Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

captainklm

AF447 black box recovered

Recommended Posts

Hello,maybe not appropriate for this forum but anyway, just heard that one of AF447s black box was recovered. It was the data recorder, they are still searching for the cockpit voice recorder. The investigators say the black box is still in good condition and will be taken to paris. In several days the investigators will start to record what happened. This is very good thing that they found the black box and lets cross our fingers they will find the cockpit recorder to

Share this post


Link to post

And this information relates to pmdg in what way?

Share this post


Link to post

Ah thats good news and hopefully they can fully understand this accident now.sijenks5 I am aware it is not completely relevant to this forum but he was just letting us know as it is an important aviation discovery and does not need you posting your unnecessary comment.ThanksRichy

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I do not think my post was unnecessary theres other forums on avsim board that this can be placed . This has no relevance to pmdg flightsim products

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it every time someone posts something that is actually interesting, someone takes the time to say you shouldn't post that here, the attitude here lately sucks, and give the guy a break this is actually an incredible find, I know it's a PMDG forum, but constantly seeing these kinds of posts referring to the OP's incorrect placement of the topic really kills the mood. IDK, just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally I do not think my post was unnecessary theres other forums on avsim board that this can be placed . This has no relevance to pmdg flightsim products
Ease up a bit man, its okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally I do not think my post was unnecessary theres other forums on avsim board that this can be placed . This has no relevance to pmdg flightsim products
Ok lets just cry and get upset about a PMDG NGX that we havent got right?!?? nothing else is ever relavent. :( :( :( B)

Share this post


Link to post

I think we won't be able to have a nice conversation about anything in this forum until the NGX is released. One can't come along with a nice topic to talk about and try to forget about the NGX for a minute or two anymore because someone will always find a problem with it. PMDG Forums, as well as AVSim Forums in general, are open to discussions about real world aviation too, even because that's the base of sim flight. If real aircrafts didn't exist, we wouldn't have flight simulators because how would we simulate something that doesn't exist? I know some people may have difficulties to just be polite with others, but let's try to keep this forum friendly as it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post

please respect this,Im sorry to those who say its irrelevant but I thought you like to know. Anyway its nice to talk about the real world, this especially is number two highlights on the news after Osama binladens death. This is a really good thing that they found it, lets hope that the black box arrives to paris safely. Cross our fingers that the cockpit voice recorders are recovered (and the ngx releases soon...)

Share this post


Link to post
Personally I do not think my post was unnecessary theres other forums on avsim board that this can be placed . This has no relevance to pmdg flightsim products
you have a point however thats why we have moderators. I for one ONLY view THIS subforum. if it wasnt for that post I wouldn't have known. Sure its not quite PMDG, but hey guess what - they just killed Osama Bin Laden! yeah its not PMDG related...but its real life. :)

Share this post


Link to post
they just killed Osama Bin Laden!
yeah, two things that were being searched for ages have been found at the same time, don`t any of you think its a coincidence?

Share this post


Link to post

Got a link?I know they found the data capture unit but the memory module was missing. Have they now found the memory?Why shouldn't this be posted here? It is the General forum. For all you know someone related to someone on the flight could visit only here. The wider it is spread the better - the MSM are on about OBL being killed.IMHO, I'd be more concerned about it being a fair and honest investigation than whether this is a suitable forum.EDIT:http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/images/fdr2.reduite.jpghttp://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/info01may2011.en.phpBest regards,Robin.

Share this post


Link to post

That's great news, I just hope the recorder is not damaged beyond repair, if repair is possible. Im sure all those families of the deceased need closure on exactly what caused this terrible loss of lives.But whats the chances of the data still being readable after all this time at the bottom of the ocean ??? Also is it likely that the CVR is in the same vicinity as the FDR ? Are the CVR and FDR fitted together on the aircraft ?

Share this post


Link to post

I was watching the Nova documentary, "Flight 447", when I read this post. One step closer to solving the mystery for what was the death of hundreds and a mini-holocaust.

This has no relevance to pmdg flightsim products
Your post has been even less relevant! It was so irrelevant that it didn't even relate to this post... :(

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen this in the news quite a bit, as I'm actually in France though it was eclipsed by the other big actuallity of the day. That being said according to experts the black box looks in pretty good condition, and that is amazing that they've recovered it so we can get a new insight on the accident. According to the news it should be brought back to France in the next 10 days, and then they will be able to start recovering the data. Meanwhile they are still searching for the CVR black box which is still missing. But should probably be close as they were both in the aft section of the aircraft.It sure will be great to know what really happened to this tragic flight, and I hope it'll help also the families who have lost their relatives in the accident. I really want to believe that it'll finally be more certain of what happened than the only few things we know so far, that the plane did not dislocate in flight, and crashed level into the see, and that obviously htere were something wrong according to the ACARS, but that can mean manythings that happened. I'm sure it'll work out and it'll help increase further the safety of all airplanes as any accident does.

