Are Planes taking off in Thunderstorms normal?

[[email protected]]

http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html

[Mxsmanic]

Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No
aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No
> aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.

So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
receive clearance?

[William Black[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No
> aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.

So you'll now produce some evidence of aircraft being knocked out of the sky
by thunderstorms.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html
>

Reading the story says "there were thunderstorms", and it says they took off
"during a storm". It doesn't say they took off during a thunderstorm.

It crashed 90 miles from the airport. That doesn't sound like a problem
during takeoff to me.

[Dan Luke]

"William Black" wrote:

> So you'll now produce some evidence of aircraft being knocked out of the sky
> by thunderstorms.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_242

[William Black[_1_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Black" wrote:
>
>> So you'll now produce some evidence of aircraft being knocked out of the
>> sky by thunderstorms.
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_242
It says heavy rain knocked that one down.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html
>

Yes, perfectly normal. Happens all the time. More fun than a roller
coaster at Disney!

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html
>
It had waited an hour because of the rain, and so one would think that the
severe part of the thunderstorm had moved out of the flight path.

So under those qualifications, yes, they take off and land with
thunderstorms in the area, all of the time.

Take a look at this page, and scroll down to the file called "FedEx
Diversions" to see how planes will zoom in close to and around
thunderstorms.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No
>> aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>
> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
> receive clearance?

Don't pay attention to anything the guy you responded to (above) says about
aviation.

He is a troll, has clinically classifiable psychoses (several, probably) and
is not a pilot of anything other than Microsoft Flight Simulator. He is
wrong on the order of 99 times out of 100. That may be generous.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
> receive clearance?

There's far too little information available to speculate at this point.

It should be noted, however, that African airlines have miserable safety
records compared to airlines in Europe, the US, or Japan. The usual problems
are pilot error and lack of maintenance.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

On May 5, 5:18 pm, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> > Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No
> > aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>
> So you'll now produce some evidence of aircraft being knocked out of the sky
> by thunderstorms.

What are you trying to say?

Throughout the history of flight, aircraft have been knocked out of
the sky by thunderstorms. That's why they usually make great efforts
to avoid them. Airport operations are also shut down during storms
until / unless there are clear takeoff paths between them.

There was a very interesting article in the news a few years back
about Atlanta being shut down by thunderstorms, and how they'd ask for
a "volunteer" to try out a hole they thought they saw on radar. By
tradition, the first planes in line usually had to be the
"volunteer" ;-)

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

William Black writes:

> So you'll now produce some evidence of aircraft being knocked out of the sky
> by thunderstorms.

You need evidence?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

William Black writes:

> It says heavy rain knocked that one down.

If you feel like flying into a thunderstorm, go ahead. Just make sure that
you're the only person on the plane.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> So under those qualifications, yes, they take off and land with
> thunderstorms in the area, all of the time.

"Thunderstorms in the area" and "into thunderstorms" are two different things.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> What are you trying to say?

It amazes me that anyone would require "evidence" that thunderstorms and
aircraft don't mix.

I don't know of any aircraft that have flown into a tornado and been damaged
by it, but that doesn't mean that flying into a tornado is safe.

> There was a very interesting article in the news a few years back
> about Atlanta being shut down by thunderstorms, and how they'd ask for
> a "volunteer" to try out a hole they thought they saw on radar. By
> tradition, the first planes in line usually had to be the
> "volunteer" ;-)

How long ago was this?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gene Seibel]

On May 5, 3:48 pm, wrote:
> http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html

Yes, but the pilots aren't. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No
>> aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>
> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
> receive clearance?

Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only a pilot
with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle of a
thunderstorm.
Dudley Henriques

[Dan Luke]

"William Black" wrote:

>>> So you'll now produce some evidence of aircraft being knocked out of the
>>> sky by thunderstorms.
>>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_242
> It says heavy rain knocked that one down.
>

Yes; one finds that in thunderstorms.


How about this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191



...or this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_75


....or this one?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_1016




There are many, many more, if you care to look.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only a
> pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle of a
> thunderstorm.

Agreed, but reading between the lines, he had already had a delay of an
hour for rain, so one must think that the thunderstorm was no longer a
factor.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote

> There are many, many more, if you care to look.

All good links, but do your really think that ATC released him to fly
straight into a t-storm? I don't, but come on, this is all based on ONE
article, from the MEDIA !!!

The guy asked a loaded question. Did you stop beating your wife? Do you
take off in thunderstorms?

It is certainly not at all clear what the weather conditions were at the
time of THIS takeoff.

We all know that T-storms can take down a plane. Is this the REAL issue,
here?

I doubt it.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> William Black writes:
>
>> It says heavy rain knocked that one down.
>
> If you feel like flying into a thunderstorm, go ahead. Just make sure
> that you're the only person on the plane.
>

You are an idiot.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in news:1178398113.132291.126680
@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html
>
>

Taking off in a Thunderstorm and taking off in the vicinity of a
thiunderstorm are two different things. If you don;t fly in the vicinity of
thundrstorms in some parts of the world, and Cameroon would be one of them,
you don;t fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No
> aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>

You don't fly anyway, fjukktard.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off.
>>> No aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>>
>> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
>> receive clearance?
>
> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only a
> pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle of a
> thunderstorm.

It doesn't neceesarily follow that he took off in the middle of a CB...



Bertie

[george]

On May 6, 10:26 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...>http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html
>
> It had waited an hour because of the rain, and so one would think that the
> severe part of the thunderstorm had moved out of the flight path.
>
> So under those qualifications, yes, they take off and land with
> thunderstorms in the area, all of the time.
>
> Take a look at this page, and scroll down to the file called "FedEx
> Diversions" to see how planes will zoom in close to and around
> thunderstorms.

