Thunderstorms, anyone fly thru them?

[avbug]

Yes but back in the 60's during "good ole days", no wx radar, 1200 NM from the nearest reporting station, no satellite imagery, you sometimes just kinda ran into them.

Which is entirely irrelevant, both because this is no longer the case, and because it does nothing to support the notion of intentionally flying through convective activity based on the dbz level of the thunderstorm.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Which is entirely irrelevant, both because this is no longer the case, and because it does nothing to support the notion of intentionally flying through convective activity based on the dbz level of the thunderstorm.

Everyone knows that your logbook is thicker than anyone else's. Which raises the question of your own complicity (or duplicity?) in this question. One imagines that you've been through stuff that would make even the saltiest freightdog poop their pampers. Do you imagine that a blanket stricture against ever getting anywhere near a thunderstorm will improve anyone's understanding of the dangers?

If you fly for a living, particularly if you fly freight, you're going to find yourself in positions vis a vis thunderstorms that you'd rather not have gotten in to. The important part is learning what you can do, and what you'd be better advised to stay away from for the continued cleanliness of your underwear. This knowledge is acquired through experience, not through listening to a bunch of blowhards on the internet. There aren't any easy answers and there isn't just a machine that's going to spit out an answer as to whether you should do it or not based on a radar plot.

Anyone remember the picture of the placard on a homebuilt that just said "don't do anything stupid"? If you get scared, stop doing it, or don't do it again. That's how you learn.

 

[pilotyip]

back to the beginning

Which is entirely irrelevant, both because this is no longer the case, and because it does nothing to support the notion of intentionally flying through convective activity based on the dbz level of the thunderstorm.

The question was "Has ....them?", my answer "yes", but not intentionally. But "intentionally" was not in the question, so prehaps it is not irrelevant. BTW I logged it as actual inst.

 

[avbug]

Everyone knows that your logbook is thicker than anyone else's. Which raises the question of your own complicity (or duplicity?) in this question. One imagines that you've been through stuff that would make even the saltiest freightdog poop their pampers.

Quite irrelevant, as this has nothing to do with me. Unless you have a reason to be in the thunderstorm (eg, research), then you're an idiot to put yourself there.

Do you imagine that a blanket stricture against ever getting anywhere near a thunderstorm will improve anyone's understanding of the dangers?

Also irrelevant. What the universally recognized, and appropriate recommendation to avoid thunderstorms will do is enhance safety.

I learned about thunderstorms in books first, and then in thunderstorms while doing atmospheric research. Counseling others to stay out of thunderstorms is proper, and the right thing to do, and has nothing to do with improving understanding of dangers. It has to do with safety.

Encouraging others to fly through a thunderstorm does nothing to enhance understanding of dangers, either. It's simply unprofessional, and stupid.

A discussion about the dangers of a thunderstorm enhances understanding of the dangers of flying into a thunderstorm, and should always be accompanied by counsel to avoid thunderstorms...just as has been done here.

As for your "duplicity" comment, do you have a reason for saying this? Are you suggesting that I have ever posted here under more than one name? What exactly is your point?

Anyone remember the picture of the placard on a homebuilt that just said "don't do anything stupid"? If you get scared, stop doing it, or don't do it again. That's how you learn.

In the real world, the one where we adults and professionals dwell, we don't need to go do stupid things to learn, and we can learn perfectly well from the mistakes of others, as well as the counsel of others.

Counseling others to go do stupid things in order to learn is...stupid. Idiotic, really.

If you fly for a living, particularly if you fly freight, you're going to find yourself in positions vis a vis thunderstorms that you'd rather not have gotten in to. The important part is learning what you can do, and what you'd be better advised to stay away from for the continued cleanliness of your underwear. This knowledge is acquired through experience, not through listening to a bunch of blowhards on the internet. There aren't any easy answers and there isn't just a machine that's going to spit out an answer as to whether you should do it or not based on a radar plot.

Having flown freight for a living, as well as having performed thunderstorm research, I'd have to say you're full of it.

Folks, individuals like this will get you killed, and should be recognized for what they are...and most importantly, what they aren't. What this individual isn't, is someone to whom you should listen; his counsel is dangerous and his thoughts immature and lacking in experience. Best give him a wide berth.

