VFR "picking his way thru" heavy cells with XM Radio weather

[Peter R.]

I was listening to LiveATC.net's feed of Syracuse, NY, yesterday (Sunday)
during the approach of a large thunderstorm line that was moving towards the
airport from the south. At one point a VFR a Cessna 172, approaching the
airport from the west, checked in stating his intention to land at SYR.

As the C172 progressed, the controller called the pilot to report that the
aircraft was eight miles from and heading directly towards a line of extreme
weather. The pilot responded in a somewhat unappreciative tone that he was
"painting" it. The controller responded with a rather surprised, "Roger."

Moments later the controller again called to warn the pilot of extreme
weather at his twelve o'clock. The pilot then replied in what sounded like an
annoyed tone that he was "picking our way through the weather using our XM."
Again, the controller replied with a surprised "Roger."

With a quiet moment on the frequency, the controller called the pilot a third
time to ask him to explain what XM meant. The pilot described the concept of
XM NEXRAD on his Garmin 396, but then added that the refresh rate allowed him
to see heavy weather on the 398 from 2 to 8 minutes old.

When I heard that the refresh rate was up to 8 minutes old, I cringed to
think that this pilot (this one didn't sound like an experienced freight dog
to me, but maybe I was wrong) was picking his way through a field of
thunderstorms on a day where returns went from light to extreme in less than
ten minutes.

Granted that the pilot was VFR so presumably he was seeing and avoiding using
the outside picture primarily. But this day it was a typical northeast US
hazy and humid day with visibility around the 6 to 8 mile range, so having
the Garmin 396 for strategic avoidance was a good thing. It still made me
sweat from the comfort of my office chair to imagine that this pilot was
flying through the weather line using up to 8 minute old data (not even
considering the NEXRAD delay before the picture is uplinked to the XM
satellites) and declining the more real-time weather guidance offered by ATC
(SYR approach has excellent weather radar).

Eventually a thunderstorm cell erupted right over the airport, resulting in
numerous wind shear alerts and at least one microburst alert, so the pilot
called approach to state his intention of diverting southeast towards an
airport 50 nm south of SYR to wait out the weather.

--
Peter

[Marco Leon]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>I was listening to LiveATC.net's feed of Syracuse, NY, yesterday (Sunday)
> during the approach of a large thunderstorm line that was moving towards
> the
> airport from the south. At one point a VFR a Cessna 172, approaching the
> airport from the west, checked in stating his intention to land at SYR.
>
> As the C172 progressed, the controller called the pilot to report that the
> aircraft was eight miles from and heading directly towards a line of
> extreme
> weather. The pilot responded in a somewhat unappreciative tone that he was
> "painting" it. [snip]

The more I fly, the more I believe that the body of pilots that regularly do
things that most will consider "stupid pilot tricks" is larger than what
many people think. The odds are that this guy will get away with this
multiple times before he gets bit. Of course there's also a small chance
that he may never get bit hard enough to scare or kill himself.

I bet if there was a reliable way to find the number of pilots who have or
do fly in the clouds while "VFR," it would be eye-opening.

Marco

[Jay Honeck]

> The more I fly, the more I believe that the body of pilots that regularly do
> things that most will consider "stupid pilot tricks" is larger than what
> many people think. The odds are that this guy will get away with this
> multiple times before he gets bit. Of course there's also a small chance
> that he may never get bit hard enough to scare or kill himself.

While what you say is true, it really depends on the type of
thunderstorms Peter is describing. (And I don't mean to imply that
his observations were inaccurate in any way.)

In the Midwest, in summer, it's common for afternoon thunderstorms to
develop. Sometimes these are in a line (associated with a front), but
many times they are similar to Florida "pop-up" thunderstorms, in that
they build in place. We call them "popcorn storms".

Penetrating a line of storms associated with a front is dicey at best,
even with a 396/496. Flying *around* "popcorn" thunderstorms,
however, can be perfectly safe, given decent visibility. It's even
doable without XM in the plane, but the satellite data in the cockpit
makes it MUCH less stressful, mostly because you can tell where the
storms are building, and where they are subsiding. This gives you an
important strategic leg up on the situation that makes it truly easy
to stay out of trouble.

When you can see a towering cumulus cloud building into a 35,000 foot
monster over *there* -- but it's perfectly clear over *here* -- it's
pretty easy to circumnavigate the problem, and steer a wide berth away
from any potential wind shear, precipitation, or bad visibility.
This is especially true in the "big sky" Midwest, where there is
little terrain to block your view to the horizon.

Add the XM satellite data to that visual information, and you've got a
perfectly doable situation -- given the "right" kind of storms. (It
helps to be a student of weather, in order to discern the difference
-- but the differences are pretty obvious, once you know what to look
for...)

> I bet if there was a reliable way to find the number of pilots who have or
> do fly in the clouds while "VFR," it would be eye-opening.

I don't know any VFR pilots who would voluntarily fly into clouds.
I'm sure they exist, but I think modern flight instructors have very
thoroughly indoctrinated their students with the dangers of instrument
flight without proper instruction.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jun 4, 11:21 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> I was listening to LiveATC.net's feed of Syracuse, NY, yesterday (Sunday)
> during the approach of a large thunderstorm line that was moving towards the
> airport from the south. At one point a VFR a Cessna 172, approaching the
> airport from the west, checked in stating his intention to land at SYR.
>
> As the C172 progressed, the controller called the pilot to report that the
> aircraft was eight miles from and heading directly towards a line of extreme
> weather. The pilot responded in a somewhat unappreciative tone that he was
> "painting" it. The controller responded with a rather surprised, "Roger."
>
> Moments later the controller again called to warn the pilot of extreme
> weather at his twelve o'clock. The pilot then replied in what sounded like an
> annoyed tone that he was "picking our way through the weather using our XM."
> Again, the controller replied with a surprised "Roger."
>
> With a quiet moment on the frequency, the controller called the pilot a third
> time to ask him to explain what XM meant. The pilot described the concept of
> XM NEXRAD on his Garmin 396, but then added that the refresh rate allowed him
> to see heavy weather on the 398 from 2 to 8 minutes old.
>
> When I heard that the refresh rate was up to 8 minutes old, I cringed to
> think that this pilot (this one didn't sound like an experienced freight dog
> to me, but maybe I was wrong) was picking his way through a field of
> thunderstorms on a day where returns went from light to extreme in less than
> ten minutes.
>
> Granted that the pilot was VFR so presumably he was seeing and avoiding using
> the outside picture primarily. But this day it was a typical northeast US
> hazy and humid day with visibility around the 6 to 8 mile range, so having
> the Garmin 396 for strategic avoidance was a good thing. It still made me
> sweat from the comfort of my office chair to imagine that this pilot was
> flying through the weather line using up to 8 minute old data (not even
> considering the NEXRAD delay before the picture is uplinked to the XM
> satellites) and declining the more real-time weather guidance offered by ATC
> (SYR approach has excellent weather radar).
>
> Eventually a thunderstorm cell erupted right over the airport, resulting in
> numerous wind shear alerts and at least one microburst alert, so the pilot
> called approach to state his intention of diverting southeast towards an
> airport 50 nm south of SYR to wait out the weather.
>
> --
> Peter

Hello:

Eventually we are going to see/read about a pretty "fantastic"
accident with this kind of flying. I've done a reasonable amount of
"line" running in everything from Boeings to TriChamps (although the
latter is much more entertaining since the speed of advance of the
thurderstoms and airplane are closley matched!) with a fairly wide
range of equipment (Radar to STorm Scopes to the XM). MOST of it was
perfectly safe, there were one or two times a few years ago that I had
some "unpleasantries" occur that were fortunatly learning lessons...