I had this idea that that is why all heavies have doppler radar to
avoid the CU's

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only a
>> pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle of a
>> thunderstorm.
>
> Agreed, but reading between the lines, he had already had a delay of an
> hour for rain, so one must think that the thunderstorm was no longer a
> factor.
> --
> Jim in NC

Probably true. It's hard to imagine he throttled up right in the middle of a
thunderstorm.
One thing's for sure. What actually happened and why are seldom what appears
to be the answer during the first 24 hours post accident.
DH

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
. 130...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off.
>>>> No aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>>>
>>> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
>>> receive clearance?
>>
>> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only a
>> pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle of a
>> thunderstorm.
>
> It doesn't neceesarily follow that he took off in the middle of a CB...

I agree. To do that would have been against all my sense of logic anyway.
Stranger things have happened, and pilots do indeed from time to time push
weather for one reason or another but I'd hate to second guess this poor guy
at this point. It's been my experience that what appears almost certain
immediately after these things seldom carries through the investigation.
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> All good links, but do your really think that ATC released him to fly
> straight into a t-storm?

The pilot is ultimately the boss. If his actions are not contrary to the
safety of other flights, ATC really has no reason not to release him. See
Jessica Dubroff's adventure for an example.

> We all know that T-storms can take down a plane.

I dunno. Some people seem unwilling to believe that without "evidence."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Buster]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
. 130...
> Bwawhahwhahhwhahwhahwh!
>
> Doesn't matte rhow much information is available, you wouldn't know what
> it meant, fjukkwit.
>
>
> Bertie

Heyyyyy - Bertie the Butt Nip is back with all of his vast knowledge. Yer
too cool Bertie.

[Buster]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Morgans writes:
>>
>>> So under those qualifications, yes, they take off and land with
>>> thunderstorms in the area, all of the time.
>>
>> "Thunderstorms in the area" and "into thunderstorms" are two different
>> things.
>>
>
> Like you'd know the difference, fjukktard.

> Bertie

You don't seem to know **** about anything, Butt Munch.

[Bob Moore]

Morgans wrote
> All good links, but do your really think that ATC released him to fly
> straight into a t-storm? I don't,

Jim, it's about time that someone told you that Mxsmanic seems
to understand a hell-of-a-lot more about what really happens in
jet transport aircraft than you do. You are just looking the fool
in your attempts to rebut his posts.

I find his questions very well thought-out and his answers to
other's questions well researched.

BTW, ATC will gladly release an aircraft into any weather that
the pilot wishes provided that the airport has not been closed.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
CFII
Naval Aviator, S-2F P-2V P-3B

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> . 130...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ps.com...
>>>> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking
>>>>> off. No aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>>>>
>>>> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
>>>> receive clearance?
>>>
>>> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only
>>> a pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle
>>> of a thunderstorm.
>>
>> It doesn't neceesarily follow that he took off in the middle of a
>> CB...
>
> I agree. To do that would have been against all my sense of logic
> anyway. Stranger things have happened, and pilots do indeed from time
> to time push weather for one reason or another but I'd hate to second
> guess this poor guy at this point. It's been my experience that what
> appears almost certain immediately after these things seldom carries
> through the investigation.

Precisely. I've flown in that part of the world quite a lot and the CBs
have to be seen to be believed. I've been at 310 and had the tops
further away than the bottoms as often as not. The size of them is also
astonishing and seeing into a large, tight group of cells is next to
impossible, even with the best radar. It's hard work but it has to be
done or you're on the ground for the best part of six months there.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> All good links, but do your really think that ATC released him to fly
>> straight into a t-storm?
>
> The pilot is ultimately the boss. If his actions are not contrary to
> the safety of other flights, ATC really has no reason not to release
> him. See Jessica Dubroff's adventure for an example.
>
>> We all know that T-storms can take down a plane.
>
> I dunno. Some people seem unwilling to believe that without
> "evidence."

You're an idiot, wannabe terrorist boi.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> . 130...
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ps.com...
>>>>> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking
>>>>>> off. No aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>>>>>
>>>>> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
>>>>> receive clearance?
>>>>
>>>> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only
>>>> a pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle
>>>> of a thunderstorm.
>>>
>>> It doesn't neceesarily follow that he took off in the middle of a
>>> CB...
>>
>> I agree. To do that would have been against all my sense of logic
>> anyway. Stranger things have happened, and pilots do indeed from time
>> to time push weather for one reason or another but I'd hate to second
>> guess this poor guy at this point. It's been my experience that what
>> appears almost certain immediately after these things seldom carries
>> through the investigation.
>
> Precisely. I've flown in that part of the world quite a lot and the CBs
> have to be seen to be believed. I've been at 310 and had the tops
> further away than the bottoms as often as not. The size of them is also
> astonishing and seeing into a large, tight group of cells is next to
> impossible, even with the best radar. It's hard work but it has to be
> done or you're on the ground for the best part of six months there.
>
> Bertie

Reminds me of an old story I heard once that was going around UAL for
awhile;

>A major airline hired a new first officer right out of post graduate school
and stuck him in the right seat of a 737 with a crusty old Captain who came
up through the ranks after dropping out of high school.
On their first flight together, the Captain told the first officer to just
sit back and watch and do absolutely nothing.
The Captain took off, climbed to FL 360 as filed and leveled off. He set the
autopilot and inertial nav for waypoints and told the first officer that he
was going to take a nap. The first officer was to touch nothing.......do
nothing! Under NO circumstances, was he to disturb the Captain.
The Captain went to sleep.
The first officer sat there watching the panel. After a while he noticed on
the weather radar a HUGE storm ahead directly in the path of the airplane.
He watched with interest and gathering alarm as the storm got closer and
closer.
At about twenty miles, the storm looked absolutely frightening; the biggest
thing he had ever seen in his life. He just stared at it on the screen while
he pondered the Captain's request not to be disturbed for any reason.
Finally, fearing that if a course correction wasn't made immediately, the
storm would tear the airplane apart, he decided he couldn't wait any longer
to wake the Captain.
"Captain.......Captain" he said, "wake up sir...look at this!! It's my
sincere recommendation sir, that we circumnavigate that storm
immediately!!!!!!!!!!!"
The Captain awoke in a start and took one look at the radar screen;
"Circumnavigate my ass!!!!!!. We're goin AROUND that son-of-a-bitch!!!!!"

Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> . 130...
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking
>>>>>>> off. No aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>>>>>> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
>>>>>> receive clearance?
>>>>> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only
>>>>> a pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle
>>>>> of a thunderstorm.
>>>> It doesn't neceesarily follow that he took off in the middle of a
>>>> CB...
>>> I agree. To do that would have been against all my sense of logic
>>> anyway. Stranger things have happened, and pilots do indeed from time
>>> to time push weather for one reason or another but I'd hate to second
>>> guess this poor guy at this point. It's been my experience that what
>>> appears almost certain immediately after these things seldom carries
>>> through the investigation.
>> Precisely. I've flown in that part of the world quite a lot and the CBs
>> have to be seen to be believed. I've been at 310 and had the tops
>> further away than the bottoms as often as not. The size of them is also
>> astonishing and seeing into a large, tight group of cells is next to
>> impossible, even with the best radar. It's hard work but it has to be
>> done or you're on the ground for the best part of six months there.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Reminds me of an old story I heard once that was going around UAL for
> awhile;
>
>> A major airline hired a new first officer right out of post graduate school
> and stuck him in the right seat of a 737 with a crusty old Captain who came
> up through the ranks after dropping out of high school.
> On their first flight together, the Captain told the first officer to just
> sit back and watch and do absolutely nothing.
> The Captain took off, climbed to FL 360 as filed and leveled off. He set the
> autopilot and inertial nav for waypoints and told the first officer that he
> was going to take a nap. The first officer was to touch nothing.......do
> nothing! Under NO circumstances, was he to disturb the Captain.
> The Captain went to sleep.
> The first officer sat there watching the panel. After a while he noticed on
> the weather radar a HUGE storm ahead directly in the path of the airplane.
> He watched with interest and gathering alarm as the storm got closer and
> closer.
> At about twenty miles, the storm looked absolutely frightening; the biggest
> thing he had ever seen in his life. He just stared at it on the screen while
> he pondered the Captain's request not to be disturbed for any reason.
> Finally, fearing that if a course correction wasn't made immediately, the
> storm would tear the airplane apart, he decided he couldn't wait any longer
> to wake the Captain.
> "Captain.......Captain" he said, "wake up sir...look at this!! It's my
> sincere recommendation sir, that we circumnavigate that storm
> immediately!!!!!!!!!!!"
> The Captain awoke in a start and took one look at the radar screen;
> "Circumnavigate my ass!!!!!!. We're goin AROUND that son-of-a-bitch!!!!!"

Good one!

I also like the one about the young student flying with the old crusty
WW II veteran instructor. It was the students first flight into a busy
field and the pattern was packed with airplanes. The student was
getting pretty nervous and agitated and asked the instructor if this
wasn't dangerous with all these airplanes so close by. The instructor
looked all around, up and down and slowly said, "Don't worry, son, they
aren't shooting at us."

I guess stress is all relative.

Matt

[[email protected]]

On 5 May, 22:10, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No
> aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.

My last experience was that ATC prioritised landing of aircraft but
prevented take-offs until it had cleared. So there was a large
backlog. It
was emphasised to pax when the pilots (not ATC) were still not
happy to take off as the weather had not completley cleared...
what a bunch of wimps..


> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> I also like the one about the young student flying with the old crusty
> WW II veteran instructor. It was the students first flight into a busy
> field and the pattern was packed with airplanes. The student was
> getting pretty nervous and agitated and asked the instructor if this
> wasn't dangerous with all these airplanes so close by. The instructor
> looked all around, up and down and slowly said, "Don't worry, son, they
> aren't shooting at us."
>
> I guess stress is all relative.

I've read that nighttime carrier landings are actually more stressful than
being shot at.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mike Hunt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>
>>I also like the one about the young student flying with the old crusty
>>WW II veteran instructor. It was the students first flight into a busy
>>field and the pattern was packed with airplanes. The student was
>>getting pretty nervous and agitated and asked the instructor if this
>>wasn't dangerous with all these airplanes so close by. The instructor
>>looked all around, up and down and slowly said, "Don't worry, son, they
>>aren't shooting at us."
>>
>>I guess stress is all relative.
>
>
> I've read that nighttime carrier landings are actually more stressful than
> being shot at.
>

Especially if you are a lawyer as well as an aviator and you have night
vision problems.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>> I also like the one about the young student flying with the old
>> crusty WW II veteran instructor. It was the students first flight
>> into a busy field and the pattern was packed with airplanes. The
>> student was getting pretty nervous and agitated and asked the
>> instructor if this wasn't dangerous with all these airplanes so close
>> by. The instructor looked all around, up and down and slowly said,
>> "Don't worry, son, they aren't shooting at us."
>>
>> I guess stress is all relative.
>
> I've read that nighttime carrier landings are actually more stressful
> than being shot at.

You'll never make one so it's irrelevent.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Morgans wrote
>> All good links, but do your really think that ATC released him to fly
>> straight into a t-storm? I don't,
>
> Jim, it's about time that someone told you that Mxsmanic seems
> to understand a hell-of-a-lot more about what really happens in
> jet transport aircraft than you do.

He understands nothing. He reads a lot of crap and regurgitates it, there's
a difference.


