I have a fairly new IFR rating and am wondering how much help to
expect from ATC on Tstorm avoidance. Will they suggest re-routing or
do you have to request it based on visual, FSS, or stormscope
location?

"PaulH" > wrote in message
om...
> I have a fairly new IFR rating and am wondering how much help to
> expect from ATC on Tstorm avoidance. Will they suggest re-routing or
> do you have to request it based on visual, FSS, or stormscope
> location?

Varies day to day, but you should not _expect_ TS avoidance. First, ATC has
limited equipment to see TS's. Second, their first responsibility is terrain
and traffic separation - your avoidance of storms is definitely a secondary
concern (same goes for icing, by the way).

You can always request rerouting, or just a simple diversion ("Center, 6RP
would like 10 degrees right for 10 minutes for weather", or something like
that.) You are rarely denied either if weather is unsafe. But ultimately it
is your call, and you should expect to have to cancel IFR at some point to
have the freedom to avoid weather. Of course, if you are in IMC, you can
declare an emergency if weather constraints absolutely require it. I have
done this in icing conditions. There have been many debates over whether you
will get in trouble for doing this on this newsgroup. My experience was
that, other than showing concern for my safe passage through the weather,
ATC had no other issues with the emergency declaration.

You cannot expect thunderstorm avoidance from ATC. IT IS YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY.
How much help depends on the individual controller. Having some weather
equipment is a great help. A strike finder or equivalent is your best
first line of defense. They are best a giving azimuth not usually great
on range. A strong storm far away will appear closer than it it is. Good
situational awareness of current position and direction and weather
location and direction are your best line of defense.

Michelle

Michael 182 wrote:

>"PaulH" > wrote in message
om...
>
>
>>I have a fairly new IFR rating and am wondering how much help to
>>expect from ATC on Tstorm avoidance. Will they suggest re-routing or
>>do you have to request it based on visual, FSS, or stormscope
>>location?
>>
>>
>
>Varies day to day, but you should not _expect_ TS avoidance. First, ATC has
>limited equipment to see TS's. Second, their first responsibility is terrain
>and traffic separation - your avoidance of storms is definitely a secondary
>concern (same goes for icing, by the way).
>
>You can always request rerouting, or just a simple diversion ("Center, 6RP
>would like 10 degrees right for 10 minutes for weather", or something like
>that.) You are rarely denied either if weather is unsafe. But ultimately it
>is your call, and you should expect to have to cancel IFR at some point to
>have the freedom to avoid weather. Of course, if you are in IMC, you can
>declare an emergency if weather constraints absolutely require it. I have
>done this in icing conditions. There have been many debates over whether you
>will get in trouble for doing this on this newsgroup. My experience was
>that, other than showing concern for my safe passage through the weather,
>ATC had no other issues with the emergency declaration.
>
>
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

Michelle P ) wrote:

> . Having some weather equipment is a great help.

And don't forget the excellent resources at Flight Watch or Flight Service
(if flying in the US). Within minutes of leveling off, I am in the habit
of contacting Flight Watch/Service for updates on all cell activity that
may impact my route and for recommended deviations.

Back on ATC frequency, I note deviation requests of other aircraft who have
onboard radar and to ATC reroute clearances. This is also helpful in
understanding where the current weather is. If the frequency is not too
busy, I ask ATC if aircraft ahead of me are deviating.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
link.net...
> A strike finder or equivalent is your best
> first line of defense. They are best a giving azimuth not usually great
> on range.

Yes...it detects "intensity", not range. If anything, it's "range" is more a
metaphor.

>A strong storm far away will appear closer than it it is.

And this is very much a "good thing".

(PaulH) wrote
> I have a fairly new IFR rating and am wondering how much help to
> expect from ATC on Tstorm avoidance. Will they suggest re-routing or
> do you have to request it based on visual, FSS, or stormscope
> location?

My experience is that this varies dramatically.

Sometimes, you get a controller who really knows his **** and really
cares about you - he wants to know if it's OK to vector you over water
to less covective areas, will use his RADAR to vector you around
cells, will solicit information from better-equipped aircraft, and
will generally do everything he can to get you where you are going
safely.

