Thunderstorms, anyone fly thru them?

[airlineworthy]

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?

Do it, and your underwear will be a different color on the other side!

Find a new boss.

 

[Boris Badenov]

No. No one in recorded history has ever flown through, under, or around a thunderstorm.

 

[JAFI]

Bryan, I worked for a few bosses like yours. He/she is an idiot - find another job. In the mean time you could try some tried and true replies to similar boss stupid ideas:

1. Could you go first and explain how it is done. I'll wait here and watch.

2. Where is the reference for (what ever stupid act) in the company manual? Are you asking me to not follow approved procedure?

3. (My favorite that worked several times) I'm just not sure about that, I’m going to call (Inspector's first name) at the FSDO and get his take on this.

Ignorance can be cured with education; stupidity can only be cured with death.

 

[learflyer]

Bryan, you out there? Making me nervous not answering these posts. You didn't fly through any $hit did ya?

 

[McNugget]

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?

don't do it. end of story PERIOD

ps are you still alive

 

[PURPLEHAZE21]

I just flew through one on the way here...no big deal....I dont know what the big fuss is over....what's my airplane doing in a parking lot....why am I not in it....where am I...........................

 

[thunderworm]

i think we should differenciate between categories of storms. a 1,2, maybe 3, can be flown through. 4, 5 stay away. if you have flown enough imc you probably have gone through at least something. of course they are scary but if you follow proper procedures just like ice you can still make it where you are going. with most peoples sentiments on this board one would think that most are too scared to even get in a plane let alone fly it. we all should error on the side of safety but how much is too much.

 

[avbug]

i think we should differenciate between categories of storms. a 1,2, maybe 3, can be flown through. 4, 5 stay away. if you have flown enough imc you probably have gone through at least something. of course they are scary but if you follow proper procedures just like ice you can still make it where you are going.

Simply because one "can make it," does not mean one should.

Common sense if often the better part of valor. Your statement lacks this.

Do you understand why one should not fly through a thunderstorm?

 

[pilotyip]

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.

 

[learflyer]

That was before all of the famous crashes, ( or at least reported) DFW...windshear, Little Rock.....AA, I know there's more!

 

[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"