Share this post


Link to post
But whats the chances of the data still being readable after all this time at the bottom of the ocean ???
Depending on how far they wanted to go with it, they could use electron-microscopy to read the circuits and recover the data. AFAIK it uses a flash memory technology, so the data is physically recorded into the ICs, so even if they can't get the unit to work, they should eventually be able to put the data back together.Let's hope the FDR/CVR exceed spec and are in good condition inside.Best regards,Robin.

Share this post


Link to post

What was the thinking on that flight deck that night that caused them to not deviate around those cells,when everybody else did? I think the CVR is going to be more important in that key issue. Was the radar inop,(oh well,lets just go for it), or improper gain/tilt settings used? Or attenuation?

Share this post


Link to post
What was the thinking on that flight deck that night that caused them to not deviate around those cells,when everybody else did?
Lets not armchair quarterback now...

Share this post


Link to post
What was the thinking on that flight deck that night that caused them to not deviate around those cells,when everybody else did? I think the CVR is going to be more important in that key issue. Was the radar inop,(oh well,lets just go for it), or improper gain/tilt settings used? Or attenuation?
...or just plain old pilot error. :( If you watched a lot of "Air Crash Investigation" or read the official reports into aircraft accidents and incidents, it should be abundantly clear that a crash is NEVER just one thing, and usually comprises of a whole chain of bad decisions, bad situations, equipment failure, and just plain bad luck to be experiencing that chain in the first place.A bigger factor than the points you raised is: the crew had been sat in the cruise for some 3 hours. The AP was flying. Next the flight crew are hit with multiple alerts at once, and multiple failure flags. At night, in crap weather.There is a phenomenon known as "automation blindness" - you are out of the loop, watching the systems instead of flying them then suddenly being thrown control as the computers choke. You are so busy trying to figure out all the alerts and reasons why you are faced with failure flags on everything that you forget to do the most basic thing: fly the aircraft. The period of confusion created by mis-leading and bad data could be the difference between life and death. If faced with alerts the first thing to do is check the aircraft is still heading in the right direction, and not for the big rock we call Earth. Only once that is under control can you get to the business of why you are faced with alert hell. As long as you have control, the engines are running and you've got fuel, everything else is a distant second. Be sure you know how to fly your aircraft in abnormal conditions, and know the unreliable airspeed power and pitch settings off by heart - you can't go far wrong after that.Anyone who flies in the real world (and regardless of aircraft type) should be reading all these reports and taking note, in the hope that it helps prevent the "holes in the swiss cheese" lining up on that dark, crappy night when everything is failing/going wrong.A couple of accidents of note that you want to go study the reports of:* ATR 72 - ditched in the sea after running out of fuel. Wrong fuel gauge fitted by maint. Both pilots recently sentenced to 14 years in jail. On a side-note, had they maintained proper best-glide speed, they could have made an airfield they were offered by ATC. Correct and accurate speed management is everything (if I recall correctly, the speed was a bit wild at first, but when they did fly best-glide they were 3 kts slow, making them 23 nm short as a result).* Boeing 757 - crashed into mountains at night after loss of situational awareness whilst on approach. Nav beacon failure and no (ATC) RADAR. I didn't realize it at the time I read and dug into this report that it has been used worldwide as a major example of when CRM is non-existent, and is a major wake-up call for "KEEP FLYING THE AIRCRAFT ABOVE ALL ELSE". If you don't know where you are - IMMEDIATELY CLIMB TO MSA!* Kegworth 737 crash. The reason for the crash was in-flight shutdown of the wrong engine.If there is one common theme among accidents it is this: people do things (or not) that you could never imagine in such situations.Best regards,Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
please respect this,Im sorry to those who say its irrelevant but I thought you like to know. Anyway its nice to talk about the real world, this especially is number two highlights on the news after Osama binladens death. This is a really good thing that they found it, lets hope that the black box arrives to paris safely. Cross our fingers that the cockpit voice recorders are recovered (and the ngx releases soon...)
Agreed... and NON moderators trying to be moderators is highly annoying.