Sometimes you get a controller who won't give you more than 2 minutes
off frequency to contact Fligh****ch (and if the weather is bad, that
won't be enough), will flatly tell you he's not painting any weather
(without telling you that he's not painting it because he turned it
off to declutter his display), and will even vector you off course and
right into a cell.

I have actually heard a controller say after he was queried by a pilot
about weather up ahead "Oh, yeah - that's a Level 4. You can deviate
around it if you need to."

A lot of this has to do with airspace congestion. Most of the people
flying when there are embedded T-storms around have some sort of
weather avoidance (Spherics or RADAR) on board, and are deviating
around the areas of bad weather. Controllers rarely if ever deny such
deviation requests (maybe because they know that most experienced IFR
pilots will simply declare an emergency and deviate anyway) but this
leaves them with traffic congestion in the good areas and an increased
workload. When a controller in such a situation gets overloaded,
where do you think he's going to send you?

Face it - if you're going to fly IMC when there are T-storms around,
you need some sort of weather avoidance gear. Relying on ATC is not a
realistic option.

Michael

On 2 Jun 2004 06:59:46 -0700, (PaulH) wrote:

>I have a fairly new IFR rating and am wondering how much help to
>expect from ATC on Tstorm avoidance. Will they suggest re-routing or
>do you have to request it based on visual, FSS, or stormscope
>location?

Your best bet is to have onboard radar, Nexrad, or spherics equipment.
ATC (center or approach) will almost always approve a deviation to
avoid the storms. Just ask for X degrees left or right for Y miles
for weather avoidance.

If you don't have onboard weather, you are really in a tough spot. If
the storms are sparse and your flight is short - one can get by with a
good view of the radar picture right before departing the FBO and
getting inflight updates with either Fligh****ch or ATC. This
requires some practice to do effectively and is not effective on a
long distance flight. New cells can pop up easily and the old ones
will move a good distance by the time you get there...

If there are tons of embedded cells there is no way you will be able
to gather enough info from ATC/Fligh****ch to stay clear of all of
them. That's a good time to stay on the ground.

-Nathan

"PaulH" wrote:
> I have a fairly new IFR rating and am wondering how
> much help to expect from ATC on Tstorm avoidance.

It is not something you can rely upon. Their equipment is not designed
for it and it and individual controllers vary widely in their ability
and inclination to help you. Be especially wary in or near Class B
airspace - they have a lot of aircraft to separate and your t'storm
problems may be way down on their priority list.

> Will they suggest re-routing or do you have to request
> it based on visual, FSS, or stormscope location?

Get some weather display gear in your airplane and *tell* ATC where you
need to go. If you are going to fly IFR when there are many CBs about,
this is a must.

The best thunderstorm avoidance tool is see-and-avoid, but if you can't
see them with your eyes because you're in IMC, you'd better have a gizmo
that can see them for you.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Face it - if you're going to fly IMC when there are T-storms around,
> you need some sort of weather avoidance gear. Relying on ATC is not a
> realistic option.

It's not an option PERIOD.

I shudder to think Michael is in the same skies as myself the rest of us.

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:52:16 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>
>"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> Face it - if you're going to fly IMC when there are T-storms around,
>> you need some sort of weather avoidance gear. Relying on ATC is not a
>> realistic option.
>
>It's not an option PERIOD.
>
>I shudder to think Michael is in the same skies as myself the rest of us.

Why? Michael flies a Twin Comanche equipped with Stormscope. Seems
like a pretty capable setup for dodging tstorms.

Thanks to all of you for sharing your experience. I have just
recently installed a Stormscope but don't have enough experience using
it yet to know how much to trust it. A couple of times I have flown
with Tstorm activity within range, the azimuth appears off by as much
as 30 degrees - plan to bring it in next week to be checked.

Thanks to all of you for sharing your experience. I do have a new
stormscope installed but haven't yet used it enough to know to what
extent I can trust it. A couple of recent flights when Tstorms were
within range show a possible 30 degree azimuth error (compared with
where I thought the activity was via radar before takeoff), so I plan
to bring it back to the shop next week.

Tom Sixkiller ) wrote:

> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Face it - if you're going to fly IMC when there are T-storms around,
> > you need some sort of weather avoidance gear. Relying on ATC is not a
> > realistic option.
>
> It's not an option PERIOD.