But just from the blow by blow you give this pilot strikes me as not
being very clear about what he/she was doing. As you make clear, the
big deal with the XM is the delay...and in a cell/cells where
"training" is taking place that delay can be deadly.

What is fairly scary (at least to me) is that the pilot did not seem
to understand the limitations of his equipment and/or the advantages/
limitations of the ATC radar. If Syracuse has an ASR11/12 then they
have pretty good wx information. It isnt Nexrad but it is certianly
better and more real time then what the XM is showing. Visually you
can spot the "training" and this guy was VFR so that showed some
smarts...but it is not a far leap to when someone is doing this IFR
and finds that the "red" has moved to right where they are...and the
airplane they are flying is now testing the limits of structural
integrity.

the problem with all this new instrumentation is the same as pilots
found when they moved from the classic 737 into the EFIS versions (or
into complete EFIS airplanes)...the training was not up to the
standards of the equipment and people got into severe trouble.

I think that your instincts are pretty good here.

Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 12:21:35 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

[Story of cluelessly inept pilot narrowly escaping disaster snipped]

Did you happen to note the aircraft's N number?

Someone should relate this incident to the appropriate FSDO office
before the tapes are wiped, so that the pilot can benefit from some
badly needed remedial WX training before his bumbling casts yet more
negative public opinion on GA, and saddens his friends and family.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 4, 10:10 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > The more I fly, the more I believe that the body of pilots that regularly do
> > things that most will consider "stupid pilot tricks" is larger than what
> > many people think. The odds are that this guy will get away with this
> > multiple times before he gets bit. Of course there's also a small chance
> > that he may never get bit hard enough to scare or kill himself.
>
> While what you say is true, it really depends on the type of
> thunderstorms Peter is describing. (And I don't mean to imply that
> his observations were inaccurate in any way.)


In the SW summer TS's are frequent but usually easily
circumnavigatable VFR. I would never attempt to try IFR in that type
of weather, if you get in IMC you're probably going into a TS. VFR is
the way to go.

[Peter R.]

On 6/4/2007 1:30:51 PM, Larry Dighera wrote:

> Did you happen to note the aircraft's N number?
>
> Someone should relate this incident to the appropriate FSDO office
> before the tapes are wiped,

Not only do I have the tail-id but I also have the exact exchange, thanks to
LiveATC.net's 40-day archive. However, Larry, I am not going to be the one to
report anyone, since IMO this is quite a gray area. I personally have a very
different take on reporting pilots to the FAA.

For education purposes, though, I thought it might be beneficial to retrieve
and edit the archive files into a short clip (and also removing the majority
of the tail ID so the resulting clip cannot be used against the pilot) with
the relevant content. When I have the clip, I will post it to a file sharing
site and the link to this thread.

--
Peter

[Steve Foley]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...

> However, Larry, I am not going to be the one to
> report anyone, since IMO this is quite a gray area. I personally have a
> very
> different take on reporting pilots to the FAA.

How about filing a NASA form? Isn't that exactly what they were designed
for?

[Viperdoc]

Just had a simliar experience today flying into PDX (portland, OR).

The onboard radar demonstrated some clear spots through heavy precip (no
electrical activity on Stormscope), while the Nexrad (which is delayed)
showed no path through.

Nexrad is great for the far away strategic planning, but is poor at tactical
planning up close, due to the delay. For this, onboard radar is the only way
to go.

Either way, trying this at night makes it even a lot harder.
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 12:21:35 -0400, "Peter R." >
> wrote in >:
>
> [Story of cluelessly inept pilot narrowly escaping disaster snipped]
>
> Did you happen to note the aircraft's N number?
>
> Someone should relate this incident to the appropriate FSDO office
> before the tapes are wiped, so that the pilot can benefit from some
> badly needed remedial WX training before his bumbling casts yet more
> negative public opinion on GA, and saddens his friends and family.
>

[Peter R.]

On 6/4/2007 1:10:07 PM, Jay Honeck wrote:

> While what you say is true, it really depends on the type of
> thunderstorms Peter is describing. (And I don't mean to imply that
> his observations were inaccurate in any way.)

Jay, here is a radar image that was taken about 10 minutes before the pilot
checked on. I have indicated cell movement using red arrows and the pilot's
approximate course using the yellow arrow:

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z75/v35_pilot/BGM-Jun-03-2007.jpg

The cells were closer to Syracuse airport when the exchange took place. As
you can see, this is not a field of pop-corn cells.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 6/4/2007 1:19:37 PM, Luke Skywalker wrote:

> I think that your instincts are pretty good here.

I guess my primary point, which may not have come across in the original
post, is that if ATC has the ability to provide weather avoidance, pilots of
a less-equipped aircraft (including the subject of this thread) should be
very thankful to accept that service rather than go about it on his/her own.

The clip I am putting together will hopefully back up my impression that the
pilot believed his Garmin 396 was a real-time radar with capabilities similar
to the commercial carriers' type. To counter his impression, my experience as
an IFR pilot over the last five years demonstrates that even airline pilots
will take all the ATC weather avoidance assistance provided, despite having
their own real-time radar on board and assuming those vectors don't conflict
with the pilots' weather perspective.

--
Peter

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

>
> [Story of cluelessly inept pilot narrowly escaping disaster snipped]
>
> Did you happen to note the aircraft's N number?
>
> Someone should relate this incident to the appropriate FSDO office
> before the tapes are wiped, so that the pilot can benefit from some
> badly needed remedial WX training before his bumbling casts yet more
> negative public opinion on GA, and saddens his friends and family.

Oh, nuts, Larry.

The pilot in question may or may not have acted irresponsibly; there's not
enough information here to know. It sounds like he was pushing the weather
too hard, but without being there we can't be sure.

Deciding to rat out another pilot to the FSDO requires much more egregious
conduct than this as a rationale, and much stronger evidence, too.


--
Dan

"Gut feeling"

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any
rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well
known.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jun 4, 1:24 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
To counter his impression, my experience as
> an IFR pilot over the last five years demonstrates that even airline pilots
> will take all the ATC weather avoidance assistance provided, despite having
> their own real-time radar on board and assuming those vectors don't conflict
> with the pilots' weather perspective.
>
> --
> Peter

Absolutly I am a line check airman and a DE in the B737...

Most pilots do not realize how limited WX Radar is on a light plane.
The antenna size is small compared to wavelength, the power limited,
hence the farther out you "go" the worst the picture gets conforming
to real life.

Airline radars are so much better because of power and antenna size
then General Aviation radars...but even they are no match for the
power and resultion of even ATC radars in terms of WX. ATC radars are
air search not so much WX but with modern technology the WX
information can be "used" before it is stripped off for primary target
display.

With modern digital processing ATC has a pretty good handle on what is
going on "long range" and airline pilots use it whenever the help is
offered.

Robert

[Peter R.]

On 6/4/2007 2:03:50 PM, "Peter R." wrote:

> For education purposes, though, I thought it might be beneficial to
> retrieve and edit the archive files into a short clip (and also removing
> the majority of the tail ID so the resulting clip cannot be used against
> the pilot) with the relevant content. When I have the clip, I will post it
> to a file sharing site and the link to this thread.

Here's the clip. I uploaded it to a free file hosting site and then attempted
to copy the direct download link, bypassing the annoying
wait-30-seconds-to-read-the-ads page. If the download doesn't work, let me
know and I will upload it to a different location:

I have edited the clip by removing non-essential communications and removing
dead air. The clip is about 3.1 Mb and approx. 4 minutes long.

http://download2-6.files-upload.com/2007-06/04/22/XMweather.mp3

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 6/4/2007 2:06:25 PM, "Steve Foley" wrote:

> How about filing a NASA form? Isn't that exactly what they were designed
> for?

Having only the audio side and being a third party bystander to this moment,
I am not sure I really have the proper perspective to be able to accurately
do so.

--
Peter

[Jose]

> Having only the audio side and being a third party bystander to this moment,
> I am not sure I really have the proper perspective to be able to accurately
> do so.

I presume that those reading the form will figure out whether it is
worth pursuing. If they pursue it (to gather more information, for
example), they will have a better perspective.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Penetrating a line of storms associated with a front is dicey at best,
> even with a 396/496. Flying *around* "popcorn" thunderstorms,
> however, can be perfectly safe, given decent visibility. It's even
> doable without XM in the plane, but the satellite data in the cockpit
> makes it MUCH less stressful, mostly because you can tell where the
> storms are building, and where they are subsiding. This gives you an
> important strategic leg up on the situation that makes it truly easy
> to stay out of trouble.

When I was working this past Sunday morning, I watched the sky go from
clear to 8/10ths broken towering cumulus in 15 minutes. You will not out
climb it, you will not out run it. You will get caught in the middle of
it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:03:52 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

>I am not going to be the one to
>report anyone, since IMO this is quite a gray area.

I understand your reluctance to squeal on a fellow airman, but how are
you going to feel when you learn that his ineptitude has caused his,
and perhaps the deaths of others?

It might be reasonable to contact the airman directly. Just a
thought.

[Snowbird]

"Jay Honeck" wrote ...
>
> We call them "popcorn storms".
>

That was a good one ;-)

Haven't heard that one before. (oops, sign of my sub-1000 hrs experience ;-)
But then most of my flying is local anyway, so it's easy to stay on ground
when the popcorns appear.

I much prefer the edible variant ;)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:07:12 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>Just had a simliar experience today flying into PDX (portland, OR).
>
>The onboard radar demonstrated some clear spots through heavy precip (no
>electrical activity on Stormscope)


So your experience wasn't anything at all like that in the OP; there
was no CB.

I was taught, and experience has confirmed, that it's prudent to skirt
a cell by 20 miles to avoid hail damage, especially on the downwind
side.

The airman in the OP was clearly not exercising good judgment, and his
final comment about diverting toward the direction of advancing line
of CBs underscores his cluelessness.

[Scott Skylane]

Peter R. wrote:

>
> Here's the clip. I uploaded it to a free file hosting site and then attempted
> to copy the direct download link, bypassing the annoying
> wait-30-seconds-to-read-the-ads page. If the download doesn't work, let me
> know and I will upload it to a different location:
/snip/
> http://download2-6.files-upload.com/2007-06/04/22/XMweather.mp3
>

"The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable.
Please try again later."

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:11:53 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

>
>http://download2-6.files-upload.com/2007-06/04/22/XMweather.mp3

This link doesn't work for me.

[Peter R.]

On 6/4/2007 5:18:31 PM, Scott Skylane wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's the clip. I uploaded it to a free file hosting site and then attempted
>> to copy the direct download link, bypassing the annoying
>> wait-30-seconds-to-read-the-ads page. If the download doesn't work, let me
>> know and I will upload it to a different location:
> /snip/
>> http://download2-6.files-upload.com/2007-06/04/22/XMweather.mp3
>>
>
> "The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable.
> Please try again later."

OK, disregard that link. I don't want to put you through the 30 second wait
time to read all the ads. Instead I resurrected my web space that used to
house my website. For the time being it is my free file host. Here's the
file:

http://thericcs.net/files/XMweather.mp3

I really need to put up some flying pages. That would be a good use of the
site.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

Peter R. > wrote:
> Here's the clip. I uploaded it to a free file hosting site and then
> attempted to copy the direct download link, bypassing the annoying
> wait-30-seconds-to-read-the-ads page.

Unfortunately, they're ahead of you. They're checking referrers (or a
similar technique) so the direct links won't work; this gets their ad
impressions up and keeps their bandwidth bill down. Somebody else tried
to post a direct link to files-upload.com here recently and it didn't
work - you need to find and post the link to the "wait for ads" page.

The link that didn't work was similar to the one you posted:

http://downloadX-Y.files-upload.com/2007-MM/DD/HH/the-filename.ext

The link that does work will look something like this:

http://files-upload.com/files/NNNNNN/the-filename.ext

> If the download doesn't work, let me know and I will upload it to a
> different location:

Most every ISP gives you a few megs of personal Web space and that works
well for things like this. You could also post it to
alt.binaries.multimedia.aviation , but in these latter days, most people
won't know how to retrieve it from there.

Matt Roberds

[Peter R.]

On 6/4/2007 6:05:36 PM, wrote:

> Unfortunately, they're ahead of you.

Yep, it was a long shot. If you hadn't seen my other post, I put the clip to
some webspace I had in my back pocket but hadn't used in years.

--
Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter R." <> wrote
>
> Having only the audio side and being a third party bystander to this
> moment,
> I am not sure I really have the proper perspective to be able to
> accurately
> do so.

Right. It sounds like he was using some bad judgment, but there are no
AIM's against that.

Nobody but him knows if he was still in legal VFC. My guess would be that
he was in the clear, looking at the cells out the window, and at the XM to
try and predict where the cells were moving.
--
Jim in NC

[Viperdoc]

I did not state that my experience was the same, or even similar. Rather, I
was trying to make the point that Nexrad is not a good tool for penetrating
a line of CB's, due to the time delay in receiving the information.

[John Galban]

On Jun 4, 1:58 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> I understand your reluctance to squeal on a fellow airman, but how are
> you going to feel when you learn that his ineptitude has caused his,
> and perhaps the deaths of others?
>
> It might be reasonable to contact the airman directly. Just a
> thought.

FSDO : Hello Larry?
Larry : Yes?
FSDO : Some guy on the internet called us because he didn't think
you used good judgement on your flight last Saturday afternoon.
Larry : Who is this guy? Was he in the air at the time? Is he a
controller?
FSDO : Nope, just some random guy on the internet who has decided,
from a few scraps of data on the internet, that your WX judgement is
not up to snuff.
Larry : But he wasn't even there. Did I break any regs?
FSDO : There's no evidence that you broke any regs, Larry. It
doesn't really matter though. What does matter is the opinion of
some guy on the internet, and how, from the safety of his chair, he
has determined that you messed up enough to warrant a report to the
FSDO.

Maybe this guy messed up, maybe what he did was well within the
regs. Personally, I don't know how much weight this guy was actually
placing in his XM weather, as opposed to what he was seeing out the
window. The fact is, no one on this newsgroup knows that. I think
the idea of reporting someone to the FSDO because you think your
judgement (sitting behind a keyboard) is superior to what you think
his judgement might have been, is absurd.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:49:34 -0700, John Galban >
wrote in . com>:

>On Jun 4, 1:58 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> I understand your reluctance to squeal on a fellow airman, but how are
>> you going to feel when you learn that his ineptitude has caused his,
>> and perhaps the deaths of others?
>>
>> It might be reasonable to contact the airman directly. Just a
>> thought.
>
> FSDO : Hello Larry?
> Larry : Yes?
> FSDO : Some guy on the internet called us because he didn't think
>you used good judgement on your flight last Saturday afternoon.
> Larry : Who is this guy? Was he in the air at the time? Is he a
>controller?
> FSDO : Nope, just some random guy on the internet who has decided,
>from a few scraps of data on the internet, that your WX judgement is
>not up to snuff.
> Larry : But he wasn't even there. Did I break any regs?
> FSDO : There's no evidence that you broke any regs, Larry. It
>doesn't really matter though. What does matter is the opinion of
>some guy on the internet, and how, from the safety of his chair, he
>has determined that you messed up enough to warrant a report to the
>FSDO.
>
> Maybe this guy messed up, maybe what he did was well within the
>regs. Personally, I don't know how much weight this guy was actually
>placing in his XM weather, as opposed to what he was seeing out the
>window. The fact is, no one on this newsgroup knows that. I think
>the idea of reporting someone to the FSDO because you think your
>judgement (sitting behind a keyboard) is superior to what you think
>his judgement might have been, is absurd.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
>

John,

My suggestion was to the OP who was listening to the ATC exchanges,
had some radar WX data, and is familiar with the area.

My understanding of what occurred is that the line of CBs was moving
north toward the intended airport of arrival while the C-712 pilot was
moving east toward the airport. Without knowledge of the locations of
the cells, I agree, it's difficult to know just how much danger the
pilot was in, but when he turned south to wait out the weather it
would seem that he'd have to have gone right through them. But who
knows?

[BT]

The XM input on the G-1000 specifically states that the displayed NEXRAD
weather cannot and should not be used to aviod rapidly moving storm cells.

NEXRAD also suffers from attenuation larger cells blocking other cells "on
the other side" of the cell from the radar transmitter.

BT

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>I was listening to LiveATC.net's feed of Syracuse, NY, yesterday (Sunday)
> during the approach of a large thunderstorm line that was moving towards
> the
> airport from the south. At one point a VFR a Cessna 172, approaching the
> airport from the west, checked in stating his intention to land at SYR.
>
> As the C172 progressed, the controller called the pilot to report that the
> aircraft was eight miles from and heading directly towards a line of
> extreme
> weather. The pilot responded in a somewhat unappreciative tone that he was
> "painting" it. The controller responded with a rather surprised,
> "Roger."
>
> Moments later the controller again called to warn the pilot of extreme
> weather at his twelve o'clock. The pilot then replied in what sounded like
> an
> annoyed tone that he was "picking our way through the weather using our
> XM."
> Again, the controller replied with a surprised "Roger."
>
> With a quiet moment on the frequency, the controller called the pilot a
> third
> time to ask him to explain what XM meant. The pilot described the concept
> of
> XM NEXRAD on his Garmin 396, but then added that the refresh rate allowed
> him
> to see heavy weather on the 398 from 2 to 8 minutes old.
>
> When I heard that the refresh rate was up to 8 minutes old, I cringed to
> think that this pilot (this one didn't sound like an experienced freight
> dog
> to me, but maybe I was wrong) was picking his way through a field of
> thunderstorms on a day where returns went from light to extreme in less
> than
> ten minutes.
>
> Granted that the pilot was VFR so presumably he was seeing and avoiding
> using
> the outside picture primarily. But this day it was a typical northeast US
> hazy and humid day with visibility around the 6 to 8 mile range, so having
> the Garmin 396 for strategic avoidance was a good thing. It still made me
> sweat from the comfort of my office chair to imagine that this pilot was
> flying through the weather line using up to 8 minute old data (not even
> considering the NEXRAD delay before the picture is uplinked to the XM
> satellites) and declining the more real-time weather guidance offered by
> ATC
> (SYR approach has excellent weather radar).
>
> Eventually a thunderstorm cell erupted right over the airport, resulting
> in
> numerous wind shear alerts and at least one microburst alert, so the pilot
> called approach to state his intention of diverting southeast towards an
> airport 50 nm south of SYR to wait out the weather.
>
> --
> Peter

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> My understanding of what occurred is that the line of CBs was moving
> north toward the intended airport of arrival while the C-712 pilot was
> moving east toward the airport. Without knowledge of the locations of
> the cells, I agree, it's difficult to know just how much danger the
> pilot was in, but when he turned south to wait out the weather it
> would seem that he'd have to have gone right through them. But who
> knows?


This guy sounded pretty relaxed, which is not the way you sound when you're
trying to cheat VFR around thunderstorms. Also his PIREP indicated he was in
solid VFR if he was to be believed. I think I heard him say he was not IFR
qualified. If that was the case, he's either the biggest moron on the planet or
he was doing exactly what he said he was doing.

"Extreme precipitation"? If he'd gone through any I doubt he'd be a chatty chap
for quite a while. He'd be too busy changing his shorts.

I believe I'd let this one go.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Darwin has a new recruit to watch.

Ron Lee

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> In the SW summer TS's are frequent but usually easily
> circumnavigatable VFR. I would never attempt to try IFR in that type
> of weather, if you get in IMC you're probably going into a TS. VFR is
> the way to go.
>

Nope, we've got the remnants of Tropical Storm Barry all over the
NE. It's not isolated, you could really get yourself "painted"
into a corner.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-04, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> While what you say is true, it really depends on the type of
> thunderstorms Peter is describing. (And I don't mean to imply that
> his observations were inaccurate in any way.)

Yes, there are thunderstorms, then there are THUNDERSTORMS, even amongst
the isolated cell variety. When I lived in Houston, if we didn't fly
when there were thunderstorms, we probably wouldn't fly all summer. But
these were airmass storms, usually very small (in both the size over the
ground they covered, and vertical development). Much like the popcorn
storms Jay was talking about.

However, I was flying in Nevada a couple of years ago when there were
isolated thunderstorms. It was severe clear VFR (visibility must have
exceeded 50 miles) and very smooth flying high up (and to get in the
nice cool air, it was worth spending the 40 or so minutes it took the
TriPacer to climb up high!) Every so often I saw a distant thunderstorm.
They were fairly small... but had a distinctly more 'evil' look than the
ones in Houston.

I was passing one probably at a range of around 20 miles, judging by
landmarks. The ride very quickly went from smooth to almost smashing my
head on the roof rough. It was like a giant with a rolled up newspaper,
battering the TriPacer about. Although I didn't really want to arrive in
darkness at my refuelling stop (night flying in unfamiliar mountainous
terrain is NOT my idea of fun) I decided that flying perpendicular to my
intended course to fly away from the storm as fast as possible was the
best course of action. I flew for a good ten miles before the ride
became even remotely comfortable. I hate to think what the ride would be
like only 10 miles from that storm!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Mxsmanic]

Peter R. writes:

> It still made me
> sweat from the comfort of my office chair to imagine that this pilot was
> flying through the weather line using up to 8 minute old data ...

Don't worry: He'll end up dead soon enough, and then he won't be making
anyone sweat any more. Plus he'll have his posthumous 15 minutes of fame on
CNN.

[Mxsmanic]

Marco Leon writes:

> The more I fly, the more I believe that the body of pilots that regularly do
> things that most will consider "stupid pilot tricks" is larger than what
> many people think.

I think that body of pilots is quite large. It has to be, in order to explain
the relatively poor safety statistics of GA. Add poor maintenance to that,
and GA becomes pratically dangerous. And it doesn't have to be.

> The odds are that this guy will get away with this
> multiple times before he gets bit. Of course there's also a small chance
> that he may never get bit hard enough to scare or kill himself.

Hopefully he will remove himself from the gene pool before producing another
pilot.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I don't know any VFR pilots who would voluntarily fly into clouds.
> I'm sure they exist, but I think modern flight instructors have very
> thoroughly indoctrinated their students with the dangers of instrument
> flight without proper instruction.

Then why is this a leading cause of death among private pilots?

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> Yes, there are thunderstorms, then there are THUNDERSTORMS, even amongst
> the isolated cell variety.

A storm that produces thunder necessarily contains lightning, and a storm that
is producing lightning necessarily contains large masses of swiftly-moving air
that generate the charge differentials necessary for lightning. Large masses
of swiftly-moving air are dangerous, so it follows that all thunderstorms must
be avoided.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter R. writes:

> Not only do I have the tail-id but I also have the exact exchange, thanks to
> LiveATC.net's 40-day archive. However, Larry, I am not going to be the one to
> report anyone, since IMO this is quite a gray area. I personally have a very
> different take on reporting pilots to the FAA.

You'd prefer that he die in a thunderstorm instead?

> For education purposes, though, I thought it might be beneficial to retrieve
> and edit the archive files into a short clip (and also removing the majority
> of the tail ID so the resulting clip cannot be used against the pilot) with
> the relevant content. When I have the clip, I will post it to a file sharing
> site and the link to this thread.

You seem very worried about protecting the pilot--but you're not protecting
him in the right way.

[Mxsmanic]

Dan Luke writes:

> Deciding to rat out another pilot to the FSDO requires much more egregious
> conduct than this as a rationale, and much stronger evidence, too.

"Ratting" is more important than safety to you?

[Viperdoc]

If safety is paramount, should we notifiy the French authorities that you
are stealing electric power?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_15_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Peter R. writes:
>
>> It still made me
>> sweat from the comfort of my office chair to imagine that this pilot
>> was flying through the weather line using up to 8 minute old data ...
>
> Don't worry: He'll end up dead soon enough, and then he won't be
> making anyone sweat any more. Plus he'll have his posthumous 15
> minutes of fame on CNN.


How would you know, moron?

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_7_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan Luke writes:
>
>> Deciding to rat out another pilot to the FSDO requires much more
>> egregious conduct than this as a rationale, and much stronger
>> evidence, too.
>
> "Ratting" is more important than safety to you?
>

Moron

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_16_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> I don't know any VFR pilots who would voluntarily fly into clouds.
>> I'm sure they exist, but I think modern flight instructors have very
>> thoroughly indoctrinated their students with the dangers of instrument
>> flight without proper instruction.
>
> Then why is this a leading cause of death among private pilots?
>

It isn't. Old age is.


Fjukkwit


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_17_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> Yes, there are thunderstorms, then there are THUNDERSTORMS, even
>> amongst the isolated cell variety.
>
> A storm that produces thunder necessarily contains lightning, and a
> storm that is producing lightning necessarily contains large masses of
> swiftly-moving air that generate the charge differentials necessary
> for lightning. Large masses of swiftly-moving air are dangerous, so
> it follows that all thunderstorms must be avoided.
>


oow wow! You da google meister!

Bwahwahwhawhhwhhawhahwhhhwhahwhahwhahwh!

Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Then why is this a leading cause of death among private pilots?
>

Care to back that up with statistics? Hint: google Nall report, then
show us.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> If safety is paramount, should we notifiy the French authorities that you
> are stealing electric power?

Only if you wish to learn how the French authorities deal with libel.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip > writes:

> How would you know, moron?

There are no old, bold pilots.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>
>> How would you know, moron?
>
> There are no old, bold pilots.
>

Yes, there are fjukktard

http://www.icasfoundation.org/hall_fame/1996/hf_cole.htm

Just for instance

Which makes you ....Wrong again!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> If safety is paramount, should we notifiy the French authorities that
>> you are stealing electric power?
>
> Only if you wish to learn how the French authorities deal with libel.
>



Snort!

The Libel threat!


Bwahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwh ahwhahhwhahwhah!


k000k


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Peter R. writes:
>
>> Not only do I have the tail-id but I also have the exact exchange,
>> thanks to LiveATC.net's 40-day archive. However, Larry, I am not
>> going to be the one to report anyone, since IMO this is quite a gray
>> area. I personally have a very different take on reporting pilots to
>> the FAA.
>
> You'd prefer that he die in a thunderstorm instead?
>
>> For education purposes, though, I thought it might be beneficial to
>> retrieve and edit the archive files into a short clip (and also
>> removing the majority of the tail ID so the resulting clip cannot be
>> used against the pilot) with the relevant content. When I have the
>> clip, I will post it to a file sharing site and the link to this
>> thread.
>
> You seem very worried about protecting the pilot--but you're not
> protecting him in the right way.
>

How would you know, fjukkwit?

You don't fly.


Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Without knowledge of the locations of
>the cells, I agree, it's difficult to know just how much danger the
>pilot was in, but when he turned south to wait out the weather it
>would seem that he'd have to have gone right through them.

Did he turn south into the cells?

> But who
>knows?

That was exactly my point.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[john smith[_2_]]

In article om>,
Luke Skywalker > wrote:

> Airline radars are so much better because of power and antenna size
> then General Aviation radars...but even they are no match for the
> power and resultion of even ATC radars in terms of WX. ATC radars are
> air search not so much WX but with modern technology the WX
> information can be "used" before it is stripped off for primary target
> display.

Robert, I read much of what Dave Gwinn said in his AvWeb podcast in your
post. :-)
Dave also mentions asking the ATC controller to press his "Weather 3"
key and describe the "slashes and H's" along your route.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jun 5, 4:31 pm, john smith > wrote:

>
> Robert, I read much of what Dave Gwinn said in his AvWeb podcast in your
> post. :-)
> Dave also mentions asking the ATC controller to press his "Weather 3"
> key and describe the "slashes and H's" along your route.

Thank you. I am a pilot by profession and joy but an engineer (and a
military history person) by education....and I am a ham radio
operator...and a RF radar engineer.

"Weather 3" is a good key...the new ASR displays are quite good...and
there is some software coming along which will marry all the Nexrad/
ASR stuff and to do it from a lot of different sites.

I am frequently amazed from a "personal" perspective what happens if
you put a "picture" before someone. It becomes "the almighty truth"
regardless of the limitations of what the picture says. WX
information is just that...

I dont know how many times I have sat with new first officers or
upgrading captains or private pilots in new twins or ones with stuff
like 396's...and they see the picture and have no real idear about
what the limitations are.

I rode shotgun one time with a guy in his new (to him) Cessna 400
series twin and he saw the picture and was buying everything just
right down the line.

All this stuff is good as long as one understands what the "limits"
are...the words of Inspector Calahan seem to hold true..."A man has
got to know his limitations"

Robert

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
....
> ... I hate to think what the ride would be
> like only 10 miles from that storm!
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

No one has mentioned the phenomena where hail is thrown out of the top or
side of the really big CB and may be tossed for miles, and its really not
that uncommon.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:10:40 -0700, Luke Skywalker
> wrote in
om>:

>"A man has got to know his limitations"


Or in this case, the limitations of his equipment.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jun 5, 8:44 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:10:40 -0700, Luke Skywalker
> > wrote in
> om>:
>
> >"A man has got to know his limitations"
>
> Or in this case, the limitations of his equipment.

so true.

I love that scene from Eastwood...The three minutes or so "before" all
the way to the words being spoken is something I recommend for all
pilots...lol

Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:26:59 -0500, "Jim Carter"
> wrote in
>:

>No one has mentioned the phenomena where hail is thrown out of the top or
>side of the really big CB and may be tossed for miles, and its really not
>that uncommon.


I mentioned that I was trained to skirt CBs by 20 miles. Of course,
that is the reason.

It's often difficult to maintain good situational awareness of the
buildups if you are in VMC under a cell's base, or the buildups begin
to merge.




http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/thunder/hail.html
Hail
Hail is precipitation in the form of a chunk of ice that can fall
from a cumulonimbus cloud. Usually associated with multicell,
supercell and cold front induced squall line thunderstorms, most
hail falls from the central region of a cloud in a severe storm.

Hail begins as tiny ice pellets that collide with water droplets.
The optimum freezing level for the formation of hail is from 8,000
to 10,000 feet.

The water droplets attach themselves to the ice pellets and begin
to freeze as strong updraft winds toss the pellets and droplets
back up into the colder regions of the upper levels of the cloud.
As the attached droplets freeze, the pellets become larger.

Both gravity and downdraft thunderstorm winds pull the pellets
back down, where they encounter more droplets that attach and
freeze as the pellets are thrown, once again, back up through the
cloud.

Hailstones
The more times a hailstone is tossed up and down through the
cloud, the larger the hailstone will be. Hailstones the size of
softballs had many more trips up and down through the cloud than
pea-sized hailstones.

Large hailstones are an indication of powerful updraft and
downdraft winds within a thunderstorm. This is why large hail is
associated with severe thunderstorms.

To create pea-size hail (about 1/2 inch in diameter) winds within
the thunderstorm updraft will generally be around 20 miles per
hour. Quarter size hail (3/4 of an inch in diameter) requires
updrafts of about 40 miles per hour.

Golf ball size hail (1 3/4 inches in diameter) needs updrafts of
around 55 miles per hour and softball size hail, approximately 100
miles per hour! ...

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>>"A man has got to know his limitations"

> Or in this case, the limitations of his equipment.


"I WAS IN THE POOL!"
"I WAS IN THE POOL!"
"I WAS IN THE POOL!"


Montblack

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

> I mentioned that I was trained to skirt CBs by 20 miles. Of course,
> that is the reason.

Maintaining such a hard rule WRT to *all* CBs would make flyng a very
difficult proposition down South in the summertime, as Dylan has pointed out.
Not all CBs need such a wide berth.


> It's often difficult to maintain good situational awareness of the
> buildups if you are in VMC under a cell's base, or the buildups begin
> to merge.

That's what XM WX is for, praised be its name!

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 06:17:34 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" wrote:
>
>> I mentioned that I was trained to skirt CBs by 20 miles. Of course,
>> that is the reason.
>
>Maintaining such a hard rule WRT to *all* CBs would make flyng a very
>difficult proposition down South in the summertime, as Dylan has pointed out.
>Not all CBs need such a wide berth.
>

What method of avoiding hail is used there?

>
>> It's often difficult to maintain good situational awareness of the
>> buildups if you are in VMC under a cell's base, or the buildups begin
>> to merge.
>
>That's what XM WX is for, praised be its name!

Some information is better than none, even if it is stale.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-06, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>Maintaining such a hard rule WRT to *all* CBs would make flyng a very
>>difficult proposition down South in the summertime, as Dylan has pointed out.
>>Not all CBs need such a wide berth.
>
> What method of avoiding hail is used there?

It's extremely rare for hail to fall out of a typical airmass storm in
coastal Texas, and when it does, it tends to fall out of the bottom of
the storm, not be deposited miles from the rest of the precipitation.
Indeed, I've never known hail to fall out of such a storm at all
(although it undoubtedly must happen from time to time).

The times I saw hail in coastal Texas, it was always associated with a
line of severe thunderstorms, never the afternoon airmass storms. Flying
close to a line of thunderstorms anywhere is a bit foolhardy.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

>>That's what XM WX is for, praised be its name!
>
> Some information is better than none, even if it is stale.

Have you used it?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:50:09 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" wrote:
>
>>>That's what XM WX is for, praised be its name!
>>
>> Some information is better than none, even if it is stale.
>
>Have you used it?
>

No.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
t...
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> ...
>> ... I hate to think what the ride would be
>> like only 10 miles from that storm!
>>
>> --
>> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
>> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
>
> No one has mentioned the phenomena where hail is thrown out of the top or
> side of the really big CB and may be tossed for miles, and its really not
> that uncommon.
>
A good case for a lightning detector.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 00:36:36 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>:

>("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>>>"A man has got to know his limitations"
>
>> Or in this case, the limitations of his equipment.
>
>
>"I WAS IN THE POOL!"
>"I WAS IN THE POOL!"
>"I WAS IN THE POOL!"
>
>
>Montblack
>


Okay, his aircraft's equipment. :-)

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

>>
>>>>That's what XM WX is for, praised be its name!
>>>
>>> Some information is better than none, even if it is stale.
>>
>>Have you used it?
>>
>
> No.

Then, with respect, you have little practical information on which to judge
its value in operational situations. "Some information is better than none"
does not do justice to the superb weather awareness it provides. It is far
superior to using ATC/Fligh****ch.

As to the "stale" business, in 200+ hours of using the product in the most
thunderstorm-infested region of the U. S., I have found 6-8 minute maximum
lag a non issue for avoiding CBs.

--
Dan

"The future has actually been here for a while, it's just not readily
available to everyone."
- some guy at MIT

[Peter R.]

On 6/6/2007 4:16:53 PM, "Dan Luke" wrote:

> As to the "stale" business, in 200+ hours of using the product in the most
> thunderstorm-infested region of the U. S., I have found 6-8 minute maximum
> lag a non issue for avoiding CBs.

For strategic avoidance I agree but it still requires some thought. My
Bonanza is equipped with WSI downlinked weather displayed on an MX-20 moving
map, and WSI's refresh rates are normally 0 to 4 minutes old. I was under the
impression that NEXRAD could be up to five minutes old before being uplinked
to the delivery satellites (corrections appreciated). Therefore a worst-case
scenario is that the NEXRAD returns I see on my moving map could potentially
be up to nine minutes old.

At a groundspeed of 50 knots (my guess as to the average speed for a more
severe thunderstorm), nine minute-old data translates to about an 8 nautical
mile area ahead of the mature storm's direction as depicted on the moving
map. Thus, I add 8 nm to the recommended 10 to 20 nm (depending on storm
severity and type - frontal) to cover that lag time, assuming haze or IMC
prevents seeing the storm out the window.

What concerns me are those days where t-storms seem to be popping up
everywhere and returns go from light to intense in 15 minutes or less. In
those cases this relatively slow refresh rate makes flying through that zone
a bit of a butt clencher.

--
Peter

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> As to the "stale" business, in 200+ hours of using the product in the most
> thunderstorm-infested region of the U. S., I have found 6-8 minute maximum
> lag a non issue for avoiding CBs.


RV-10: Cruise Speed .....200 (3+) miles/minute

"It's like he flew right into the storm, as if he didn't no that it was
there," one witness reported. <g>


Montblack

[Montblack]

know

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marco Leon writes:
>
>> The more I fly, the more I believe that the body of pilots that
>> regularly do things that most will consider "stupid pilot tricks" is
>> larger than what many people think.
>
> I think that body of pilots is quite large. It has to be, in order to
> explain the relatively poor safety statistics of GA. Add poor
> maintenance to that, and GA becomes pratically dangerous. And it
> doesn't have to be.

How would you know, moron. You don't fly.


As the Italian lady said to the pope after his latest dissertation on birth
control..

You no playa da game, you no makea da rules.



Bertie

[Dan Luke]

"Peter R." wrote:

> What concerns me are those days where t-storms seem to be popping up
> everywhere and returns go from light to intense in 15 minutes or less. In
> those cases this relatively slow refresh rate makes flying through that zone
> a bit of a butt clencher.

Indeed.

Experience and caution are necessary components in making optimum safe use of
the tool. After a while one develops a sense of what the NEXRAD is saying.
The time sometime comes when discretion is the better part of valor, and a
land-and-wait decision becomes the prudent course. However, since I've had XM
weather I've had a lot better information on which to base that decision, and
I've only had to make it once.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Jose]

> know

Thanks. I thought you were commenting on the lack of Japanese theater
in the cockpit.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dan Luke]

"Montblack" wrote:

>> As to the "stale" business, in 200+ hours of using the product in the most
>> thunderstorm-infested region of the U. S., I have found 6-8 minute maximum
>> lag a non issue for avoiding CBs.
>
>
> RV-10: Cruise Speed .....200 (3+) miles/minute

OK, rub it in. Poor ol' Delta was doing the best she could.

Anyway, I'm beyond the reach of RV-10 temptation now. The deal for my next
airplane is almost done.

>
> "It's like he flew right into the storm, as if he didn't no that it was
> there," one witness reported. <g>

If the witness could see it, why couldn't the pilot?

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" <> wrote

> Anyway, I'm beyond the reach of RV-10 temptation now. The deal for my
> next airplane is almost done.

Man, you can't leave us hangin' like that! What kind of airplane?
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke]

"Morgans" wrote:

> Man, you can't leave us hangin' like that! What kind of airplane?

T182T

--
Dan
? at BFM

[George Graham]

On Jun 4, 12:21 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
> I was listening to LiveATC.net's feed of Syracuse, NY, yesterday (Sunday)

Thank you Peter, for introducing a neat web goodie!

After listening to the inflight, and reading some posts here, I am
amazed at your point of view.

As I see it, the controller is the dummy with his his head stuck up
his rear. How can you work full time in this business, and not know
what XM is ?

The controller got nervous by looking at his radar, when the pilot
(who said that he was IFR rated) had his window to look out.

Unsafe ? The pilot is using modern technology to overcome a problem
with ATC, they usually don't offer advice, and will let you fly right
into the soup without warning. Anyway, that is how I see it.

[Peter R.]

On 6/12/2007 6:58:10 AM, George Graham wrote:

> As I see it, the controller is the dummy with his his head stuck up
> his rear. How can you work full time in this business, and not know
> what XM is ?

I don't know this controller personally, but I fly into and out of SYR twice
to three times every week since 2002 and I know he is no dummy over the air.
My take on this? This is probably the controller's first experience in
dealing with a pilot who continually admitted that he was using the guidance
of his XM weather over the controller's weather assistance to avoid what
appeared to be extreme weather in the aircraft's path.

Recall also that a) XM weather is a relatively new concept, having only been
available for the last two years or so and b) most controllers including this
one are not pilots and therefore are not aware of the latest technology to
grace the GA cockpits.

> The controller got nervous by looking at his radar, when the pilot
> (who said that he was IFR rated) had his window to look out.

You will note in the audio clip that at one point the controller reads the
latest ATIS at the airport and visibility was reported at 3 miles in haze.
The airport was perhaps 20 miles east of the pilot's location with no
significant geographical differences between it and the aircraft's location.
At another point the controller asked the pilot for the conditions and the
pilot reported visibility at 5 to 10 miles. Between the ATIS and the pilot's
admission to visibility starting at 5 miles, I think for discussion purposes
it is safe to assume that visibility was less than 10 miles.

Yes, the pilot certainly had his window as the primary weather avoidance tool
but it was a very hazy day and the first weather call by the controller
reported extreme weather 8 miles directly ahead, arguably out of the pilot's
sight at that point in the clip.

> Unsafe ? The pilot is using modern technology to overcome a problem with ATC,

Based on my understanding and as a WSI downlinked weather customer and IFR
pilot myself, I was pointing out that XM NEXRAD (that which is displayed on
the pilot's Garmin 396) can be up to 9 minutes old, or perhaps even older
(*). This "modern technology" is *not* without limitations. Nine minute old
NEXRAD data will mislead a pilot into believing a strong cell is in one
location when in fact that cell has moved up to 10 miles from that point.
This difference should be enough to support the contention that downlinked
NEXRAD weather is NOT a tool for tactical weather avoidance, as this pilot in
the clip admitted using as such ("picking my way through").

Approach facilities like SYR have weather radar that is much more real-time
than nine minute old NEXRAD data. Why would a pilot fail to use ALL
information available to him and decline controller provided weather
deviations/recommendations, as this pilot seemed to be doing in this clip by
stating that he had his own weather?

(*) note in the clip that the pilot stated that XM NEXRAD could be up to 18
minutes old, which I incorrectly quoted previously in this thread as 8
minutes. If this is really the case, then 18 minute old data may as well be
yesterday's NEXRAD as far as using it as a tool to "pick" your way through a
line. No pilot who strives to avoid thunderstorm penetration would rely on 18
minute old data to circumvent cells.

> , they usually don't offer advice, and will let you fly right
> into the soup without warning. Anyway, that is how I see it.

Come on. Think about that above statement for a moment. Had you used
"thunderstorms" instead of "soup" you might have had an argument because
there are documented accidents where controllers failed to call out
thunderstorms in the paths of aircraft, but soup? Outside of the airport's
ASOS/AWOS/human observation, controllers have no idea whether every mile
within their airspace is IMC or VMC. Keeping an aircraft out of the "soup" is
simply not a service provided by ATC.

In any event, your point is moot in this example. The controller *was*
attempting to offer weather avoidance services using radar that was much more
current than XM NEXRAD.

--
Peter

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Peter R. wrote:
>
> I don't know this controller personally, but I fly into and out of SYR twice
> to three times every week since 2002 and I know he is no dummy over the air.
> My take on this? This is probably the controller's first experience in
> dealing with a pilot who continually admitted that he was using the guidance
> of his XM weather over the controller's weather assistance to avoid what
> appeared to be extreme weather in the aircraft's path.

I was thinking the controller understood how XM worked, and wanted to
see if the pilot was aware of the delays and limitations vs. actual
radar. He then trying to offer additional information, but he can't
force the pilot to use it.

[Peter R.]

On 6/12/2007 12:18:34 PM, B A R R Y wrote:

> I was thinking the controller understood how XM worked, and wanted to
> see if the pilot was aware of the delays and limitations vs. actual
> radar. He then trying to offer additional information, but he can't
> force the pilot to use it.

The old, "give him enough rope with which to hang himself," or in this case
get the pilot to back into the conclusion that there actually is a
limitation. Yep, I could see the controller having that hidden agenda, too.


--
Peter

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Peter R. wrote:
>
> The old, "give him enough rope with which to hang himself," or in this case
> get the pilot to back into the conclusion that there actually is a
> limitation. Yep, I could see the controller having that hidden agenda, too.
>

In some ways, a subtle reminder.

Like asking for a clarification of destination or on-course heading when
an aircraft seems to be headed off-course.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jun 12, 5:58 am, George Graham > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 12:21 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
>
> > I was listening to LiveATC.net's feed of Syracuse, NY, yesterday (Sunday)
>
> Thank you Peter, for introducing a neat web goodie!
>
> After listening to the inflight, and reading some posts here, I am
> amazed at your point of view.
>
> As I see it, the controller is the dummy with his his head stuck up
> his rear. How can you work full time in this business, and not know
> what XM is ?
>
> The controller got nervous by looking at his radar, when the pilot
> (who said that he was IFR rated) had his window to look out.
>
> Unsafe ? The pilot is using modern technology to overcome a problem
> with ATC, they usually don't offer advice, and will let you fly right
> into the soup without warning. Anyway, that is how I see it.

In thunderstorms the person looking at a GOOD RADAR has the one
looking outside the window beat by a long shot. I dont know if the
Radar in question is an 11 or a 9...but either would tell a pilot a
lot more about the evolving nature of a line of thunderstorms then one
could hope to see with the Mark 1 eyeball.

I've done this in airplanes low and slow and high and fast. There is
nothing right now that beats real time radar observation in terms of
seeing how things are evolving along a line of thunderstorms.

this is even more so down low and slow when one is perhaps limited in
vision by 1) other cloud layers and 2) where options can disapear
quickly.

The controllers are in a difficult situation here. AS AOPA pilot has
detailed there have been some cases where controllers gave nothing
much more then the "Hazardous weather" information and some light
planes were either bent or smashed by the WX and then there have been
some examples of where the controller more or less ended up making ALL
the WX decisions for the pilot.

I just breezed over the transcripts, but I dont get the sense from
reading them that the pilot was very aware of the limitations of the
XM or that the pilot had a really good picture of the wx...

Back in the days before EFIS but with color/solid state/memory radars
one of my "fun" things to do on penetrating "lines" in the Boeing was
to ask my first officer, particulary when he/she was the flying pilot
for that leg...I would hold out athe appropriate chart and say "where
on the chart do you think that line stretches from?"

I was mostly always surprised at the answers.

As it stands right now (and this has not always been true) ATC radar
particularly TRACON radar is very good wx radar. USE IT.

Robert

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Luke Skywalker" > wrote

> Back in the days before EFIS but with color/solid state/memory radars
> one of my "fun" things to do on penetrating "lines" in the Boeing was
> to ask my first officer, particulary when he/she was the flying pilot
> for that leg...I would hold out athe appropriate chart and say "where
> on the chart do you think that line stretches from?"
>
> I was mostly always surprised at the answers.

Could you elaborate on the answers given, and the kind of mistakes the
answers contained?
--
Jim in NC