What are you getting at? I don't need instrumentation to feel and see the wind, rain and storms approaching when they are basically on top of the airport. I am questioning their decision making to continue an approach to landing when the risks were very high and the conditions bordering on severe as I was standing in said rain watching them touch down.Mach1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:15 pmWere they in an accident or incident you did not mention?
I do hate to repeat myself but, I did ask questions. Where did the AC flight encounter the hail?schnitzel2k3 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:00 pm They were 2 minutes ahead of getting their windshield smashed in on the same runway.
Unless you actually had instrumentation to validate your opinion, then that is exactly what we are discussing. Your opinion. I just find it interesting that all of your concern is centered on the aircraft that had no damage and not the one who landed with damage. I have not seen you question their approach and landing and I am curious why? Was the weather better 2 minutes later when Air Canada landed? Is it just that you don't like WestJet? Other reasons not mentioned or guessed at?schnitzel2k3 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:00 pm They landed in what I would consider very heavy rain, windshear, and weather bordering on hail.
I would call it luck of the draw.
I was right beside the end of the runway.
S.
I was reminded of Air France in Toronto...
Just because they managed to plant it on and taxi in doesn't automatically validate their decisions, they got lucky. Air Canada did not and diverted AFTER sustaining damage.
S.