airplane landing in a thunderstorm?


Status
Not open for further replies.

wind30

Deregistered
Mar 14, 2004
2,927
0
0
#1
watching too much aircraft investigation.

I have never took a plane which landed in a thunderstorm. I am curious as in Singapore we do have thunderstorms quite often. What happens in a thunderstorm? I guess planes still do land in thunderstorms right else won't have traffic jam meh?

I think the worst weather I ever got was landing in fog at the china aiport near huangshan. That landing was pretty terrifying as the flight was delayed a few hours due to bad weather and when we reached the airport, we were put into a holding pattern for like 15 minutes......

anyone got worse experience?
 

CYRN

Senior Member
Nov 14, 2002
4,575
0
36
photoevangel.com
#2
There are certain safety limits as to if the plane is allowed to land.... dun worry, Sg very KS one. :sweatsm:
 

Majest1c

New Member
Aug 21, 2007
682
0
0
#5
if u take plane then LL in thunder storm how? u open down jump down in parachute? haha...

joke aside but i guess its all dwn to luck... if u unlucky... u eat tofu oso can choke...

plane is quite safe but somehow when accident happen...quite many pple die in a dramatic way... so it kinda make it on the front page
if u consider how many planes land daily... i guess accident number is quite small
 

#6
Nowdays u dun even need a pilot to land a passenger plane with the more advanced electronics.
He just have to sit there and make sure the landing is smooth and without any hitch.


Of coz, sometimes, Sh!t happens... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxsZfX4A1Rg


.

True but not all airports and planes have tha technology in place to land. There are many level of autopilot ability from those that can asist take off to fly a planned route to anti-air to air collision and yes...even landing but just last year I saw a documentary on one of those Discovery channel (Heavy Metal) which show it was only at testing stages and you need cooridination between an airport and the plane to make it work. If either one does not have that technology in place..it will not work. I think it was Airbus that was testing it.

So until this expensive piece of technology is implemented, auto landing is still far from coming around just yet.As you can see from your link. heh



Something I dug up from some searchign I did.....might be interestng read for some like me who are into this kind of stuff..

Aviation Autopilot Categories of Landing

Instrument aided landings are defined in categories by the ICAO. These are dependent upon the required visibility level and the degree to which the landing can be conducted automatically without input by the pilot.

CAT I - This category permits pilots to land with a decision height (where the pilot takes over from the autopilot) of 200 ft (≈ 60 m) and a forward visibility of 2400 ft (≈ 730 m). Simplex autopilots are sufficient.

CAT II - This category permits pilots to land with a decision height between 200 ft and 100 ft (≈ 30 m) and a forward visibility (RVR = Runway Visual Range) of 1000 ft (300 m). Autopilots have a fail passive requirement.

CAT IIIa -This category permits pilots to land with a decision height as low as 50 ft (≈ 15 m) and a forward visibility (RVR) of 700 ft (200 m). It needs a fail-passive autopilot. The probability of landing within the prescribed area must be better than 1.

CAT IIIb - As IIIa but with the addition of automatic roll out after touchdown incorporated with the pilot taking control some distance along the runway. This category permits pilots to land with a decision height less than 50 feet or no decision height and a forward visibility of 250 ft (75 m, compare this value to the aircraft size...) or 300 ft (100m) in the US. For a landing without decision aid, a fail-operational autopilot is needed. Obviously for this category some form of runway guidance system is needed : at least fail passive but it needs to be fail-operational for landing without decision height or for RVR below 375 feet (125 m).

CAT IIIc - As IIIb but without decision height or visibility minima, also known as "zero-zero". No aircraft is approved for this category. It would necessitate a reliable way for the aircraft and ground vehicle to maneuver on the ground without any visual reference.

Fail-passive autopilot: in case of failure, the aircraft stays in a controllable position and the pilot can take control of it to go around or finish landing. It is usually a dual-channel system.

Fail-operational autopilot: in case of a failure below alert height, the approach, flare and landing can still be completed automatically. It is usually a triple-channel system or dual-dual system.
 

leejay

Deregistered
Sep 18, 2006
4,622
0
0
#8
In fact the best pilots in the world come from Greenland. Before I went to Greenland, we were told that Greenlandic Air pilots can land a plane under the worst conditions. And we saw it for ourselves. We were there in the winter when the arctic winds blew and shortly a snowstorm grew. The airport was amongst the mountains (actually a secluded ex-US airbase during WWII). The airplane hovered round and round above the airport for about 45 minutes and finally landed. When it touched down, everyone clapped their hands and cheered. A mighty feat, man. :thumbsup:
 

maddog

New Member
Feb 13, 2002
1,277
0
0
Alexandra
maddog.clubsnap.org
#9
Coming back from hong kong, plane stopped on runway for about 15mins as rain became heavier. After we took off during the ascent, it was turbulent. Everyone was freaked out, some screamed, some cried. Luckily the plane rose above the thunder clouds and things became calm. Think that can be in my top 5 most dangerous moments in my life. :bsmilie:
 

afbug

Senior Member
Aug 19, 2004
483
0
0
Planet SG™
#10
if u take plane then LL in thunder storm how? u open down jump down in parachute? haha...
Why when u take a boat, they provide life jackets but when u take a plane, they provide life jackets instead of a parachute?
 