Bertie

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >>
> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> >> . 130...
> >>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ps.com...
> >>>>> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>>>>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking
> >>>>>> off. No aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
> >>>>> receive clearance?
> >>>>
> >>>> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only
> >>>> a pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle
> >>>> of a thunderstorm.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't neceesarily follow that he took off in the middle of a
> >>> CB...
> >>
> >> I agree. To do that would have been against all my sense of logic
> >> anyway. Stranger things have happened, and pilots do indeed from time
> >> to time push weather for one reason or another but I'd hate to second
> >> guess this poor guy at this point. It's been my experience that what
> >> appears almost certain immediately after these things seldom carries
> >> through the investigation.
> >
> > Precisely. I've flown in that part of the world quite a lot and the CBs
> > have to be seen to be believed. I've been at 310 and had the tops
> > further away than the bottoms as often as not. The size of them is also
> > astonishing and seeing into a large, tight group of cells is next to
> > impossible, even with the best radar. It's hard work but it has to be
> > done or you're on the ground for the best part of six months there.
> >
> > Bertie
>
> Reminds me of an old story I heard once that was going around UAL for
> awhile;
>
> >A major airline hired a new first officer right out of post graduate school
> and stuck him in the right seat of a 737 with a crusty old Captain who came
> up through the ranks after dropping out of high school.
> On their first flight together, the Captain told the first officer to just
> sit back and watch and do absolutely nothing.
> The Captain took off, climbed to FL 360 as filed and leveled off. He set the
> autopilot and inertial nav for waypoints and told the first officer that he
> was going to take a nap. The first officer was to touch nothing.......do
> nothing! Under NO circumstances, was he to disturb the Captain.
> The Captain went to sleep.
> The first officer sat there watching the panel. After a while he noticed on
> the weather radar a HUGE storm ahead directly in the path of the airplane.
> He watched with interest and gathering alarm as the storm got closer and
> closer.
> At about twenty miles, the storm looked absolutely frightening; the biggest
> thing he had ever seen in his life. He just stared at it on the screen while
> he pondered the Captain's request not to be disturbed for any reason.
> Finally, fearing that if a course correction wasn't made immediately, the
> storm would tear the airplane apart, he decided he couldn't wait any longer
> to wake the Captain.
> "Captain.......Captain" he said, "wake up sir...look at this!! It's my
> sincere recommendation sir, that we circumnavigate that storm
> immediately!!!!!!!!!!!"
> The Captain awoke in a start and took one look at the radar screen;
> "Circumnavigate my ass!!!!!!. We're goin AROUND that son-of-a-bitch!!!!!"
>
> Dudley Henriques

Reminds me of a story from an old, retired UAl Captain friend of mine:

A friend of his was copilot in a Convair from Elko, NV to Las Vegas,
back in the 50s. Captain was similar to the above

Captain: "I want you to sit there, shut up and not touch anything unless
I tell you to!"

FO: "Yes, Sir"

After 1/2 hour into the flight (in solid IFR):

Captain: How come we're only doing 140 knots?"

FO: "Oh, do you want ne to raise the gear, SIR?"

[Buster]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> Oh, and Butt munch?
>
> Bwawhawhahwhhahwhahwhahwh!
>
> Bertie

Glad ya liked it. Keep on munchin.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Mike Hunt" <postmaster@localhost> wrote in message
. ..
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Matt Whiting writes:
>>
>>
>>>I also like the one about the young student flying with the old crusty WW
>>>II veteran instructor. It was the students first flight into a busy
>>>field and the pattern was packed with airplanes. The student was getting
>>>pretty nervous and agitated and asked the instructor if this wasn't
>>>dangerous with all these airplanes so close by. The instructor looked
>>>all around, up and down and slowly said, "Don't worry, son, they aren't
>>>shooting at us."
>>>
>>>I guess stress is all relative.
>>
>>
>> I've read that nighttime carrier landings are actually more stressful
>> than
>> being shot at.
>>
>
> Especially if you are a lawyer as well as an aviator and you have night
> vision problems.

It is truly said in the Naval fighter community, that there are 3 things
that comprise the ultimate in a physical sensation a Naval aviator can
experience in life; a good landing, an orgasm, and a good ****. A night
landing on a carrier is the one event that allows you to experience all
three at the same time.
Dudley Henriques

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-05 13:48:33 -0700, said:

> http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html

I would not depart in a thunderstorm no matter what I was flying. Hail
can travel up to 20 miles from a thunderstorm. Thunderstorms are often
surrounded by violent downdrafts called microbursts that will force any
airplane down faster than it can climb. The lightning can blind pilots.
The inside of a thunderstorm is darker than night, and the air currents
throw you around like bucking bull.

I have been inside thunderstorms more than once and each time it has
nearly killed me. I stay as far away from them as I can.

Departing in a thunderstorm is especially dangerous. You are too close
to the ground and the thunderstorm can slam you right down into it. You
can't see obstacles in the darkness and you can't maneuver well enough
to avoid them easily. Hailstones will dent up the airplane, get sucked
into the engines and kill them, and break things. Lightning can strike
the airplane and even burn holes in the skin. If you get caught in the
microburst you will hit the ground before you can fly out of it.
Crewmembers can be thrown out of their chairs with such violence that
it breaks bones and knocks them unconscious. Passengers who don't have
their seatbelts fastened tightly can be badly hurt. Anything loose in
the cabin becomes a deadly missile.

I have never been slammed into the ground, but I have come very close.
I have experienced all the other bad effects I have described. A
thunderstorm frequently has all the energy of several atomic bombs. No
airplane can withstand that. It is possible to fly into a thunderstorm
and live -- I seem to attract them -- but they are still very dangerous.

