Slashdot Mirror
Giant Hailstones Can Spoil Your Flight
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC has the story and picture of an Airbus 312 jet which flew through a giant-hail storm and was left with serious damage."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
What's worse than raining cats and dogs?
;-)
Hailing taxi-cabs.
(yeah, I know... only just on topic... but I couldn't resist
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
There is no such thing as an Airbus 312. The airplane that flew through the hailstorm was an Airbus 321, a rather common plane in service around the world.
The lesson is really a question: if a journalist, who is supposed to be an expert in reporting the facts, can't even get the type of aircraft right, then what else are they reporting incorrectly? Something to think about while watching CNN tonight.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
A simple Google search shows the existance of an Airbus A340-312, which is likley what this lazy reporter was reffering to. I agree with you about journalists though. It's a good day for them when they get 3 out of four 4 straight.
"The moment "pride" is lost, "freedom" is also lost." - Ramza.
Are we supposed to be amazed that huge hail can damage a plane?
I can't help wondering why the pilots just flew into the storm. Either it didn't look that bad, or they had the plane on autopilot and weren't watching the storm scope.
Another simple Google search shows that every other article says the plane was an Airbus A321.
There were a lot of people who let out involuntary screams and some very distressed young children crying near us
This is as opposed to a voluntary scream? Seriously, what do the speaker expect people to do?
"Oh shit, it does appear to me that giant hailstones are pummeling our plane somewhat fiercly. Attendant, please fetch me a cup of tea, and this time please strengthen it with a little rye. Well, get along then. That's a good girl"
Personally the only thing that I might be considering more than screaming would be to find the nearest source of a life raft/parachute in case of future need.
Just a quick note, that the damage seen on the picture from the BBC-News page, depicts a fairly large hole, our "inset" into the radom (nose cone) of the aircraft.
Now you have to remember that this part of the aircraft is probably the most fragile as it is not made out of steel or aluminium but rather carbon-epoxy (because it houses the plane's radar, and radar energy doesn't pass thru metal all that good).
Also the radom is not pressurised and a plane can easily fly without it nor, the radar it portects.
That being said, I cannot comment on the other impacts or their severity.
P.S. But as another poster said above, Why the hell did they fly into a thunder/hail storm in the first place is beyound me. "Cumulo Nimbus" (the big anvil shaped thunder storm clouds) are the first thing any pilote learns never to go near.
Murphy(c)
It could be my understanding, but isn't carbonfibre quite conductive as well? It nothing more than long strands of graphite essentially. Therefore carbon fibre would not be the material radomes are made of.
On the picture it looks more like ordinary glassfibre, at least no black carbon fibres are visible...
And yeah: Why they did flew straigt through it is beyond me.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
I have always wondered whether aero or car designers would mimic the effects of the golf ball pock marks to get some extra efficiency. It seems that having random dips in the skin of the ball gives the drive substantial extra yards. If that were the case, would it not make sense for cars and planes to have them too? What about boats? Would it prove too costly to have this done to the skin (though I can't think why (unless it was truly random;)). In the case of the plane flying through the storm, I would have thought the marks would have been truly random. Did the plane exhibit any increased efficiency upon leaving the storm?
you can tell by the size of the plane relative to the people that it is a narrow body (single isle), which in this case (between A340 and A321) would mean the A321...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
The question "why did they fly through it"? has been posed alot. Well sometimes you just don't have a choice. Air Traffic is strictly regulated and you can't just fly around willy nilly. The ATC routes, ESPECIALLY over Germany, are very busy, very congested and ATC does not take kindly to frequent route change requests "due weather." When was the last time you were in turbulence and the plane turned, descended or ascended to avoid it? It doesn't happen very often unless the PIC (Pilot in Command) believes it is of a sustainable force to cause a) undue distress to passengers and crew b)unnecessary risk of damage to the aircraft or c) ATC or an aicraft ahead of them suggests a route change due to an earlier encounter with the approaching weather. Next time you fly United, take a listen to the cockpit "chatter" on your headphones and see how many times the aircraft on the same frequency report weather and see how many times your flight deviates course as a result.
I guarantee that as soon as the PIC realised what they were up against he requested an altitude change and, due to the severity of the incident, ATC more than likely obliged. Chances are the storm had not existed for very long prior to the aircraft entering it. Atmopsheric conditions in the summer change rapidly, especially at that altitude and are very unpredictable. Microbursts are common place this time of year and can appear out of nowhere and never appear on radar.
So bottom line is that the pilot (with 20 years experience) would never have knowingly put the aircraft in a situation where the resulting damage was a possible outcome.
It will be interesting to read the CAA's report on this one.