would again. Look at the airlines that are having the problems with excursions... not the majors but the ULCCs primarily... culture, experience, training, pressure?

[Mach1]

First of all, if you are reading me being upset, far from it.

July 30th, 2016, YYC.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-ne ... windshield

I have no idea or interest in finding historical aviation data, but you may absolutely fill your boots mon ami.

S.

That article is from 2016 so I'm not sure what it has to do with this account or situation.

The reason I'm asking about where the hail was encountered is because you could have had an eastern arrival and a western arrival, or any number of combinations that would make one flight miss hail and another encounter it. The hail encounter could have been miles away from the arrival corridor.

Hail does not show up on weather radar but you can infer where it may exist.

Wind-shear does show up on radar and the SOP in every company world wide is go-around when wind-shear is detected. That is why I am saying that just because you feel wind-shear was present does not mean it was, in fact, present.

While I'm sure it was a challenging approach, no one wants to die on the job and I have faith that risks were assessed and monitored.

[complexintentions]

Do you disagree that the majority of runway excursions due to landing, usually ill-advised, in severe convective weather occur in SE Asia?

What a facile argument to try and support your obvious attempt to denigrate Asian carriers. Can't really track the motivation, I assume it's to try and make some point about how superior western pilots are?

Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative. But if some Asian guy showed up and started sneering at the beginning of winter about the impending rash of incident reports about to be filed about airplanes sliding off frozen runways - as they are, every year...

Holy sensitive and defensive, do you fly in that part of the world by chance?... my post has nothing to do with who's better and is based on the volume of incidents and accidents as reported by AvHerald. If by chance some Asian made those remarks... I really wouldn't care if he could support it with a rash of reports of Canadian 705 jets skidding of runways into snow banks last winter.

Oh and I wouldn't put my family in the back of an Asian ULCC for all sorts of reasons.

Flown in all parts of the world. Still do.

Basing your opinion on the "volume of incidents" as reported by AvHerald lol. Do you even understand the concept of scale or number of movements? Your data is irrelevant unless you measure it in like for like. A "rash" is not a number.

If ULCC's are so prone, what are AC and WestJet's excuse when they go for little offroading excursions? Please don't make me pull up the plentiful examples, you'll just embarrass yourself further.

Not defensive, unless you count defending a bit of f$cking logic. Don't really know why I waste the time.

Don't think I will anymore on this thread. Cheers!

[rookiepilot]

I'm trying to think of Cathy or Singapore or Eva air almost landing on a taxiway full of of other aircraft.
Oh that happened on this side of the pond.

[FICU]

Not defensive, unless you count defending a bit of f$cking logic. Don't really know why I waste the time.

Don't think I will anymore on this thread. Cheers!

I guess you did waste your time or maybe you had to show us the in the "relative backwater of Canada" how you expats are so much better at dealing with CBs in and around airports? The wx in the OPs post was CBs and hail on the field with moderate to severe turbulence. You said that in your part of the world approaches are conducted everyday in the same or worse wx which coincides with the amount of reported runway excursions that I mentioned.

but there are countless approaches and landings made every single day for months on end in conditions similar or worse to the one in the original post.

Freaky CBs over YZF this morning topped at 40K feet. Lightning and hail on the field so guess what I did... slowed down, did a big orbit about 30 miles south over a clear Great Slave Lake and waited for the CBs to pass over the airport. Then conducted a visual approach in fine conditions. I'm sure my pax were happy I didn't decide to run it in like drivers in your part of the world seem prone to doing.

Have a great weekend!

[yousoundfoolish]

FICU

I am a long time lurker but finally created an account just to reply to you. There is a lot of idiocy on these forums but your last one takes the cake. Speak not of what you don’t know.

Next time I’m in HKG, BKK or SIN I’ll ask them if we can just do some orbits while we wait for storms to pass. Will only need to do orbits from around May-Nov while we wait!

I think you might have waded a bit out of your depth here. The first indication is that you’ve described anything that happens in YZF as severe connective activity. That’s a big LOL.

[C.W.E.]

Freaky CBs over YZF this morning topped at 40K feet.

In the ITCZ that would be only half developed.

[FICU]

FICU

I am a long time lurker but finally created an account just to reply to you. There is a lot of idiocy on these forums but your last one takes the cake. Speak not of what you don’t know.

Next time I’m in HKG, BKK or SIN I’ll ask them if we can just do some orbits while we wait for storms to pass. Will only need to do orbits from around May-Nov while we wait!

I think you might have waded a bit out of your depth here. The first indication is that you’ve described anything that happens in YZF as severe connective activity. That’s a big LOL.

Drawing the storm expert expats out of the woodwork am I?

Haha... welcome but I think you're wasting your time. If you are going to do an approach into a thunderstorm with hail and severe turbulence because you are afraid to hold or divert... say no more!

FWIW on more than one occasion I have flown into Hong Kong, Japan, Russia, a bit of Europe, South and Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean, and all over the US... and yes, during storm season.

I think you made the misjudgement.

BTW... severe wx does happen in and around YZF, they even get occasional hail!

Cya!

[FICU]

That didn't take long... 4 days later and Xiamen attempts 2 landings in +TSRA with the expected runway excursion.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4bc70caa&opt=0

[FICU]

Less than a week later...

http://avherald.com/h?article=4bcb9155&opt=0

[Hangry]

Are people really on here saying attempting an approach on +TSRA is a good idea?

[CAL]

kinda off topic but going back to a couple other posts but are they shifting left seat Q400 guys to left seat swoop? did I read that correctly?