I wonder if ATC warned the pilot about that weather?
UK ATS? ATC no idea but most don’t have primary radars? the FIS don’t even have a radar, they don’t even know pilot position let alone figure out any precipitations around him…having said that some places like Lakenheath or Maindhall seems to see things in their screens
PS: I sure am someone will come back to tell us Heathrow ATC have some high tech NEXTRAD ULTRA DOPPLER 1bn radar something where they can see every rain droplet, I don’t talk to Heathrow 
There are a few mentions of the final report having the answer. If the aircraft broke up in convective wx and the pieces sank what additional evidence will be there other than the type of information that is in this thread.
The Ibbotson airplane went in whole and they took time to even find that..
Snoopy wrote:
You probably know this but do yourself a favor and don’t avoid based on satellite weather radar images, too much downlink delay.
Depends on what you mean by “avoid”. Certainly you can use it to avoid areas of CBs, but not to weave your way between the cells.
UK ATC have no weather radar – not officially, anyway.
The Ibbotson plane could have been retrieved (they did find the wreckage) but IMHO the CAA chose not to because it might reveal factors (e.g. maintenance issues – the CO poisoning being a major clue) which would complicate the prosecution of the pilot.
Of course wx changes over time; I use wx radar, sferics and IR images before flying, to get an idea of what to expect. How fast wx changes depends on the general situation. On this flight to LFAT, I would have known there will be a solid wall of convective IMC to about FL150. But no matter how much is written, this stuff is not taught in the PPL or the IR (wx is taught as some abstract topic) and most pilots don’t know about this.
Peter wrote:
The Ibbotson plane could have been retrieved (they did find the wreckage) but IMHO the CAA chose not to because it might reveal factors (e.g. maintenance issues – the CO poisoning being a major clue) which would complicate the prosecution of the pilot.
To be pedantic, they prosecuted the operator rather than the (deceased) pilot, and on the generalised catch-all charge of endangering an aircraft.
But yes, the narrative needed to be that the sole cause of the crash was people breaking rules (no AOC, no CPL, no night rating*), so raising the aeroplane and proving beyond doubt that it was CO poisoning would have been counter-productive. A more definitive AAIB report would have made it much easier for the defence to mount an argument that lack of paperwork had nothing to do with it.
*on his UK licence. The CAA continues to push the false narrative that his FAA licence was not valid for night.I know what it is like to ditch as I ditched once in Bergen in May 2017. Our B3 helicopter plunged into freezing water but lucky a rescue boat happened to be nearby and saw the crash. We were picked up with 5 minutes. My heart had already stopped by then and immediate CPR was applied thereby saving my life
I happened to be crossing the channel at the time and saw the other group of pilots at LFAT terminal. Obviously they were not aware of the crash at the time. My pilot friend went to IMC inadvertently. He pitched up and lost airspeed but the plane then came out of IMC condition. Flying into cloud can be very non forgiving.
the other crash on the same day happened near my house too and luckily everyone walked out of the plane.
Peter wrote:
The Ibbotson plane could have been retrieved (they did find the wreckage) but IMHO the CAA chose not
Isn’t that an AAIB decision rather than a CAA one?
Well, Putin is separate from the Russian Communist Party, too
Someone has to pay for that retrieve, the AAIB has 20 million annual budget from Her Majesty Crown Civil Service and DfT they likely would have been able to afford that…the CAA in the other hand would have asked every PPL pilot to contribute for that retreive?
I am sure football & aviation insurers with such high stakes case would have contributed if they were kindly asked but I doubt they liked to open that Pandora box, I think CO poisoning was a good risk factor that everybody seems to be happy with as far as AAIB conclusions…
@airborne_again wrote
Depends on what you mean by “avoid”. Certainly you can use it to avoid areas of CBs, but not to weave your way between the cells.
My reply was in the context of what @pilotrobbie wrote
Looking at the Golze there were 3 or 4 CBs ahead of that one and another two or three right behind the one I avoided.
I’m pretty sure @pilotrobbie was vmc during avoiding anyway, and I think it’s great to see the new IR brought to good use flying.