 

[pilotyip]

"Quite irrelevant" I think this thread should be renamed to "Quite irrelevant"

 

[avbug]

BTW I logged it as actual inst.

Also irrelevant. What you log is entirely irrelevant to the issue of flying through thunderstorms.

The question was "Has ....them?", my answer "yes", but not intentionally. But "intentionally" was not in the question, so prehaps it is not irrelevant.

No, yip, that was not the question at all. As usual, you're not here to contribute, just to stir the pot.

 

[pilotyip]

stirring the pot?

Also irrelevant. What you log is entirely irrelevant to the issue of flying through thunderstorms.



No, yip, that was not the question at all. As usual, you're not here to contribute, just to stir the pot.

Avbug is accusing me of stirring the pot? Has Avbug ever stirred the pot? Talk about the pot calling the Kettle black. BTW Life is too short to take too much of this seriously, irrelevant?

 

[avbug]

Again...here we have a thread regarding the wisdom of flying through a thunderstorm. Perhaps if you want to talk about you, or old history which isn't relevant, you should start another thread.

Fact is that intentionally flying through a thunderstorm, or placing one's self in a position to unintentionally fly through one, is stupid unless one has a valid reason to be there...such as conducting thunderstorm research.

 

[pilotyip]

agreed

Again...here we have a thread regarding the wisdom of flying through a thunderstorm. Perhaps if you want to talk about you, or old history which isn't relevant, you should start another thread.

Fact is that intentionally flying through a thunderstorm, or placing one's self in a position to unintentionally fly through one, is stupid unless one has a valid reason to be there...such as conducting thunderstorm research.

I am not sure what we are talking about any more. I have flown through TRW's unintentionally, but never intentionally. The question was has anyone ever done my answer to orginal question was yes. Did question ask has anyone flown through one in the last 5, 10, or 20 years? I did almost 40-25 years ago, they finally put wx radar in the P-3 in the mid 1980's

 

[avbug]

I am not sure what we are talking about any more.

This involves reading the question, and understanding it.

Thunderstorms, anyone fly thru them?
Just wondering. I know they contain every danger known to man and airplane but my boss wants me to fly thru or under them and I don't feel it's safe. Thoughts?

The original poster isn't looking for a history lesson. The original poster is being asked to do something he or she does not wish to do, and does not feel is safe. The original poster is looking for information to that end.

What individuals did unintentionally 40 years ago is irrelevant.

You follow "what we are talking about now?"

What the poster doesn't need is individuals who try to justify flying through lower dbz returns, posters who think it's okay to fly through some thunderstorms but not others, or posters who want to discuss what unintentionally happened 40 years ago. The poster is looking for insight into his or her own personal dilema...and we're talking about that.

It's really quite straight forward.

 

[say again]

Oh STFU Mr. Almighty Avbug. He answered the question that was asked. I don't think the poster stated that it had to be recently, did he? If you don't like what you're reading, then STOP!! Quite simple. I enjoy reading Yip's post on "old school" flying from someone who actually experienced it. Now go ahead and give me a lecture on my post, I'm sure to enjoy (in a humorous way)!!!

 

[avbug]

You have nothing to contribute either, I see.

Very well.

 

[OrionFE]

I have to admit..."say again" is on to something. STFU AVBUG!

 

[avbug]

I see you have nothing to contribute either. Very well.

 

[pilotyip]

He already did his contributing, he has also probably unintentionally flown through TRW's, or at least witnessed it from the cneter seat.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Anyone fly through TS?

Only when they're directly over the field. Even then, vis. needs to be below minimums, otherwise it's a deal breaker.

 

[OrionFE]

He already did his contributing, he has also probably unintentionally flown through TRW's, or at least witnessed it from the cneter seat.

"RADAR..Flight, hows it look up a head?" BAM!

 

[PURPLEHAZE21]

My EGO is still the biggest....

 

[pilotyip]

Wtf?

My EGO is still the biggest....

more detail needed on what you define.

 

[Cobra17]

Fly through them all the time. The key is to keep your speed up...oh and keep your coffee away from your crotch.