Share this post


Link to post

Matt, What I asked and stated is not arm chair QBing.How much time in the industry do you have? I remember as a student pilot being instructed to stay out of TX's, A-330's are not exempt from these laws.I have seen the depiction of all the aircraft flight tracks thru that area,and AF was the only one to stay on the airway,hence my other questions.http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/trajectoires/trajectoires010609.htmlhttp://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ Honeywell: Better wx training neededRadar manufacturers should consider making equipment easier to use and displays easier to interpret, Honeywell safety specialist Dr. Ratan Khatwa told attendees at this year’s Flight Safety Foundation European Aviation Safety Seminar, held in Bucharest.He added that better weather-radar training can improve pilots’ awareness and decision-making skills and help them avoid penetrating severe meteorological conditions.NTSB studies show weather to be a factor in about 25 percent of all U.S. flying accidents between 1994 and 2003. Khatwa said initial and recurrent flight crew training should cover fundamental concepts in six areas of weather-radar operation: beam coverage, Earth-curvature effects, antenna stabilization, tilt and gain management, calibrated weather and range. System limitations, such as attenuation and the significance of green radar “echoes” at high altitude, also should be covered.These recommendations arise from analysis of pilots’ difficulties and concerns uncovered while Honeywell was developing its RDR-4000 radar. Khatwa’s study included a human-factors evaluation of flight-crew radar use, a global survey to assess pilots’ fundamental understanding and perceptions of training, and analyses of weather radar-related incidents and accidents. He concluded pilots did not understand fundamental weather-radar concepts; typical equipment use precluded detection of severe weather; and dedicated training was not standard practice.Khatwa pointed out that current radars are concerned primarily with weather analysis and avoidance, proper interpretation of which depends on pilots’ adequate understanding.Honeywell’s RDR-4000 human- factors research showed that almost 70 percent of pilots were dissatisfied with weather-radar training. From the survey, Khatwa concluded most operators do not provide initial or recurrent weather-radar training; most available training takes place on the job; there is little incentive for operators to provide training since regulators do not require it; many pilots do not understand weather radar, including its limitations; fundamental concepts of weather radar are “poorly understood”; and pilots want recurrent training.To understand pilots’ weather-radar use and any difficulties, Honeywell conducted a comparative evaluation of independent flight-crew groups using current equipment or new radar-display modes. The PC-based exercise observed the behavior of 13 pilots during several scenarios involving weather-radar use. Overall, “significant weather” events were detected on almost 82 percent of occasions, with pilots correctly deciding on action necessary to avoid penetration 70 percent of the time.Incorrect pilot action involved improper management of weather-radar tilt, gain or range, continued flight toward significant weather and imprudent weather-avoidance decisions. All pilots failed to recognize the vertical position of each of two weather cells. Khatwa emphasized the need for pilots to be cautious about green radar echoes at high altitude, since these indicate “potentially hazardous” conditions.Analysis of actual flight-crew radar operation and interpretation was ultimately restricted because the study could not include “many other critical factors, such as provision of timely weather information, accuracy of such data, role of ATC and regulator” and other considerations. This part of Khatwa’s study drew on data covering fatal and nonfatal accidents and incidents (fixed- and rotary-wing) that involved global single- and dual-pilot business, public transport and cargo aircraft operations reported by nine different worldwide safety agencies between 1987 and 2007.Excluding occurrences involving training flights, sabotage, terrorism, military action or insufficient weather-radar information, Honeywell researchers found just 14 relevant events. A quarter of these instances were fatal, and half of the aircraft involved were substantially damaged or destroyed. Some 57 percent of the accidents or incidents took