HUH? "Not a realistic option" <> "not an option PERIOD" ???

What am I missing that I interpret those two phrases as more similar than
different?

> I shudder to think Michael is in the same skies as myself the rest of us.

I do not understand how you could judge someone's abilities based on your
subtle differences in interpretation.

To me, newsgroup proclamations such as yours speak more about your ego than
anything else.


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:52:16 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> >>
> >> Face it - if you're going to fly IMC when there are T-storms around,
> >> you need some sort of weather avoidance gear. Relying on ATC is not a
> >> realistic option.
> >
> >It's not an option PERIOD.
> >
> >I shudder to think Michael is in the same skies as myself the rest of us.
>
> Why? Michael flies a Twin Comanche equipped with Stormscope. Seems
> like a pretty capable setup for dodging tstorms.

Equipment is neither knowledge, nor judgment.

Re-read his original and how he interprets how ATC handles such requests.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller ) wrote:
>
> > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > Face it - if you're going to fly IMC when there are T-storms around,
> > > you need some sort of weather avoidance gear. Relying on ATC is not a
> > > realistic option.
> >
> > It's not an option PERIOD.
>
> HUH? "Not a realistic option" <> "not an option PERIOD" ???
>
> What am I missing that I interpret those two phrases as more similar than
> different?
>
> > I shudder to think Michael is in the same skies as myself the rest of
us.
>
> I do not understand how you could judge someone's abilities based on your
> subtle differences in interpretation.
>
> To me, newsgroup proclamations such as yours speak more about your ego
than
> anything else.

It speaks of what Michael has written in the past, plus his interpretation
of the ATC process.

Re-read his original.

Tom Sixkiller ) wrote:

> It speaks of what Michael has written in the past, plus his interpretation
> of the ATC process.
>
> Re-read his original.

I did and I just don't see what you see. In fact, his interpretation of
ATC during t-storms pretty much coincides with my IFR experiences in the
northeast US.

In his original post in this thread, what *specific advice* rubs your fur
the wrong way? Show me what I am missing.

I have been reading these groups for the last three years or so and
during that time I have concluded that I would pay top dollar for some of
Michael's time as an instrument instructor. Too bad I don't live closer to
his home airport.

Experience is the best teacher and to me his posts continually demonstrate
that he has quality instrument experience.


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

(PaulH) wrote
> Thanks to all of you for sharing your experience. I do have a new
> stormscope installed but haven't yet used it enough to know to what
> extent I can trust it. A couple of recent flights when Tstorms were
> within range show a possible 30 degree azimuth error (compared with
> where I thought the activity was via radar before takeoff), so I plan
> to bring it back to the shop next week.

Actually, you can do a decent job of checking azimuth error using a
spark plug tester, or really any small unshielded engine with
electronic ignition. Put it about 5 feet from the antenna, and run
it. The sparks will show up.

An electric power saw or power drill can also work, but it will need
to be closer - say 2 ft - which limits the accuracy of your
determination. Still, a 30 degree azimuth error is pretty obvious.

Keep in mind that the antenna is mounted to the fuselage, and thus the
azimuth information you get is relative to your heading, not your
track. This can be a significant difference in a slow airplane,
though 30 degrees of crab would be very unusual.

Despite what you have been told by the less than knowledgeable, the
Stormscope can usually be used to estimate range as well as azimuth,
though not so accurately as RADAR.

First off, it is incorrect to say that the Stormscope (or competing
brand - my experience is that the Strikefinder is so similar as to
make no difference in operation) looks simply at intensity. There is
more to it. It also looks at spectral spread using digital signal
processing. I won't go into the physics of it unless someone insists,
but the general principle is that a strong distant storm shows up as a
longer duration (broader) peak than a close weak one, ON AVERAGE.
Thus if you fly a constant heading and let the dots collect, the
average position of the dots is a fair estimate of range. Any
individual dot is suspect.

Since you probably don't care about stuff over 100 miles away (that
weather will likely change by the time you get there) you should only
be using the 200 mile range (if your device even has it - some don't)
as a general indicator that something is out there. Turn to a less
sensitive range (50 or 100 miles) for avoidance. This rejects the
weakest peaks out of hand, and the stronger the peaks are the better
the range estimate.

