Perimeter?

bush pilot · Post by **bush pilot** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:43 pm

Snowgoose,

I agree with you, I was flying the other day and got on top of most build ups on a short flight around 15000 and the only return was from one build up off to the side around 20000 that was putting out a little rain. None of the other cb's below that were producing any returns.

That said you also have what is known as cb/acc/tcb imbedded(you are most likely IMC), which is what you have the weather radar for, but if they are not producing enough moisture(rain) to give a adequate return you will not see them or other junior cb's that have a bit of turbulence.

tripleseven · Post by **tripleseven** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:01 am

Snowgoose,

It's too bad that your flying something that can't get high enough, causing you to be in IMC all day. If that's the case, I would be checking the GFA to see if there are going to be any embedded TCU/ACC/CB. It's still the pilots responsibility. Just because your in cloud doesn't release you from that responsibility. Like you said, just because there is no rain, you could still have major turbulance. I suggest you do some studying. Just because you have an APTL, doesn't mean you don't have to study anymore.

And furthermore, my whole point of this stupid argument is that I want a pilot, for once, to admit guilt instead of blaming it on something or someone else. Someone flew a plane where it probably shouldn't have been, and some paying passengers got hurt. Those are the facts.

bobcaygeon · Post by **bobcaygeon** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:29 am

777
How do you know that people would have been hurt if the belts had not failed?????
The stats for seatbelt use in cars, etc are very clear that seatbelt use limits injuries. Only 4-5 out of 13 pax and 3 crew were injured. That pretty much demonstrates that those with functioning seat belts were not injured.

Study all you want but shit happens. For the number of flites made on this globe everyday this kind of incident is rare.

Maybe all flites into/ over the rockies should be cancelled because there is always an increased risk of turbulence when flying in/ over them. If the pilot's job is to avoid risk then maybe we should just leave the plane on the ground. NOBODY MOVE, NOBODY GETS HURT
It would sure make my job at lot easier

tripleseven · Post by **tripleseven** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:20 am

Wow, only 4 of 16 people were injured. Those are excellent odds. I heard only 2 seatbelts were crappy, and there were two infants. How do you explain the other one? The other people weren't injured, but did they have the living shit scared out of them, or spill their drinks?

Maybe all flites into/over the rockies should be cancelled because there is always an increased risk of turbulence when flying in/ over them. If the pilot's job is to avoid risk then maybe we should just leave the plane on the ground. NOBODY MOVE, NOBODY GETS HURT
It would sure make my job at lot easier

I didn't say it was the pilots job to avoid risk. But maybe they should manage it a bit better.

medicineman · Post by **medicineman** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:33 pm

Bobcaygeon, as 777 stated, we cant avoid the risk, but we can apply risk management to minimize it.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:17 pm

Do you think before you speak 777?

High enough? What if you're only going 100nm. Do you still file FL390?

Let me ask you this. Do you think anyone would purposely fly into severe turbulence?

You don't even know me. Unless you're that clown who used to take up the whole ramp in Little Grand, thus earning the name 777.

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:41 pm

Chantal wrote:Not many comments about this, huh?
Snowgoose, I don't know how you missed it but the passenger yapping on tv was in fine shape and Not Injured.
I noticed she said she was praying her rosary. It is amazing how quickly God came to their aid.
I don't think a 200 feet drop is normal turbulence and so it is amazing.
That flight to YST is very turbulent, glad to see Perimeter sends their experienced pilots up there.

CHANTAL I MISS YOU WHY HAVEN'T YOU BEEN AROUND FOR ME IN MY TROUBLED TIMES???

Chantal · Post by **Chantal** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:12 pm

Get some professional help Dude. I can't believe they keep you on here.

Anyways, istp, I have been away, for real. Lately, I'd like to read a story about flying or about the weather.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:59 am

Shot Down................

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:08 am

Chantal wrote:Get some professional help Dude. I can't believe they keep you on here.

Anyways, istp, I have been away, for real. Lately, I'd like to read a story about flying or about the weather.

I thought you were a pro...that's why I asked.

Pratt · Post by **Pratt** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:04 pm

It isn't only Perimeter who has found severe turbulence where nothing was being painted, about 2 weeks ago a Jazz flight into Windsor encountered severe turbulence on the descent.

Fortunately, everyone was seated and belted in, apparently a hell of a ride. Fortunately no injuries, but they flight crew thought that it was bad enought that they called mtce to get an inspection done before the plane flew again!!

grounded · Post by **grounded** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:44 am

I was doing the ILS into YQT a while ago and there was a little rain on the weather radar, nothing but some isolated green. From about 5000 ft down the turbulence was so bad I was using both hands trying to hold myself in my seat, right up 'til the autopilot kicked off. Then it was a little more fun, tighten up the belt a little more, and hope it gets better. The weather was about 500 feet and 3 miles, and the wind on the ground was 10 knots or so. It was really rough all the way down, and there was traffic waiting to depart when I broke out. I had told terminal about the ride, and tower was just passing it along when I landed. They said it was quite a show on final. I was just glad it was only me on board. In my experience, that was the worst turbulence I had ever found, and that includes flying over forest fires at 1000 ft and below so the observer can map it.

inverter · Post by **inverter** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:24 am

tripleseven, you're a certified idiot. It is a common misconception that the weather radar also shows you areas of turbulence. As I am sure you know. Interpretation of what your radar shows COULD give you an idea of possible areas of turbulence. I have used a wide variety of Wx radars. And if you have as well, you know full well that when you get into thick clouds ALL the way up 35 to 40 K, which I am sure with a name like tripleseven, you have experienced, like the equatorial region, ie African continent. That there are occasions where you paint nothing yet you end up in significant turbulence. Such as the supercells even at a distance of 50 miles you still can get turbulence. Or just out of nowhere, no ride reports nothing, yet you're in it.
Oh and I never heard but was the flight leading up to it smooth, or not? I bet it was smooth.
Just don't judge to quickly tripleseven.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:16 am

I do have one question in the back of my mind about this one.

I was working the Winnipeg Terminal data position when this one came back, and at no time was anything said to ATC about what had happened/was going on. We all found out from the front page of the paper the next day.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:14 am

The crew had probably been scared speechless Jerricho.