Posted by
michael
on from the keep-seat-belt-fastened-while-seated dept.
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."
(yeah, I know... only just on topic... but I couldn't resist;-)
--
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
A lesson about journalists
by
PD
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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.
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.
This is surprising?
by
tpearson
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Are we supposed to be amazed that huge hail can damage a plane?
Hey, who's flying this thing?
by
pphrdza
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
Re:Hey, who's flying this thing?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Or maybe they were watching the stormscope and not the radar, since a stormscope is a spherics device and only detects electrical discharges associated with lightning and is thus totally blind to rain, hail, or other forms of precipitation. If you are into this sort of this, this month's copy of AOPA Pilot has a column that discusses a similar incident involving an AirTran DC9. That aircraft lost the radome (it departed the aircaft, as opposed to being severely dented as happened to the Airbus).
Or maybe the flight attendant from west Texas didn't like the pilot and told him to "Go to hail":-).
Re:Hey, who's flying this thing?
by
Detritus
·
· Score: 2, Informative
They were lucky. I remember an accident in the southern United States where a DC-9 tried to fly through a severe thunderstorm with hail. Both engines were destroyed and the plane crashed, killing everyone on board.
-- Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Wrong? Right back atcha!
by
Dahan
·
· Score: 4, Informative
A simple Google search shows the existance of an Airbus A340-312
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.
Radom damage
by
Murphy(c)
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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)
Re:Radom damage
by
Alioth
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Avoiding CBs is all very well - if you're flying under VFR (visual flight rules) you can just look out for the clouds, and steer around them.
Embedded CBs are another kettle of fish. If you're already in another, otherwise benign cloud, you may not see the CB you're about to wander through. Airliners have weather radar to mitigate the risk of flying through a cell, but it does happen (limitations of the instrument, equipment failure, pilot error - radar pointed at the wrong thing etc). If you look through the NTSB reports, you'll find one or two airliners or corporate aircraft that encounter hail every year. Light GA planes encounter it (usually an embedded thunderstorm) a bit more often as they generally don't have expensive radar installations - although most GA pilots simply don't fly IFR when there are thunderstorms around.
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)