In any case, you need only use that method for activity at your 12
o'clock. For stuff off to the side, you can do a little math. You
might recall those wingtip bearing change problems from your
instrument written. Nobody actually uses that method to establish
position anymore, but it's actually quite useful for Stormscope
interpretation.

Let's say you've been watching a cell (which shows up as strikes along
a radial line) and in the time you've been watching it (say 10
minutes), it's gone from being at your 2 o'clock to your 2:30 o'clock.
That's 15 degrees in 10 minutes, or 1.5 degrees a minute. Now, let's
say you're cruising 90 kts - that's about 1.5 nm a minute. So at what
distance is 1 degree of bearing change equal to a nautical mile?
Approximately 60 nm. So that cell is about 60 nm away (that number is
about as accurate as your estimate of time, speed, and angular drift),
and you can accept that turn of 90 degrees to your right for the next
10 minutes with no worries. This is really all basic geometry.

Now all of this goes out the window when you're dealing with lines
rather than individual cells. As a general rule, spherics is not a
way to penetrate lines - it is a way to avoid scattered cells.
However, if you know something of the geometry of the lines and
clusters you are dealing with (maybe you looked at Nexrad before
takeoff or have it in the cockpit) you can often get a good enough
picture to slip between lines and/or clusters.

Michael

Michael wrote:

> (PaulH) wrote
>
>>Thanks to all of you for sharing your experience. I do have a new
>>stormscope installed but haven't yet used it enough to know to what
>>extent I can trust it. A couple of recent flights when Tstorms were
>>within range show a possible 30 degree azimuth error (compared with
>>where I thought the activity was via radar before takeoff), so I plan
>>to bring it back to the shop next week.
>
>
> Actually, you can do a decent job of checking azimuth error using a
> spark plug tester, or really any small unshielded engine with
> electronic ignition. Put it about 5 feet from the antenna, and run
> it. The sparks will show up.
>
> An electric power saw or power drill can also work, but it will need
> to be closer - say 2 ft - which limits the accuracy of your
> determination. Still, a 30 degree azimuth error is pretty obvious.
>
> Keep in mind that the antenna is mounted to the fuselage, and thus the
> azimuth information you get is relative to your heading, not your
> track. This can be a significant difference in a slow airplane,
> though 30 degrees of crab would be very unusual.
>
> Despite what you have been told by the less than knowledgeable, the
> Stormscope can usually be used to estimate range as well as azimuth,
> though not so accurately as RADAR.
>
> First off, it is incorrect to say that the Stormscope (or competing
> brand - my experience is that the Strikefinder is so similar as to
> make no difference in operation) looks simply at intensity. There is
> more to it. It also looks at spectral spread using digital signal
> processing. I won't go into the physics of it unless someone insists,
> but the general principle is that a strong distant storm shows up as a
> longer duration (broader) peak than a close weak one, ON AVERAGE.

I insist.

Matt

Sometimes ATC can go too far to the other extreme and vector you around
even the smallest rain showers. Just the other day we were flying looking
for some actual IMC conditions. There were pockets of rain (level 1 and
2), and ATC kept vectoring us around it.



"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:10bsid5r2ecpg78
@news.supernews.com:

> "PaulH" wrote:
>> I have a fairly new IFR rating and am wondering how
>> much help to expect from ATC on Tstorm avoidance.
>
> It is not something you can rely upon. Their equipment is not designed
> for it and it and individual controllers vary widely in their ability
> and inclination to help you. Be especially wary in or near Class B
> airspace - they have a lot of aircraft to separate and your t'storm
> problems may be way down on their priority list.
>
>> Will they suggest re-routing or do you have to request
>> it based on visual, FSS, or stormscope location?
>
> Get some weather display gear in your airplane and *tell* ATC where you
> need to go. If you are going to fly IFR when there are many CBs about,
> this is a must.
>
> The best thunderstorm avoidance tool is see-and-avoid, but if you can't
> see them with your eyes because you're in IMC, you'd better have a
gizmo
> that can see them for you.

Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> It also looks at spectral spread using digital signal
>> processing. I won't go into the physics of it unless someone insists,
>> but the general principle is that a strong distant storm shows up as a
>> longer duration (broader) peak than a close weak one, ON AVERAGE.
>
> I insist.

