How do weather services get sky conditions above the surface?

Ricky writes:

Anthony, this may have already been suggested to you in the past.
Why don't you start taking flying lessons?

No money, no time. I doubt that I could pass any of the exams as well.

You will enjoy the real thing so much more than your simulator and you
will learn the answer to all these questions quickly.

I doubt that this particular question would be answered in a piloting
curriculum.

I might enjoy it more; I might not. There are some distinct advantages to
simulation, such as the fact that I don't actually have to go anywhere just to
fly, and when I'm finished flying in a sim, I'm still right at home.

The best & most economical way to learn is to enroll in a part 141
college with aviation or go the LSA or recreational pilot route.

I can't afford any type of flying instruction, nor do I have enough free time
to dedicate to it. Simulation is orders of magnitude cheaper (making it
affordable for me), and requires only the time spent flying or (voluntarily)
studying.

We used a simulator extensively for instrument instruction, which I
found to be more challenging than the real airplane.

I've heard varying stories on which is more difficult, sim or real life.

All kinds of financing is available, from federal grants & loans to
thousands of other financing options.

I don't have any money to pay anything back.

There really is little reason why one who wants to fly cannot learn.
You can do it...

Not at this time. Perhaps at certain points in the past. Today I just don't
have the resources. But simulation isn't as bad as many people seem to think.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Rocky Stevens wrote:

It would also be a useful forum if people actually answered the
questions posed, regardless of *who* is asking it. The OP's question
is perefectly valid, and x number of years from now when somebody
Google's for the answer and gets this thread, all they will see for
an answer are insults. There is nothing more frustrating than
Googling for an anwer to something only to find the response was "why
don't you Google for it". If you have the time to post such a
response, you have the time to answer the question.


True, but the folks that post such a response probably don't know the
answer.

Over on rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic recently asked a question about
Cessna rudder input on MS Flight sim versus the real thing that Dudley
Henriques, among others, responded to - some good, some not. There was a
civil dialog between Dudley and Mxsmanic - Mxsmanic appears to have
followed Dudley's advice, looked up the references that Dudley provided,
and he thanked Dudley for his help a couple times. I considered the
thread distinctive because of the unfortunate Pavlovian responses a
number of people have conditioned themselves into that added noise
to what would have been an otherwise short and simple thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...3b0eae0?hl=en#

Ricky wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:37?am, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easy enough to establish measurement stations on the surface to measure
wind, temperature, visibility, etc., but what is the normal way for
meteorologists to measure these things aloft? ?Do they depend on PIREPs, or
expendable/recoverable probes and balloons, or satellites, or what?

Anthony, this may have already been suggested to you in the past.
Why don't you start taking flying lessons?
You will enjoy the real thing so much more than your simulator and you
will learn the answer to all these questions quickly.
The best & most economical way to learn is to enroll in a part 141
college with aviation or go the LSA or recreational pilot route.
That's how I did it when I was in my late 20s (college), and I got my
commercial/Instrument in 2 semesters. All I did was fly, I didn't take
any college academics.
We used a simulator extensively for instrument instruction, which I
found to be more challenging than the real airplane.
All kinds of financing is available, from federal grants & loans to
thousands of other financing options.
There really is little reason why one who wants to fly cannot learn.
You can do it...

No, he can't.

You haven't been paying attention.

He is afraid of real airplanes, real flying and real people.

He lives in France.

He has no job and no money.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote

If this is an example of your skills when it observational skills then I
really am concerned about your ability to act as a CFI.

Just that is not has made some people wonder if he is a CFI, or a dangerous
one, if he is.

Things like cutting the engine just after rotation on a student. Other
examples abound.

He is definitely brain dead, if he thinks answering MF is a "good thing" to
do.

Another nail in a nearly filled coffin.
--
Jim in NC

wrote

Jim, he amuses us.

I'm glad for your amusement, but do you think your amusement is worth the
dismantling of one of the (previously) most useful forums on aviation, by
aviators?

If you think that it is worth it, then you have too high of a value placed
on your own entertainment.

simply don't read threads he originates.

I can do that, but it is not possible to read the good threads that are no
longer here, because the people that would have been participating are gone,
_because_ of people that continue to respond "for their own amusement."

Ignoring him is not sufficient. His departure is the only thing that is
sufficient.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


wrote

Jim, he amuses us.

I'm glad for your amusement, but do you think your amusement is worth
the dismantling of one of the (previously) most useful forums on
aviation, by aviators?

If you think that it is worth it, then you have too high of a value
placed on your own entertainment.

simply don't read threads he originates.

I can do that, but it is not possible to read the good threads that
are no longer here, because the people that would have been
participating are gone, _because_ of people that continue to respond
"for their own amusement."

Ignoring him is not sufficient. His departure is the only thing that
is sufficient.

Yeah, best of luck with that, net nazi.