All of that said, it remains to be seen whether the aircraft you are
referring to actually flew into a thunderstorm. A thunderstorm can be
many miles away but it will seem right on top of you because they are
so big. Rain is not a thunderstorm. Hail is caused by thunderstorms
but, as I have noted, the thunderstorm might be 20 miles away.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Hunt writes:

> Especially if you are a lawyer as well as an aviator and you have night
> vision problems.

Hmm ... do you have someone specific in mind?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> It is truly said in the Naval fighter community, that there are 3 things
> that comprise the ultimate in a physical sensation a Naval aviator can
> experience in life; a good landing, an orgasm, and a good ****. A night
> landing on a carrier is the one event that allows you to experience all
> three at the same time.

I'm surprised that landings would be more esteemed than take-offs. I saw an
in-cockpit video of a pilot's first actual catapult take-off from a carrier
and he sounded pretty impressed by it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> It is truly said in the Naval fighter community, that
>> there are 3 things
>> that comprise the ultimate in a physical sensation a
>> Naval aviator can
>> experience in life; a good landing, an orgasm, and a good
>> ****. A night
>> landing on a carrier is the one event that allows you to
>> experience all
>> three at the same time.
>
> I'm surprised that landings would be more esteemed than
> take-offs. I saw an
> in-cockpit video of a pilot's first actual catapult
> take-off from a carrier
> and he sounded pretty impressed by it.

So which is greater, MadMax's abject ignorance about
aviation, or his mind-boggling willingness to flaunt it so
openly in aviation froups?

I was tempted to say the former, but it's a tough call if
you think about it.

[Mike Hunt]

John Mazor wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...

>>I'm surprised that landings would be more esteemed than
>>take-offs. I saw an
>>in-cockpit video of a pilot's first actual catapult
>>take-off from a carrier
>>and he sounded pretty impressed by it.
>
>
> So which is greater, MadMax's abject ignorance about
> aviation, or his mind-boggling willingness to flaunt it so
> openly in aviation froups?
>
> I was tempted to say the former, but it's a tough call if
> you think about it.
>
>

Apparently he thinks it is harder to take off than land on a carrier.
I've done both in a COD, and there is something to seeing the smallness
of the ship against the open ocean and watching the deck moving all over
the place as you got closer.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Hunt writes:

> Apparently he thinks it is harder to take off than land on a carrier.

No, he doesn't. Read more carefully.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob Moore" > wrote

> Jim, it's about time that someone told you that Mxsmanic seems
> to understand a hell-of-a-lot more about what really happens in
> jet transport aircraft than you do. You are just looking the fool
> in your attempts to rebut his posts.

You need to understand a few things.

One, I do not claim to be an authority on transport aviation, unlike MX.

Two, I do not try to rebut his posts, because it is an exercise in futility.
I was only letting a newbie know who was giving him an answer, that the
answer is most likely incorrect, and that the writer does not know any more
than what he has learned playing a game.

> I find his questions very well thought-out and his answers to
> other's questions well researched.

I can't find a single thing in that line that isaccurate or correct. Well
researched? What planet are you living on, presently? He lets others do
his research, instead of doing the first little bit himself, then criticises
the answer given, when he gets the right answer.

> BTW, ATC will gladly release an aircraft into any weather that
> the pilot wishes provided that the airport has not been closed.

But they will inform (or flight service will inform) the pilot of the
current weather conditions along the intended route.

Since you have so much faith in MX's knowledge, I'll let you have the honor
of riding with him on his first flight after getting his PPL. It sure will
not be me.

I hope you know that your credibility just dropped (with your support of
this individual) with a lot of people, I'm sure. It does not show very good
judgment, at the very least.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> It is truly said in the Naval fighter community, that there are 3
>> things that comprise the ultimate in a physical sensation a Naval
>> aviator can experience in life; a good landing, an orgasm, and a good
>> ****. A night landing on a carrier is the one event that allows you
>> to experience all three at the same time.
>
> I'm surprised that landings would be more esteemed than take-offs.

That's because you're an idiot.


and "esteemed"?

Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhah whahwhahhwhahwhahwhahw
ahwhah!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike Hunt writes:
>
>> Apparently he thinks it is harder to take off than land on a carrier.
>
> No, he doesn't. Read more carefully.
>

Yes, he doesn't think at all. He just spews.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike Hunt writes:
>
>> Especially if you are a lawyer as well as an aviator and you have night
>> vision problems.
>
> Hmm ... do you have someone specific in mind?
>

You're an idiot.

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

wrote in news:1178460199.786081.107840
@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On 5 May, 22:10, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No
>> aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>
> My last experience was that ATC prioritised landing of aircraft but
> prevented take-offs until it had cleared. So there was a large
> backlog. It
> was emphasised to pax when the pilots (not ATC) were still not
> happy to take off as the weather had not completley cleared...
> what a bunch of wimps..

That's not the way it works.

Bertie

[Kev]

On May 6, 7:42 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> One, I do not claim to be an authority on transport aviation, unlike MX.

No, you seem to have other problems. You wrote that Mx "has
clinically classifiable psychoses (several, probably)".... thus
claiming to be an expert in psychology.

> I was only letting a newbie know who was giving him an answer, that the
> answer is most likely incorrect, and that the writer does not know any more
> than what he has learned playing a game.

A noble cause, except in this case Mx wrote: "Aircraft normally wait
for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No aircraft is safe in a
thunderstorm. " What part of that was "most likely incorrect" and
called for your dire warning? If you're going to bash him, at least
BE CORRECT.

Kev

[Kev]

On May 6, 7:42 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Bob Moore" > wrote
> > Jim, it's about time that someone told you that Mxsmanic seems
> > to understand a hell-of-a-lot more about what really happens in
> > jet transport aircraft than you do. You are just looking the fool
> > in your attempts to rebut his posts.
>
> [...]
> I hope you know that your credibility just dropped (with your support of
> this individual) with a lot of people, I'm sure. It does not show very good
> judgment, at the very least.

With 17 years as a 707 pilot, amongst other credits,it does not show
good judgement on your part to try to cast doubts on his credibility,
which has always been good.

Kev

[Maxwell]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 6, 7:42 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>
>> One, I do not claim to be an authority on transport aviation, unlike MX.
>
> No, you seem to have other problems. You wrote that Mx "has
> clinically classifiable psychoses (several, probably)".... thus
> claiming to be an expert in psychology.
>
>> I was only letting a newbie know who was giving him an answer, that the
>> answer is most likely incorrect, and that the writer does not know any
>> more
>> than what he has learned playing a game.
>
> A noble cause, except in this case Mx wrote: "Aircraft normally wait
> for thunderstorms to pass before taking off. No aircraft is safe in a
> thunderstorm. " What part of that was "most likely incorrect" and
> called for your dire warning? If you're going to bash him, at least
> BE CORRECT.
>

First of all the statement is not completley correct.

Second, MX has a well proven track record of being " most likely incorrect".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

george > wrote in
ups.com:

> On May 6, 10:26 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...>
http://ww
>> w.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html
>>
>> It had waited an hour because of the rain, and so one would think
>> that the severe part of the thunderstorm had moved out of the flight
>> path.
>>
>> So under those qualifications, yes, they take off and land with
>> thunderstorms in the area, all of the time.
>>
>> Take a look at this page, and scroll down to the file called "FedEx
>> Diversions" to see how planes will zoom in close to and around
>> thunderstorms.
>
> I had this idea that that is why all heavies have doppler radar to
> avoid the CU's

No, they don't. Some heavies have it, but not all by any stretch.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> First of all the statement is not completley correct.

Which part of the statement is incorrect, and why is the incorrect portion (if
any) important if the correct portion is not?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-06 05:11:53 -0700, "Dudley Henriques" > said:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> . 130...
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking
>>>>>>> off. No aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
>>>>>> receive clearance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only
>>>>> a pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle
>>>>> of a thunderstorm.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't neceesarily follow that he took off in the middle of a
>>>> CB...
>>>
>>> I agree. To do that would have been against all my sense of logic
>>> anyway. Stranger things have happened, and pilots do indeed from time
>>> to time push weather for one reason or another but I'd hate to second
>>> guess this poor guy at this point. It's been my experience that what
>>> appears almost certain immediately after these things seldom carries
>>> through the investigation.
>>
>> Precisely. I've flown in that part of the world quite a lot and the CBs
>> have to be seen to be believed. I've been at 310 and had the tops
>> further away than the bottoms as often as not. The size of them is also
>> astonishing and seeing into a large, tight group of cells is next to
>> impossible, even with the best radar. It's hard work but it has to be
>> done or you're on the ground for the best part of six months there.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Reminds me of an old story I heard once that was going around UAL for
> awhile;
>
>> A major airline hired a new first officer right out of post graduate school
> and stuck him in the right seat of a 737 with a crusty old Captain who came
> up through the ranks after dropping out of high school.
> On their first flight together, the Captain told the first officer to just
> sit back and watch and do absolutely nothing.
> The Captain took off, climbed to FL 360 as filed and leveled off. He set the
> autopilot and inertial nav for waypoints and told the first officer that he
> was going to take a nap. The first officer was to touch nothing.......do
> nothing! Under NO circumstances, was he to disturb the Captain.
> The Captain went to sleep.
> The first officer sat there watching the panel. After a while he noticed on
> the weather radar a HUGE storm ahead directly in the path of the airplane.
> He watched with interest and gathering alarm as the storm got closer and
> closer.
> At about twenty miles, the storm looked absolutely frightening; the biggest
> thing he had ever seen in his life. He just stared at it on the screen while
> he pondered the Captain's request not to be disturbed for any reason.
> Finally, fearing that if a course correction wasn't made immediately, the
> storm would tear the airplane apart, he decided he couldn't wait any longer
> to wake the Captain.
> "Captain.......Captain" he said, "wake up sir...look at this!! It's my
> sincere recommendation sir, that we circumnavigate that storm
> immediately!!!!!!!!!!!"
> The Captain awoke in a start and took one look at the radar screen;
> "Circumnavigate my ass!!!!!!. We're goin AROUND that son-of-a-bitch!!!!!"
>
> Dudley Henriques

I am certain that I have flown with that guy.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007050621473638165-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-05-06 05:11:53 -0700, "Dudley Henriques" >
> said:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .130...
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> . 130...
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>> On May 5, 5:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking
>>>>>>>> off. No aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So most likely the Kenya Airways flight didn't follow procedure or
>>>>>>> receive clearance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hard to say not knowing the exact situation, but in my opinion, only
>>>>>> a pilot with a death wish accepts a takeoff clearance in the middle
>>>>>> of a thunderstorm.
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't neceesarily follow that he took off in the middle of a
>>>>> CB...
>>>>
>>>> I agree. To do that would have been against all my sense of logic
>>>> anyway. Stranger things have happened, and pilots do indeed from time
>>>> to time push weather for one reason or another but I'd hate to second
>>>> guess this poor guy at this point. It's been my experience that what
>>>> appears almost certain immediately after these things seldom carries
>>>> through the investigation.
>>>
>>> Precisely. I've flown in that part of the world quite a lot and the CBs
>>> have to be seen to be believed. I've been at 310 and had the tops
>>> further away than the bottoms as often as not. The size of them is also
>>> astonishing and seeing into a large, tight group of cells is next to
>>> impossible, even with the best radar. It's hard work but it has to be
>>> done or you're on the ground for the best part of six months there.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Reminds me of an old story I heard once that was going around UAL for
>> awhile;
>>
>>> A major airline hired a new first officer right out of post graduate
>>> school
>> and stuck him in the right seat of a 737 with a crusty old Captain who
>> came
>> up through the ranks after dropping out of high school.
>> On their first flight together, the Captain told the first officer to
>> just
>> sit back and watch and do absolutely nothing.
>> The Captain took off, climbed to FL 360 as filed and leveled off. He set
>> the
>> autopilot and inertial nav for waypoints and told the first officer that
>> he
>> was going to take a nap. The first officer was to touch nothing.......do
>> nothing! Under NO circumstances, was he to disturb the Captain.
>> The Captain went to sleep.
>> The first officer sat there watching the panel. After a while he noticed
>> on
>> the weather radar a HUGE storm ahead directly in the path of the
>> airplane.
>> He watched with interest and gathering alarm as the storm got closer and
>> closer.
>> At about twenty miles, the storm looked absolutely frightening; the
>> biggest
>> thing he had ever seen in his life. He just stared at it on the screen
>> while
>> he pondered the Captain's request not to be disturbed for any reason.
>> Finally, fearing that if a course correction wasn't made immediately, the
>> storm would tear the airplane apart, he decided he couldn't wait any
>> longer
>> to wake the Captain.
>> "Captain.......Captain" he said, "wake up sir...look at this!! It's my
>> sincere recommendation sir, that we circumnavigate that storm
>> immediately!!!!!!!!!!!"
>> The Captain awoke in a start and took one look at the radar screen;
>> "Circumnavigate my ass!!!!!!. We're goin AROUND that son-of-a-bitch!!!!!"
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I am certain that I have flown with that guy.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

I think all of us might have flown with him at least once at one time or
another :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> First of all the statement is not completley correct.
>
> Which part of the statement is incorrect, and why is the incorrect
> portion (if any) important if the correct portion is not?

Send me $600 and I'll tell you you terrorist Wannabe.


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> First of all the statement is not completley correct.
>
> Which part of the statement is incorrect, and why is the incorrect portion
> (if
> any) important if the correct portion is not?
>

Say what? Do you even understand that question?

Besides, I don't train trolls.

[William Black[_1_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007050614564343658-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-05-05 13:48:33 -0700, said:
>
>> http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html
>
> I would not depart in a thunderstorm no matter what I was flying.

How many flights have you refused to board because of the weather?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

William Black wrote:
>>
>> I would not depart in a thunderstorm no matter what I was flying.
>
> How many flights have you refused to board because of the weather?


I once dumped an Apache in Fayetteville, NC because of collecting a pile of ice
on the approach in. I called my boss, told him his Apache could be found in
Fayetteville, and that I would be boarding a USAir flight shortly back to
Charlotte. It's one thing to pick up ice on the approach; I was headed downhill
anyway. It's a very different situation trying to climb through a freezing
overcast and I wasn't going to do it.

But I did climb on the USAir jet without hesitation. I figured it had
deicing/anti-icing. It must have had something, because we made the flight home
without any trouble.

As an aside, I have launched many times immediately after a cell moved off the
field, as long as it didn't move in the direction I intended to go. But I have
never launched with one overhead. I don't know anybody who would.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Rick[_1_]]

Steve Foley wrote in message ...
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> http://www.thenewstribune.com/886/story/55281.html
>>
>
>Reading the story says "there were thunderstorms", and it says they took
off
>"during a storm". It doesn't say they took off during a thunderstorm.
>
>It crashed 90 miles from the airport. That doesn't sound like a problem
>during takeoff to me.

That initial claim was apperently due to some mixed up satellite signal. The
plane actually crashed only 12 miles away. Engine failures or lightning are
certainly possibilities. And I'm surprised that a terrorist bomb hasn't been
mentioned...so far, since witnesses claimed hearing an explosion.

- Rick

[Mike Hunt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mike Hunt writes:
>
>
>>Especially if you are a lawyer as well as an aviator and you have night
>>vision problems.
>
>
> Hmm ... do you have someone specific in mind?

Not really. No Harm, no foul.

[ant]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Aircraft normally wait for thunderstorms to pass before taking off.
> No aircraft is safe in a thunderstorm.

Yep. Our plane which was bound for Melbourne had to divert to sydney,
because there were t-storms in Melbourne. Very bloody annoying as it didn't
have enough petrol and so had to refuel (while we muttered on the plane) in
Sydney and then continue on to Melbourne.

--
Don't try to email me;
I'm using the spammer
du jour's email addy

[Franklin[_2_]]

On Sun 06 May 2007 02:22:59, Buster > wrote in
rec.travel.air:
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> . 130...
>> Bwawhahwhahhwhahwhahwh!
>>
>> Doesn't matte rhow much information is available, you wouldn't
>> know what it meant, fjukkwit.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Heyyyyy - Bertie the Butt Nip is back with all of his vast
> knowledge. Yer too cool Bertie.
>


Hey guys, why don't you keep your poster Buster's trash post in this
group?

Buster is Hummingbird (Chris Millbank). He uses several aliases but no
matter how technically clever he makes them, you can always tell it's
him by the timing and the content. He has posted in
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air, alt.disasters.aviation a few
times this year

If you need to know more about this asshole then this check out:

"Welcome to a.c.f - Hummingbird: THIS IS YOUR LIFE!"
Google Groups: <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2pub8a
MID: >


Unfortunately this long standing spoofer, troll and nasty piece of work
came into alt.comp.freeware where his past was properly reviewed.