I'll take a shot at it. A lighting strike is essentially an
instantaneous electromagnetic pulse. What a mathematician would call a
"delta function". As such, it is composed of a wide spectrum of
frequencies (perhaps it's better to think of it as wavelengths).

Different wavelengths travel at different speeds. This is why, for
example, white light is broken up into a spectrum by a prism.

Here's an analogy which may help explain what's going on. Let's say you
have 10 cars starting out from the same spot, but each going at
different speeds (60, 61, 62, ... up to 69 MPH). If you stand right at
that spot, you see them all pass you at the same time. If you stand a
mile away, the fastest one will pass you first, then the next fastest,
and so on. They have spread out. If you stand 2 miles away, they will
have spread out even more by the time they get past you.

This is what's happening with a lightning strike. Right at the strike
point, you've got all these different wavelengths of electromagnetic
energy syncronized into one big spike. A mile away, the shorter
wavelengths have gotten to you a little before the longer wavelengths
(or is it the other way around?). Two miles away, the spread is even
greater. The further you go away from the source, the more the various
wavelengths have spread out, just like the cars moving at different
speeds. This is called spectral dispersion.

In the acoustic world, this is why a nearby lightning strike has a
thunder clap that sounds like one big "zzzaappp", while further away it
sounds like a rumble that goes on for a while.

So, the theory is that if you look at the width (in time) of a pulse and
compare it to its strength, you should get some idea of how much
spectral dispersion it has undergone, and thus be able to estimate how
far away it came from. It's not very precise, but it's good enough for
a strike finder.

To give any better explanation would require me to exercise neural
pathways which have lain dormant for many years, and are probably best
left that way.

Roy Smith wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>>It also looks at spectral spread using digital signal
>>>processing. I won't go into the physics of it unless someone insists,
>>>but the general principle is that a strong distant storm shows up as a
>>>longer duration (broader) peak than a close weak one, ON AVERAGE.
>>
>>I insist.
>
>
> I'll take a shot at it. A lighting strike is essentially an
> instantaneous electromagnetic pulse. What a mathematician would call a
> "delta function". As such, it is composed of a wide spectrum of
> frequencies (perhaps it's better to think of it as wavelengths).
>
> Different wavelengths travel at different speeds. This is why, for
> example, white light is broken up into a spectrum by a prism.
>
> Here's an analogy which may help explain what's going on. Let's say you
> have 10 cars starting out from the same spot, but each going at
> different speeds (60, 61, 62, ... up to 69 MPH). If you stand right at
> that spot, you see them all pass you at the same time. If you stand a
> mile away, the fastest one will pass you first, then the next fastest,
> and so on. They have spread out. If you stand 2 miles away, they will
> have spread out even more by the time they get past you.
>
> This is what's happening with a lightning strike. Right at the strike
> point, you've got all these different wavelengths of electromagnetic
> energy syncronized into one big spike. A mile away, the shorter
> wavelengths have gotten to you a little before the longer wavelengths
> (or is it the other way around?). Two miles away, the spread is even
> greater. The further you go away from the source, the more the various
> wavelengths have spread out, just like the cars moving at different
> speeds. This is called spectral dispersion.
>
> In the acoustic world, this is why a nearby lightning strike has a
> thunder clap that sounds like one big "zzzaappp", while further away it
> sounds like a rumble that goes on for a while.
>
> So, the theory is that if you look at the width (in time) of a pulse and
> compare it to its strength, you should get some idea of how much
> spectral dispersion it has undergone, and thus be able to estimate how
> far away it came from. It's not very precise, but it's good enough for
> a strike finder.
>
> To give any better explanation would require me to exercise neural
> pathways which have lain dormant for many years, and are probably best
> left that way.

Actually, Roy, I'm and EE and work with optical fiber so I understand
the principle of dispersion pretty well, be it spectral, PMD, etc. I
just wanted to hear the smart aleck explain it! :-)


Matt

Roy Smith > wrote
> I'll take a shot at it.

It's a damn good shot, too. I don't disagree with anything you said
but will add a bit of clarification in a couple of places.

> A lighting strike is essentially an
> instantaneous electromagnetic pulse. What a mathematician would call a
> "delta function". As such, it is composed of a wide spectrum of
> frequencies (perhaps it's better to think of it as wavelengths).