The only thing that will save any newsgroup is that the posters not run
around like little girls whining about what someone else posts and
coming up wiht endless lame solutions.

Period.

End of story.

Get over it or **** off.




Bertie

On Jul 23, 12:47*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
buttman writes:
Theres a little "eye" that looks up at the sky at various points. It
detects if there is cloud, or sky. The sensor is prone to errors,
though. Sometimes if it's broken, it'll say its overcast because some
of the sensors are pointing diagonally and are sensing the side of the
cloud. I had an ATC college-style text book that had a very
informative diagram of how they worked, but that book is long gone.

http://www.cyanogen.com/products/cloud_main.htm

here is an example of one.

Cool--I wouldn't mind having one (useful for photography as well as astronomy
and aviation). *However, it's still a ground-based sensor, so it would only
see the first level of clouds. *Conversely, a satellite would only see the top
layer of clouds. *If there are three or four layers of clouds, how do weather
services discover them?

The same is true for temperature, humidity, and pressure. *Pressure you can
probably infer from surface pressure, and temperature you can guess at in a
similar way. *Humidity is more vague. *I'm curious as to how all of these get
measured aloft.

And what about winds? *Weather services seem to have awareness of winds aloft,
but where are they getting the measurements? *Winds aloft may have no
correlation with surface winds and can change a lot over short distances. *You
could set up probes, but that's a lot of probes to launch and recover even to
cover small areas. *You could rely on PIREPs, but that seems kind of hit and
miss. *So how is it really done?

How are the paths and speeds of jet streams determined?

When I was in college I took a meteorology class which was taught by a
grad student who spent the last summer doing an internship at a
weather station. She worked with the people who did the Upper Air
Charts. She said they release balloons at least every day, which is
how they get their measurements. From there they use the data to make
forecasts.

As far as in-between could layers, its only reported by pireps. Its
very common to ask ATC what the cloud tops are and get a response "I
don't know, no one has given any pireps yet" No one hardly ever flies
VFR between cloud layers, because its too easy to get stuck, therefore
no one bothers making a chart for multiple cloud layers.

buttman wrote in
:

On Jul 23, 12:47*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
buttman writes:
Theres a little "eye" that looks up at the sky at various points.
It detects if there is cloud, or sky. The sensor is prone to
errors, though. Sometimes if it's broken, it'll say its overcast
because some of the sensors are pointing diagonally and are sensing
the side of the cloud. I had an ATC college-style text book that
had a very informative diagram of how they worked, but that book is
long gone.

http://www.cyanogen.com/products/cloud_main.htm

here is an example of one.

Cool--I wouldn't mind having one (useful for photography as well as
astro
nomy
and aviation). *However, it's still a ground-based sensor, so it
would
only
see the first level of clouds. *Conversely, a satellite would only
see
the top
layer of clouds. *If there are three or four layers of clouds, how do
w
eather
services discover them?

The same is true for temperature, humidity, and pressure. *Pressure
you
can
probably infer from surface pressure, and temperature you can guess
at in
a
similar way. *Humidity is more vague. *I'm curious as to how all of t
hese get
measured aloft.

And what about winds? *Weather services seem to have awareness of
winds
aloft,
but where are they getting the measurements? *Winds aloft may have no
correlation with surface winds and can change a lot over short
distances.
*You
could set up probes, but that's a lot of probes to launch and recover
eve
n to
cover small areas. *You could rely on PIREPs, but that seems kind of
hi
t and
miss. *So how is it really done?

How are the paths and speeds of jet streams determined?

When I was in college I took a meteorology class which was taught by a
grad student who spent the last summer doing an internship at a
weather station. She worked with the people who did the Upper Air
Charts. She said they release balloons at least every day, which is
how they get their measurements. From there they use the data to make
forecasts.

As far as in-between could layers, its only reported by pireps.

Nope, wrong again, fjukktard.

Not that it matters, since your "student" will never ever fly.


Bertie

On Jul 23, 7:42 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
I'm glad for your amusement, but do you think your amusement is worth the
dismantling of one of the (previously) most useful forums on aviation, by
aviators?

The thing is, the "dismantling" is done by the people that with
respond to him with such classy comments as "you are poor, and have no
life," not by Msmanix himself. I have been lurking for quite a while
now, and rarely do I see his posts warrant the responses he gets.

On Jul 23, 2:58 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ricky writes:
Anthony, this may have already been suggested to you in the past.
Why don't you start taking flying lessons?

No money, no time. I doubt that I could pass any of the exams as well.


Not that it really matters, but I am sure you could pass the FAA
written; it is a very easy, multiple choice test. I think the study
guides may even have the actual questions that will be asked in them.
But you are right about the cost; it is pretty damned expensive.
FWIW, I think you would really dislike lessons anyway, as your
intellectual curiosity would not be satisfied, and very well may
irritate the hell out of your instructor (you can see the responses
you get here).