place in instrument meteorological conditions, 50 percent occurred during cruise, the same proportion was in daylight and another 35 percent occurred between top-of-descent and destination.Switching off the radar, despite forecast weather and prevailing conditions, or pressing on in the face of adverse conditions were cited as examples of poor planning. Other examples of poor decision making included making landing decisions based on the experiences of preceding aircraft that successfully penetrated convective weather; flying through gaps between closely spaced storm cells, rather than around the thunderstorm; and flying close to squall lines.In addition, the operation of weather radar or radar-display interpretation were “not necessarily optimal” in two thirds of occur-rences, said Khatwa, who cited five problem areas: improper tilt operation or management; improper use of gain control; misinterpretation of ground returns; weather radar “off,” despite known cumulo-nimbus cloud; and insufficient appreciation of radar limitations and their impact on displayed images.The Honeywell study shows that crew weather-radar training had not been provided in half of the accidents/incidents. Pilots talked about “trial-and-error experience” and “information [obtained] from other pilots,” an approach that Khatwa concluded can “lead to improper radar operating procedures and techniques.”Honeywell Aerospace Pilot Survey FindingsIn conducting a survey about the RDR-4000 weather radar, Honeywell safety specialist Dr. Ratan Khatwa asked more than 50 ATP-rated pilots about their experience with weather radar. The average age of the respondents was 52 years; the average flight time was 12,500 hours. The answers these experienced pilots provided were illuminating.• 62 percent of the pilots surveyed answered correctly that a straight radar beam is not aligned with an aircraft’s current flight level (because of Earth curvature)• 15 percent mistakenly thought that antenna down-tilt was required to offset a nose-up pitch angle. (That is offset by antenna stabilization.)• 63 percent did not appreciate the need for weather-radar antennas to be set to compensate for earth curvature, which blocks weather targets beyond, say, 150 nm ahead for nominal cruise altitudes. “Curvature [effects] become noticeable at ranges above 40 nm, and if ignored can lead to weather-image interpretation errors,” said Khatwa.• 55 percent of pilots did not realize that a weather target falling inside the radar beam will not necessarily be shown in its true color on the display. “The color selected for display is a direct function of the power returned to the receiver. Where the beam is partially filled, the total power returned may not represent the calibrated value associated with the target cell,” he said.• Five in every eight pilots incorrectly thought green (short-range) radar targets shown near to cruise levels above FL310 need not be avoided. “Typically, at these altitudes, targets are less reflective. At high altitudes, there is a possibility of unstable air and hail above the storm cell. It is therefore not advisable to penetrate the less-reflective part of the storm top,” Khatwa explained.• 73 percent of flight crew understood that antenna tilt angle does not need to match a climb (or descent) angle to detect weather on their flight path. “The antenna should be pointed at the base of convective weather during climb. Generally, the lower 18,000 feet is the most reflective part of the storm.” Radar can be used to analyze weather characteristics (such as vertical extent of cells) and to avoid strong convective activity. “Returns along the flight-path angle may not provide full indication of storm intensity and turbulence levels [to be encountered within the cell].”• Almost 90 percent of pilots did not know the range at which their current weather radar was no longer calibrated and did not show returns at their true levels. Radar beams broaden with distance, so a smaller proportion is filled with moisture. “At shorter ranges, returned power is more representative of the target cell, and it is more likely to be displayed at its true calibrated value. Typically, returns are calibrated within a range of 60 to 80 nm.”Quote,"At high altitudes, there is a possibility of unstable air and hail above the storm cell. It is therefore not advisable to penetrate the less-reflective part of the storm top,” Khatwa explained."You are taught this as a private pilot,But commercial pressures prevail.http://www.gapan.org/ruth-documents/study-papers/Weather%20Radar.pdf

Share this post


Link to post

Of course we don't know that the crew of AF447 used the radar incorrectly or interpreted what they did pick up in a less than ideal way, hopefully a CVR will be able to clarify if that was the case. Sometimes it is convenient to blame the pilots when the business of selling aeroplanes could be affected by doubts about an aircraft or systems on board, or the reputation of an airline's training procedures is called into question, and there can be little doubt that this has happened on occasion.But whilst we are on the subject, I suspect that another factor in the lack of knowledge and familiarity with radar is that many airline pilots come from an experience route that is very different from how it was a few years ago. It used to be the case that a large proportion of airline pilots were ex military, where of course the use of radars by pilots is commonplace. With the end of the cold war and the downsizing of most air forces around the world, there simply isn't the pool of ex military pilots going into the airlines that there used to be, and instead what you have is relatively low time pilots filtering into the cockpits of airliners. Ask a military pilot what PRF is, and they'll snap the answer back instantly, ask someone who went to an airline after flying a Cessna and they probably wouldn't know, and you can't really blame them for that, because how should they know?That's not to say that anyone who wasn't taught to fly by the army or air force is necessarily going to be a poor pilot, but when you couple factors such as these with the ever-larger reliance on flipping on an autopilot and assuming everything is fine whilst your tailplane is merrily icing up or whatever, it probably doesn't help. Everyone knows that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, and the airlines are paying peanuts to their aircrews these days, so one assumes that training is on a similar shoestring, and even if it isn't, it is unlikely to compare with the millions that used to be spent on training a fighter pilot or bomber pilot, where no expense was spared in getting them to the required standard.So what we really need is that CVR, because whether the pilots on AF447 did all the right things (and they may indeed have done all the right things), or maybe some of the wrong things, that will be the way to hopefully tell. And if it does instead turn out to be something wrong with the aeroplane design, or the training the crews received, we can only hope that it comes out in the investigation. It won't bring those people back who were on AF447, but it may at least mean that their deaths were not a complete travesty.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Matt, What I asked and stated is not arm chair QBing.How much time in the industry do you have? I remember as a student pilot being instructed to stay out of TX's, A-330's are not exempt from these laws.I have seen the depiction of all the aircraft flight tracks thru that area,and AF was the only one to stay on the airway,hence my other questions.http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/trajectoires/trajectoires010609.htmlhttp://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ Honeywell: Better wx training neededRadar manufacturers should consider making equipment easier to use and displays easier to interpret, Honeywell safety specialist Dr. Ratan Khatwa told attendees at this year’s Flight Safety Foundation European Aviation Safety Seminar, held in Bucharest.He added that better weather-radar training can improve pilots’ awareness and decision-making skills and help them avoid penetrating severe meteorological conditions.NTSB studies show weather to be a factor in about 25 percent of all U.S. flying accidents between 1994 and 2003. Khatwa said initial and recurrent flight crew training should cover fundamental concepts in six areas of weather-radar operation: beam coverage, Earth-curvature effects, antenna stabilization, tilt and gain management, calibrated weather and range. System limitations, such as attenuation and the significance of green radar “echoes” at high altitude, also should be covered.These recommendations arise from analysis of pilots’ difficulties and concerns uncovered while Honeywell was developing its RDR-4000 radar. Khatwa’s study included a human-factors evaluation of flight-crew radar use, a global survey to assess pilots’ fundamental understanding and perceptions of training, and analyses of weather radar-related incidents and accidents. He concluded pilots did not understand fundamental weather-radar concepts; typical equipment use precluded detection of severe weather; and dedicated training was not standard practice.Khatwa pointed out that current radars are concerned primarily with weather analysis and avoidance, proper interpretation of which depends on pilots’ adequate understanding.Honeywell’s RDR-4000 human- factors research showed that almost 70 percent of pilots were dissatisfied with weather-radar training. From the survey, Khatwa concluded most operators do not provide initial or recurrent weather-radar training; most available training takes place on the job; there is little incentive for operators to provide training since regulators do not require it; many pilots do not understand weather radar, including its limitations; fundamental concepts of weather radar are “poorly understood”; and pilots want recurrent training.To understand pilots’ weather-radar use and any difficulties, Honeywell conducted a comparative evaluation of independent flight-crew groups using current equipment or new radar-display modes. The PC-based exercise observed the behavior of 13 pilots during several scenarios involving weather-radar use. Overall, “significant weather” events were detected on almost 82 percent of occasions, with pilots correctly deciding on action necessary to avoid penetration 70 percent of the time.Incorrect pilot action involved improper management of weather-radar tilt, gain or range, continued flight toward significant weather and imprudent weather-avoidance decisions. All pilots failed to recognize the vertical position of each of two weather cells. Khatwa emphasized the need for pilots to be cautious about green radar echoes at high altitude, since these indicate “potentially hazardous” conditions.Analysis of actual flight-crew radar operation and interpretation was ultimately restricted because the study could not include “many other critical factors, such as provision of timely weather information, accuracy of such data, role of ATC and regulator” and other considerations. This part of Khatwa’s study drew on data covering fatal and nonfatal accidents and incidents (fixed- and rotary-wing) that involved global single- and dual-pilot business, public transport and cargo aircraft operations reported by nine different worldwide safety agencies between 1987 and 2007.Excluding occurrences involving training flights, sabotage, terrorism, military action or insufficient weather-radar information, Honeywell researchers found just 14 relevant events. A quarter of these instances were fatal, and half of the aircraft involved were substantially damaged or destroyed. Some 57 percent of the accidents or incidents took place in instrument meteorological conditions, 50 percent occurred during cruise, the same proportion was in daylight and another 35 percent occurred between top-of-descent and destination.Switching off the radar, despite forecast weather and prevailing conditions, or pressing on in the face of adverse conditions were cited as examples of poor planning. Other examples of poor decision making included making landing decisions based on the experiences of preceding aircraft that successfully penetrated convective weather; flying through gaps between closely spaced storm cells, rather than around the thunderstorm; and flying close to squall lines.In addition, the operation of weather radar or radar-display interpretation were “not necessarily optimal” in two thirds of occur-rences, said Khatwa, who cited five problem areas: improper tilt operation or management; improper use of gain control; misinterpretation of ground returns; weather radar “off,” despite known cumulo-nimbus cloud; and insufficient appreciation of radar limitations and their impact on displayed images.The Honeywell study shows that crew weather-radar training had not been provided in half of the accidents/incidents. Pilots talked about “trial-and-error experience” and “information [obtained] from other pilots,” an approach that Khatwa concluded can “lead to improper radar operating procedures and techniques.”Honeywell Aerospace Pilot Survey FindingsIn conducting a survey about the RDR-4000 weather radar, Honeywell safety specialist Dr. Ratan Khatwa asked more than 50 ATP-rated pilots about their experience with weather radar. The average age of the respondents was 52 years; the average flight time was 12,500 hours. The answers these experienced pilots provided were illuminating.• 62 percent of the pilots surveyed answered correctly that a straight radar beam is not aligned with an aircraft’s current flight level (because of Earth curvature)• 15 percent mistakenly thought that antenna down-tilt was required to offset a nose-up pitch angle. (That is offset by antenna stabilization.)• 63 percent did not appreciate the need for weather-radar antennas to be set to compensate for earth curvature, which blocks weather targets beyond, say, 150 nm ahead for nominal cruise altitudes. “Curvature [effects] become noticeable at ranges above 40 nm, and if ignored can lead to weather-image interpretation errors,” said Khatwa.• 55 percent of pilots did not realize that a weather target falling inside the radar beam will not necessarily be shown in its true color on the display. “The color selected for display is a direct function of the power returned to the receiver. Where the beam is partially filled, the total power returned may not represent the calibrated value associated with the target cell,” he said.• Five in every eight pilots incorrectly thought green (short-range) radar targets shown near to cruise levels above FL310 need not be avoided. “Typically, at these altitudes, targets are less reflective. At high altitudes, there is a possibility of unstable air and hail above the storm cell. It is therefore not advisable to penetrate the less-reflective part of the storm top,” Khatwa explained.• 73 percent of flight crew understood that antenna tilt angle does not need to match a climb (or descent) angle to detect weather on their flight path. “The antenna should be pointed at the base of convective weather during climb. Generally, the lower 18,000 feet is the most reflective part of the storm.” Radar can be used to analyze weather characteristics (such as vertical extent of cells) and to avoid strong convective activity. “Returns along the flight-path angle may not provide full indication of storm intensity and turbulence levels [to be encountered within the cell].”• Almost 90 percent of pilots did not know the range at which their current weather radar was no longer calibrated and did not show returns at their true levels. Radar beams broaden with distance, so a smaller proportion is filled with moisture. “At shorter ranges, returned power is more representative of the target cell, and it is more likely to be displayed at its true calibrated value. Typically, returns are calibrated within a range of 60 to 80 nm.”Quote,"At high altitudes, there is a possibility of unstable air and hail above the storm cell. It is therefore not advisable to penetrate the less-reflective part of the storm top,” Khatwa explained."You are taught this as a private pilot,But commercial pressures prevail.http://www.gapan.org/ruth-documents/study-papers/Weather%20Radar.pdf
Im not disagreeing with your hypothesis about their use of the weather radar. However, the statement that I quoted was in a sense, armchair qbing... I personally just think its rude to ask questions like since the crew is not here to defend themselves. Whether the pilot is a newly minted private pilot or a CA with over 20000 hrs., asking a question like that implies that they should have never been in the front office to begin with. Thats just me personally. My attitude arose from the colgan 3407 incident when everyone and their mother was asking the exact same question yet the crew could defend themselves. My statement wasn't intended to be flaming or abusive in nature. I said it to bring to light that we shouldn't ask a question like that since the crew can not defend themselves. Going back to your hypothesis, I can say that that is one of the better ones I have heard since the accident. I also dont think that someone time in the industry has anything to do with the question at hand. A newly IFR rated PP would feel the exact same way in the airplane in a situation where it hit the fan just as the AF crew did. Weird things happen to crews who get stressed or get thrown everything at once. No matter the aircraft or experience level, we all have a threshold until we break. The more experiecne we have, the larger the threshold.

Share this post


Link to post

I never would of thought in a million years that a forum about Flight Simulation would have so many haters.... It's like the World of Warcraft forums, lol.Pete Walsh.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...