Actually, a lightning strike generally consists of several discharges
- but each one is essentially a delta function. Usually a visible
bolt of lightning will show up on a stormscope (at least an older
model) as several dots on a radial line. A stormscope will also pick
up non-lightning static discharges (exchanges between vertically
moving parcels of air) - it's not strictly a lightning detector.
Those discharges show up as single dots.

More modern devices are smart enough to recognize that when several
very closely spaced peaks show up, all on the same azimuth, that was a
lightning strike - and will display a single point at some 'average'
distance.

> Different wavelengths travel at different speeds.

That's the part that will confuse people. The speed of light is a
constant only in a vacuum. The atmosphere is not vacuum, so the speed
of light is slower, and varies by wavelength.

> So, the theory is that if you look at the width (in time) of a pulse and
> compare it to its strength, you should get some idea of how much
> spectral dispersion it has undergone, and thus be able to estimate how
> far away it came from. It's not very precise, but it's good enough for
> a strike finder.

On average, it works. For every individual point, the error can be
pretty large.

Michael

"PaulH" > > I have a fairly new IFR rating and am
wondering how much help to
> expect from ATC on Tstorm avoidance. Will they suggest re-routing or
> do you have to request it based on visual, FSS, or stormscope
> location?

You can't count on any but at times you'll get a lot. It's your
responsibility and all that, as already stated.

But there's a big difference between storm flying in VMC and storm flying
IMC. I do the former a lot (SE US) and have done the latter a bit. I found
that I don't have the equipment to do the latter except for a wash and wear
pair of shorts.

Flying IFR and staying 99% in VMC is my strategy for T-storms. Works well
for me. No Stormscope but Cheap*******s helps a lot (do Google for info on
CB, THANKS AGAIN you guys).

Get as high as possible, stay out of the buildups, and pick your way around
using whatever you have plus advice from ATC (e.g. JAX Center I find to be
particularly skilled and responsive).

Anything that lets you validate what you see and what ATC advises is worth
its weight. Nexrad is fantastic and I've only experienced the 'bootleg' CB
version.

Don't let ATC vector you into anything you can't see through.

Night is almost out of the question but not always.

Taking a look works real well as long as you are able and willing to
turnaround and land somewhere you don't want to be.

IFR is better than VFR if you take the above approach.

VFR is the way to go if you decide to stay below cloud base and do it
visually there.

If you decide to play with the embedded stuff, I guess you can if you have
enough heavy expensive equipment. But if you have to ask....I thinks it's
better to draw the line and stay out.

>> Night is almost out of the question but not always.

Why? Wouldn't lightning help you pinpoint stuff, at least if you can see
somewhat?

>>
VFR is the way to go if you decide to stay below cloud base and do it
visually there.
<<

How do you stay away from it visually? Avoid rain and dark cloud bottoms?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

(Teacherjh) wrote
> >> Night is almost out of the question but not always.
> Why? Wouldn't lightning help you pinpoint stuff, at least if you can see
> somewhat?

At night, you can often see lightning from over 100 miles away and
can't reliably tell how far it is. If there is a lot of activity, it
looks like the activity is all around you and close. You need more
equipment than the mark-1 eyeball to make it work.

Michael

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >> Night is almost out of the question but not always.
>
> Why? Wouldn't lightning help you pinpoint stuff, at least if you can see
> somewhat?
>
No. But VMC is VMC. A slow moving dying line of storms can be
circumnavigated pretty easily in my limited experience.

>>
> VFR is the way to go if you decide to stay below cloud base and do it
> visually there.
> <<
>
> How do you stay away from it visually? Avoid rain and dark cloud bottoms?
>
Uh, yes. Put another way, fly in the daylight and an appropriate distance
from the storms.

I sense some sarcasm Jose. Make your point.

>> I sense some sarcasm Jose. Make your point.

No sarcasm. No point. Just asking a question. I've flown some of the stuff
too (but not much of it) and I"m always up to learn something from somebody
else's experience.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

> I shudder to think Michael is in the same skies as myself the rest of us.
>
>
>

I think that was a rather rude statement.