Now he makes pleas for clemency like this. And there have been many
more in recent days in alt.comp.freeware.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

From: hummingbird >
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware
Subject: Re: ACF improvement project
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:07:19 +0100
Lines: 133
Message-ID: >
References: > <5i95tsF3o1qanU1
@mid.individual.net> >
> <1cpsojx60cokh.y8lppptq2uu8.dlg@
40tude.net> <fgYvi.4619$jy5.1346@trnddc07>
> <hmnvcspfkpuh.1j0o9ejfk96q.dlg@
40tude.net> >
Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net q9b9anGT54JEP48a+
4/yRwTrNB2YP+zeh0h/gbkFpYQHtFdkaR
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m4V5sjvom5jDlCYqpiPqcR4M6jY=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.640
X-No-Archive: yes
X-NFilter: 1.2.0


On Tue 14 Aug 2007 15:07:19, hummingbird >
wrote in alt.comp.freeware:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:23:41 +0100 'jon' posted this onto
> alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>I have repeatedly had to put up with RL threats here recently from
>>the Millbank/hummingbird drone because he has objected to usenet
>>posts of mine.
>
> Jon, Since you have completely ignored the ceasefire called by
> BB/HB last Sunday ...Let's get this absolutely clear shall we:
>
> The person who has been threatening is YOU and YOU KNOW IT. I have
> made NO threats to you on ACF nor in RL. EVER.
>
> *Anybody* who has had to put up with the filthy smears, lies and
> stalking from you which I have had to over the last three months,
> would also object to usenet posts of yours. FGS!
>
> How do you think I feel every day when I see yet another piece of
> my private life and ID being dribbled out onto ACF by you, along
> with strong hints that you have lots more to post??? That is
> intimidation and threatening behaviour. It may seem like fun to
> you, but it isn't to me. My privacy has always been very important
> to me and you have violated it to the extreme. I live in daily fear
> that you have somehow trawled my home address and will post it on
> ACF for the whole world and Franklin to see. He has already been
> asking around ACF on how he can get access to UK electoral lists,
> he obviously wants my home address to splatter across ACF and the
> Internet for the world to see.
>
> Then what??? Dog poop through my letterbox??? Bricks through my
> windows??? Fire bombs through my windows??? My car wrecked???
> Lawns sprayed with weedkiller???
>
> If I posted just a list of MIDs of your posts which contained lies,
> distortions, out of context quotes, smears, false allegations and
> personal ID info, it would go on for screenfulls. You know that.
> If I added a list of Franklin's tripe it would never end.
>
> Your latest smear was to tell Kat Mandu in another thread that I
> went to the gay beach in Patong procuring offers of gay marriage.
>
> Before that, you cut/pasted some comments of mine onto ACF which
> I had posted onto a Thai hotel website. Clearly you have spent
> endless hours/days/weeks trawling the Internet for every juicy
> snippet. WHY???
>
> Further, you publicly offered all your juicy snippets to others on
> ACF and afaik have provided said info to other people via private
> e-mail. I note that you exchange juicy gossipy lies with Franklin
> on ACF on a daily basis. You deliberately feed his mania.
>
> A while ago, you posted an <8,000 line post onto ACF containing
> much of the juicy snippets about me which you had at that time. Now
> you have the gall to claim it was "a newbie posting error", yet
> yesterday you described yourself as a "geek". Sunday night you
> posted that an anon post on ACF was from me and that it crossed
> your red line.
>
> Well, I have read that post and can see nothing racial in it. Of
> course you're trying to blow it up. I can see you're scratching
> around in the dirt for excuses and distractions to justify your own
> behaviour but you'll have to do a lot better than that Jon.
>
> Play the innocent victim role all you like Jon but you had no
> reason to start your stalking campaign, and the evidence and truth
> is now in the hands of independent advisors and it doesn't matter
> one jot what your fair weather friends on ACF say. They will all
> run for the trees when the sh*t hits the fan. Believe me, that's
> what bullies do.
>
> Your actions on ACF towards me over the last three months amount
> to intimidation, threatening behaviour, libel, defamation, stalking
> and probably a few other things.
>
> And like a 12 year-old child, when you saw the law closing in on
> you, you had the gall to claim that you did it because I once said
> "keep digging". Do you think police/lawyers/courts are all
> idiots???
>
> At every stage I warned you of the hole you were digging and asked
> you to "back off", "back away" and "get off this track" but your
> childish bully-boy bloated ego just cannot be controlled can it.
>
> It is increasingly clear to me that the only thing which will reign
> you in are the prosecution papers arriving on your doormat and you
> are held to account in a court of law.
>
> Yesterday, HUSS posted about this very subject and he advised your
> cozy friend Franklin(?) "don't go there". Huss knows where it can
> lead to; so did I three months ago, that's why I kept warning you.
> But you have ignored all the wiser counsels on this and got
> yourself into a huge legal hole. Bully-boy bloated egos always
> rule.
>
> I even pointed out to you yesterday (via private e-mail) that a
> final decision on whether to take legal proceedings against you
> will be influenced by your behaviour towards me on ACF in the
> coming period. But here you are today pouring out more projections,
> insults and distortions and defaming me yet again.
>
> ??? Do you never learn ???
>
> "You just cannot stop it can you Jon"
>
> You have got yourself into a vicious cycle of obsession about me
> and my private affairs and it is leading you straight towards the
> law. WAKE UP.
>
> I URGE YOU TO READ AND RE-READ MY TWO PRIVATE E-MAILS SENT TO YOU
> YESTERDAY AND WHEN YOU'VE DONE SO, READ THEM AGAIN. There are
> people in this world a million times wiser than you Jon. You really
> ought to listen to them and take advice. Those people do not mainly
> reside on ACF.
>
> What I have posted above is just the tip of the iceberg about Jon's
> behaviour. Some of it has been quite disgusting.
>
> I have nothing more to say on this matter in public at this time
> and will unlikely even read anything posted by ACF's No.1 Troll and
> Troublemaker: Franklin.
>
> If he would like to post his RL name/address/ISP, I will deal with
> it.
>
> Thank you.
>
>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++