BAE146 OPERATED ACFT AFTER THE ACFT WAS DAMAGED BY LARGE HAIL STONES WHILE HOLDING FOR TKOF AT DENVER FOR A TSTM TO PASS. ALL OTHER ACFT HOLDING RETURNED TO THE GATE FOR AN ACFT INSPECTION FOR POSSIBLE DAMAGE.

Date: 2001-06 · Aircraft: BAe 146-100 · Phase: taxi

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-critical|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|ground-event-encounter-other-unknown

Synopsis

BAE146 OPERATED ACFT AFTER THE ACFT WAS DAMAGED BY LARGE HAIL STONES WHILE HOLDING FOR TKOF AT DENVER FOR A TSTM TO PASS. ALL OTHER ACFT HOLDING RETURNED TO THE GATE FOR AN ACFT INSPECTION FOR POSSIBLE DAMAGE.

Narrative

I WAS PIC OF A BAE146-100 AS FLT XXX FROM DEN-MKE-ATW. WE PUSHED BACK ON TIME AT XA15 LCL; AND JOINED THE LINE-UP OF ACFT ON TXWY M FOR DEP ON RWY 8 AT DEN. THERE WAS A TSTM ENE OF THE ARPT MOVING ESE. DEPS WERE STOPPED BECAUSE OF THE STORM. IT BEGAN TO RAIN; THEN TO HAIL. THE RAIN AND HAIL LASTED SEVERAL MINS. THE HAIL WAS PEA SIZE TO PERHAPS 3/4-1 INCH IN SIZE. WHEN THE TSTM MOVED E AND THE RAIN AND HAIL STOPPED; ACFT ABEAM OF ME BEGAN TO RETURN TO THEIR GATES. I OPENED THE DV WINDOW ON MY SIDE AND INSPECTED THE L WING AND #1 AND #2 ENG COWLINGS AND PYLONS. I COULD NOT DETECT ANY DAMAGE AND REASONED THAT THE SKIN ON THESE COWLINGS AND PYLONS WAS AS THIN AS ANY ON THE ACFT; AND IF THERE WAS NO DAMAGE THERE; THE REST OF THE ACFT WOULD BE OK. SO; I DECIDED TO CONTINUE THE FLT. IN MKE I DID A WALKAROUND INSPECTION AND DID NOT SEE ANY OBVIOUS DAMAGE SO CONTINUED THE FLT TO ATW. IN ATW; I SPOKE TO MAINT CTL AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE OTHER ACFT IN DEN. WHEN I LEARNED OF THE DAMAGE THAT THEY HAD SUSTAINED; I RECOMMENDED THAT OUR ACFT BE INSPECTED ALSO. MAINT FOUND NEARLY 200 DENTS ON TOP OF THE WINGS. IN RETROSPECT; THE DECISION TO CONTINUE THE FLT WAS A BAD ONE. MY PRESUMPTION OF NO DAMAGE TO THE ACFT BASED ON NO DAMAGE TO THE COWLINGS/ PYLONS WAS FAULTY AT BEST. THE COWLING SURFACES ARE CURVED AND THE HAIL WOULD STRIKE THEM WITH GLANCING BLOWS; WHEREAS; THE WINGS ARE FLAT AND WOULD SUSTAIN MORE DIRECT HITS MAKING THEM MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DAMAGE. THE DECISION TO CONTINUE WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA. THERE WERE PLENTY OF HINTS -- ALL THE ACFT AHEAD OF ME RETURNED TO THE GATES; B727; B737; A320; CL65 AND BE1900. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD HINT; BUT NO; I TRIED TO CONTINUE. I DID HAVE NAGGING DOUBTS ON THE FLT TO MKE; BUT BY THEN THE DAMAGE; SO TO SPEAK; HAD BEEN DONE. I AM NOT A NEW GUY! I AM IN MY 20TH YR AT AIR COMPANY. HOW CAN I LEARN TO NOT MAKE SUCH BONE-HEADED DECISIONS? MY FO WAS A NEW GUY; FRESH OFF IOE; AND HE TRUSTED MY JUDGEMENT IMPLICITLY AND I AM SURE WAS LESS LIKELY TO QUESTION MY DECISION THAN AN OLDER FO WOULD HAVE BEEN.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.