Michael ) wrote:

> At night, you can often see lightning from over 100 miles away and
> can't reliably tell how far it is.

I learned this one night last summer while flying over Long Island en route
to Bedford, Massachusetts. Up ahead at our two o'clock were some very
impressive lightning strikes. It was very pretty except for the fact that
I thought we were heading right into it.

I called NY Approach and requested a 30-degree left deviation for weather.
The controller called me back and stated he had no weather on his scope for
70 miles or so, but approved my request anyhow. Before turning away we
were rewarded with the full moon rising above the cell. A definite Kodak
moment.

Later I learned that the single t-storm cell putting out all of that
impressive lightning was out over Cape Cod, easily 120 nm away. Whoops.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter R. wrote:
> Michael ) wrote:
>
>
>>At night, you can often see lightning from over 100 miles away and
>>can't reliably tell how far it is.
>
>
> I learned this one night last summer while flying over Long Island en route
> to Bedford, Massachusetts. Up ahead at our two o'clock were some very
> impressive lightning strikes. It was very pretty except for the fact that
> I thought we were heading right into it.
>
> I called NY Approach and requested a 30-degree left deviation for weather.
> The controller called me back and stated he had no weather on his scope for
> 70 miles or so, but approved my request anyhow. Before turning away we
> were rewarded with the full moon rising above the cell. A definite Kodak
> moment.
>
> Later I learned that the single t-storm cell putting out all of that
> impressive lightning was out over Cape Cod, easily 120 nm away. Whoops.

I once had some landing lights pointed at me at night and I thought collision
was imminent. The controller thought the lights must be on an aircraft several
miles away, and asked that pilot to blink his landing lights. Sure enough. Got
over my embarrassment and learned a lesson.

Dave

Sorry for being a bit defensive.

You've probably found out like I have that the best teacher is experience -
but you have to know enough to keep yourself from getting killed.

Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >> I sense some sarcasm Jose. Make your point.
>
> No sarcasm. No point. Just asking a question. I've flown some of the
stuff
> too (but not much of it) and I"m always up to learn something from
somebody
> else's experience.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Vigo" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I shudder to think Michael is in the same skies as myself the rest of
us.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I think that was a rather rude statement.
>
No, what he said about George Braly, John Deakin, the rest of the
instructors in the industry...that was rude.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:49:41 -0400, Dave Butler
> wrote:

>Peter R. wrote:
>> Michael ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>At night, you can often see lightning from over 100 miles away and
>>>can't reliably tell how far it is.
>>
>>
>> I learned this one night last summer while flying over Long Island en route
>> to Bedford, Massachusetts. Up ahead at our two o'clock were some very
>> impressive lightning strikes. It was very pretty except for the fact that
>> I thought we were heading right into it.
>>
>> I called NY Approach and requested a 30-degree left deviation for weather.
>> The controller called me back and stated he had no weather on his scope for
>> 70 miles or so, but approved my request anyhow. Before turning away we
>> were rewarded with the full moon rising above the cell. A definite Kodak
>> moment.
>>
>> Later I learned that the single t-storm cell putting out all of that
>> impressive lightning was out over Cape Cod, easily 120 nm away. Whoops.
>
>I once had some landing lights pointed at me at night and I thought collision
>was imminent. The controller thought the lights must be on an aircraft several
>miles away, and asked that pilot to blink his landing lights. Sure enough. Got
>over my embarrassment and learned a lesson.

These two posts reminded me of a couple experiences in the not too
distant past.

A few years ago I was flying home from Oshkosh. It was late Friday
and we had gotten our "Kids to Oshkosh" group there, through a fun
filled day, and in the twin headed back to Midland.

I had filed, but what with the wait decided to stuff the pink slip
under the seat and go VFR.
I was accompanied by two very pretty young ladies who had the choice
of riding around the lake with mom and dad in the motor home, or
flying back to spend the night with their grandparents. You already
know which won out.

We had been watching some very large cumulus to the East and South all
afternoon and speculating as to just how far they were out on Lake
Michigan.

By the end of the air show the big ones had mostly disappeared.
We had the Deb pulled out between the rows of parked planes in the
Antique, Classic, Contemporary parking and camping area, waiting for
the line guys OK to fire up.