dreamerz

Senior Member
Aug 13, 2005
888
0
0
30
Tampines
www.sherman-photography.net
#11
Why when u take a boat, they provide life jackets but when u take a plane, they provide life jackets instead of a parachute?
coz life jacket is cheaper n checking of life jacket freq is lesser than parachute...life jacket is oso more easy to maintain than parachute...
 

jeremyftk

New Member
Jun 24, 2005
694
0
0
32
Eastern Singapore
#12
Have you also realised that parachutes aren't exactly something that can be operated by the average commercial passenger?
 

Patryk

New Member
Mar 8, 2004
659
0
0
32
#13
Why when u take a boat, they provide life jackets but when u take a plane, they provide life jackets instead of a parachute?
i'm guessing that since most passengers are inexperienced with parachuting it would be actually be more sensible not to provide them with a means for them to jump out of the plane.

Think about it this way: if a problem does occur but is actually not one that would end up with the plane crashing, you may still have overly panicked passengers who would rather just ditch the plane with the parachute. Ignorning the flight attendants, they open the cabin doors and jump out while the aircraft is still travelling at a ridiculous speed - they get hit badly by the wind or could collide with the wing, tail fin or even the fuselage which would more or less kill them.
 

wind30

Deregistered
Mar 14, 2004
2,927
0
0
#14
In fact the best pilots in the world come from Greenland. Before I went to Greenland, we were told that Greenlandic Air pilots can land a plane under the worst conditions. And we saw it for ourselves. We were there in the winter when the arctic winds blew and shortly a snowstorm grew. The airport was amongst the mountains (actually a secluded ex-US airbase during WWII). The airplane hovered round and round above the airport for about 45 minutes and finally landed. When it touched down, everyone clapped their hands and cheered. A mighty feat, man. :thumbsup:
..... walau, what plane was that? Actually I am pretty terrified of flying but bopian.... Thankfully I haven't encounter landing in a snowstorm yet. If you watch aircraft investigation, I find that 90% of the crashes can avoided with a different pilot :)
 

leejay

Deregistered
Sep 18, 2006
4,622
0
0
#15
..... walau, what plane was that? Actually I am pretty terrified of flying but bopian.... Thankfully I haven't encounter landing in a snowstorm yet. If you watch aircraft investigation, I find that 90% of the crashes can avoided with a different pilot :)
Yep, normally their skills are there la, but when it comes to emergencies, you can pick out the best of the best. The plane is a Boeing 757 I think. I even bought a diecast model from an air stewardess. :) The plane shook and rattled much during the storm. Other than that, there's nothing much.
 

ZDragon

New Member
Nov 9, 2006
287
0
0
Bedok
www.onzlah.com
#16
The worst experience I had was stuck in the plane for two hours cos the plane had engin problems before it took off. After they fixed the problem, when we were in the air over Pelembang Indonesia, the Captain informed that we have an engin problem.

That was the 1st time I wrote a will.
 

azul123

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2004
2,776
0
0
Eastern Bloc
#17
The worst experience I had was stuck in the plane for two hours cos the plane had engin problems before it took off. After they fixed the problem, when we were in the air over Pelembang Indonesia, the Captain informed that we have an engin problem.

That was the 1st time I wrote a will.
Yes, I can imagine :angry: on ground don't want to check properly, up in the air say this, walau reminds of Silkair incident flashback.

I think those airports that have cross wind are the scary ones. I am flying tomorrow, I have a personalised ring I made and everytime I fly I put it on but not as good luck more of just in case something bad happens and can't find my body, if found one hand with my ring my family can at least know what happend and can have closure and carry on.

Used to travel alot, but now not so thankfully :sweat:

../azul123
 

aeskywan

New Member
Feb 13, 2007
104
1
0
#18
Why no parachutes? Simple. At the speed and altitude our commercial planes are going at. It is unlikely you are going to survive the jump. Reasoning being.

1) The plane is most likely going to start banking to its side and make a steep descent to ground in event of engine failure. When that happens air speed increases and you might find that you cannot even open the cabin door. Even if you do get it open, you will be literally ripped out of the plane and you will then encounter freezing temperatures if the shock dont stun you first.

2) Other accidents normally involved mid air explosions.... no prizes for why no need for parachutes there.

3) If the plane is coming to land and encounters problems and starts dipping... the altitude is then too low for a successful parachute jump much less that of a few hundred passengers. By the time you get that door open that is if you can get it open in time, you will be falling smack on the tarmac before the chute opens.

Most planes travel over seas and oceans and hence a crash into the sea does see some chances of survival. Hence the life jacket. Nothing to do with how more economical to have a life jacket or parachute for the airline.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.