We got the OK and fired up to create the biggest dust cloud I've seen
in a long time. (It was a very dry year) We were guided to the
taxiway and with barely a wait were rolling on the left side of 18.
We had already passed the traffic on our right by the end of the
runway and then made our left turn at 3000. Then up to MTW and across
toward Ludington.

The sun was setting and it made a beautiful picture of the Wisconsin
shoreline even when we were approaching the Michigan shoreline.
It was one of the clearest days I can remember. Being able to see all
the way across Lake Michigan is unusual.

We had started seeing lightening flashes ahead and to our right which
made them appear to be in our line of flight.

As it got darker the flashes were getting brighter and it appeared we
were closing on the storm a lot faster than I'd like. I was
considering alternates with the possibility that we might either have
to land at GDW or HTL and wait for the storm to clear.

But by this time is was dark enough to make out the lights of many
towns and cities. Any one who has flown at night should realize that
the lights of a city usually look much closer than they are.

I was locating towns and cities in this unusually clear night when I
realized I could see the lights of Midland some 70 miles off. They
appeared to be under the edge of the storm. That storm was much
farther than it had appeared.

With nearly a 220 MPH ground speed it wasn't long before reaching 3BS.
We did fly under the trailing edge of the storm cloud to land, but
there was no wind or turbulence. Most of the storm had just missed
the airport and the activity was already passing MBS over 11 miles to
the SE.

So distances are very difficult to measure at night unless you have a
yardstick such as the lights of towns and cities, or major highways.
On a clear night a thunderstorm can appear to be a fraction of its
true distance.

The other incident was turning from down wind to base late in the
evening to hear some one shout over the radio, "You're turning right
into us! Your 're turning right into us!". I got real busy looking
but being nearly a mile from final I figured (and hoped) that we were
a lot farther out than he thought. We were. Course I can imagine
what that bright landing light looked like shining right in the pilots
window.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Dave

Experiences like these are makes Nexrad in the cockpit so valuable in light
a/c. The ability to calibrate your eyeballs with a Nexrad image is worth
it's weight in avionics. "How far is it?" "What's behind it?" "Getting
bigger or smaller?" "how fast is it moving and in what direction" etc.

I've only flown with Cheap*******s but the experience has shown me that the
upload/downlink/whatever capability that is coming on the market may be more
valuable than Stormscopes and onboard radar - especially for light a/c.
(both scopes and onboard have a place but I'm guessing that Nexrad will be
the best cost/benefit option soon if you have to choose)

Thanks for the story.

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>
> We had been watching some very large cumulus to the East and South all
> afternoon and speculating as to just how far they were out on Lake
> Michigan.

> We had started seeing lightening flashes ahead and to our right which
> made them appear to be in our line of flight.
>
> As it got darker the flashes were getting brighter and it appeared we
> were closing on the storm a lot faster than I'd like. I was
> considering alternates with the possibility that we might either have
> to land at GDW or HTL and wait for the storm to clear.
>
> But by this time is was dark enough to make out the lights of many
> towns and cities. Any one who has flown at night should realize that
> the lights of a city usually look much closer than they are.
>
> I was locating towns and cities in this unusually clear night when I
> realized I could see the lights of Midland some 70 miles off. They
> appeared to be under the edge of the storm. That storm was much
> farther than it had appeared.
>
> So distances are very difficult to measure at night unless you have a
> yardstick such as the lights of towns and cities, or major highways.
> On a clear night a thunderstorm can appear to be a fraction of its
> true distance.
>

"Maule Driver" wrote:
> I've only flown with Cheap*******s but the experience has
> shown me that the upload/downlink/whatever capability that
> is coming on the market may be more valuable than
> Stormscopes and onboard radar - especially for light a/c.
> (both scopes and onboard have a place but I'm guessing
> that Nexrad will be the best cost/benefit option soon if
> you have to choose)

There's no doubt about it, IMO. The WxWorx gear I've been using has far
exceeded my expectations. I never thought I would be using it for close
tactical storm avoidance, but it has proven more than adequate for the
task. In addition to NEXRAD graphics, it displays lightning strikes
color coded for age. That allows the user to descriminate between
convective storms and mere heavy rain. It's hard for me to see how I
would be any better off with radar and spherics on board, other than for
redundancy.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM