If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
I am still a new instrument pilot and do not have the experience of most
of the group. However, I am coming up with a rule of thumb that I would like to see what you think. These towering cumulus clouds - to me if they seem much taller than they are wide I try to stay away. If they seem wider than they are tall, I seem to get through them with some bouncing around. Each one is a judgement call. I was heading to one that went way on up and had a anvil. I took a 30 mile trip around it. I stayed out from under the anvil also. What do you think of my rule of thumb? Maule Driver wrote: Fascinating discussion. Someone versed in learning theory could probably put what seems obvious here - reading about it only imparts some unverified, unvalidated knowledge. Poking your nose in it completes the package. Re-reading the entire post suggests to me that the original poster was asking for some insight to all the stuff he has read to date. Despite all the various opinions and guidelines - there is still no definitive procedure for when one may safely penetrate a Cu and when one should not. In the end, you have to start poking your nose in a few and calibrate what you've read. Or you can simply *never* fly in one (at least not knowingly - see embedded)and limit your flying to visual reference or stratus-only (is there a rating for that?) As one poster pointed out, training doesn't require any actual. Without it, a lot of the weather training leaves one pretty ignorant about a lot of weather. Interestingly, this particular thread provides the so-called 'ignorant' with perhaps more insight than can be gained from any training manual. Def: "Weather Ignorant" he/she who has yet to poke one's probiscus in weather that one's common sense had decided to avoid like plague in future. snip -- Regards, Ross C-172F 180HP |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
It's a start - though I immediately think of the very thin, tall cu we
get on certain days here in NC. They seem be somewhat harmless but who knows.... In my slow, lightly loaded and lightly equipped mount, I simply try to avoid penetrating any convective clouds. And that is easier done than said. In the Southeast, most conditions allow circumnavigation. If they are too tall and dense for me to get up high enough to circumnavigate the tops, they are unusually are unflyable. Don't feel like you have to fly a straight course. Controllers in the SE will usually permit all the deviations you may need. In FL you can count on it - along with a lot of advisories to keep you out of the nasties. Then what's left to penetrate are cumulus decks that may form under you as the day matures but I find those are tolerable since by definition, they haven't developed vertically. Also the occasional penetration of a valley between taller clouds. But in general, you can avoid an awful lot of cus. The next step is airborne Nexrad. Being able to see what is happening inside or on the other side of a cloud is worth it's weight -- and cost. Now if I can just dig up the bucks. Ross Richardson wrote: I am still a new instrument pilot and do not have the experience of most of the group. However, I am coming up with a rule of thumb that I would like to see what you think. These towering cumulus clouds - to me if they seem much taller than they are wide I try to stay away. If they seem wider than they are tall, I seem to get through them with some bouncing around. Each one is a judgement call. I was heading to one that went way on up and had a anvil. I took a 30 mile trip around it. I stayed out from under the anvil also. What do you think of my rule of thumb? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Ross Richardson" wrote in message ... I am still a new instrument pilot and do not have the experience of most of the group. However, I am coming up with a rule of thumb that I would like to see what you think. These towering cumulus clouds - to me if they seem much taller than they are wide I try to stay away. If they seem wider than they are tall, I seem to get through them with some bouncing around. Each one is a judgement call. I was heading to one that went way on up and had a anvil. I took a 30 mile trip around it. I stayed out from under the anvil also. What do you think of my rule of thumb? The issue with the anvil is that it means the cloud has sufficient depth to be producing hail (it is already a CB, no longer a TCU). CB's have been known to "kick" the hail out in front of them, and it has been encountered in the relatively clear-of-cloud area under the anvil. Also, in an area of multiple CB cells, the clear areas between them can be very turbulent also, so giving them a wide 30 mile berth is wise. As for the wider-than-it-is-tall issue, I can see merit to your reasoning if you are looking at 2 or 3-to-1 width to height ratio, and they haven't changed much in the last half-hour. But even so, if its an obvious cloud of vertical development, and it's 5 miles across, I'd be concerned... especially if it popped suddenly and may be growing quite quickly. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron McKinnon" wrote in
newsG%8e.1066820$Xk.925695@pd7tw3no: "Doug" wrote in message oups.com... I was in one once. A towering Cumulus. A big dark one. Weather said just rain, no thunderstorms. It started raining. Then I lost some altitude. Looked up and my airplane was coated with ice! Clear, but ragged ice, about 1/2" thick on all forward facing surfaces. Fortunately I had warm VMC under me, so I descended and shed the ice. I don't fly into dark Cumulus clouds anymore. Only reason I did that time is I was pretty ignorant of weather. How on earth could you be an Instrument rated Pilot, or even a non-instrument rated pilot for that matter, and be 'pretty ignorant of weather' ??? I was just happy to have a clearance and be able to fly in actual. I was in and out of IMC. Here comes a big dark one. In I went. Coulda been worse, coulda been hail.... I suspect that his level of "ignorance of weather" was that he was unable to accurately predict the conditions inside that dark towering Cumulus cloud he flew through. I also suspect that most pilots, VFR or IFR, have been in the same boat at some point after their IFR training, especially since it is not a pre- requisite to receiving the instrument rating. We are mostly taught to depend on forecasts and spend very little time during training on learning to properly identify cloud formations from actual pictures or live representations, and to understand what to expect within each type of cloud. During VFR training, you learn to just stay away from them. And during IFR training, you get pounded about the extremes (CBs and Stratus clouds) but there is really inadequate training of the stuff in the middle - probably because the stuff in the middle varies so widely. Can you accurately predict conditions inside of a towering CU unless you get inside of it? There are different conditions even within the same cloud that depend on many factors that include pressure, elapsed time, wind speed, humidity levels, etc. So while one dark TCU may produce hail, rain, and ice, the next dark TCU might be fairly uneventful and produce some turbulence as you enter and exit and that's all. I think most people are fairly ignorant of weather, even if we think we are experts. Otherwise the meteorologists would never be wrong, and the rest of us COULD just depend on the forecasts... |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Judah" wrote in message . .. "Ron McKinnon" wrote in newsG%8e.1066820$Xk.925695@pd7tw3no: "Doug" wrote in message oups.com... I was in one once. A towering Cumulus. A big dark one. Weather said just rain, no thunderstorms. It started raining. Then I lost some altitude. Looked up and my airplane was coated with ice! Clear, but ragged ice, about 1/2" thick on all forward facing surfaces. Fortunately I had warm VMC under me, so I descended and shed the ice. I don't fly into dark Cumulus clouds anymore. Only reason I did that time is I was pretty ignorant of weather. How on earth could you be an Instrument rated Pilot, or even a non-instrument rated pilot for that matter, and be 'pretty ignorant of weather' ??? I was just happy to have a clearance and be able to fly in actual. I was in and out of IMC. Here comes a big dark one. In I went. Coulda been worse, coulda been hail.... I suspect that his level of "ignorance of weather" was that he was unable to accurately predict the conditions inside that dark towering Cumulus cloud he flew through. The level of ignorance implied by my post was the level of ignorance stated by the original poster 'Pretty ignorant about weather", and the stated actions of that poster I also suspect that most pilots, VFR or IFR, have been in the same boat at some point after their IFR training, especially since it is not a pre-requisite to receiving the instrument rating. We are mostly taught to depend on forecasts and spend very little time during training on learning to properly identify cloud formations from actual pictures or live representations, and to understand what to expect within each type of cloud. How can you 'depend on forecasts' alone? They are a sketch of what someone thinks is *likely* to happen. They are not cast in concrete statements of what *will* happen everywhere in the given area. And even if they're right-on, for the most part, they can still miss very localized or short-term events. You can't rely on the forecasts alone. And, in any case, you need to know enough about weather to understand the forecasts so that you know how they might impact you. This implies a certain understanding of the characteristics of things like clouds. During VFR training, you learn to just stay away from them. And during IFR training, you get pounded about the extremes (CBs and Stratus clouds) but there is really inadequate training of the stuff in the middle - probably because the stuff in the middle varies so widely. If you know that you should stay the hell away from CBs, you should know to stay away from "big, dark, TCUs" as well. A big, dark, TCU, depending on how big and dark it is, for your intents and purposes, should be considered the same as a CB. A cloud doesn't just turn into a CB and becoume dangerous because now it's a CB; it becomes dangerous the bigger it gets. A big, dark TCU, should probably be considered as dangerous as a new CB. Can you accurately predict conditions inside of a towering CU unless you get inside of it? There are different conditions even within the same cloud that depend on many factors tat include pressure, elapsed time, wind speed, humidity levels, etc. So while one dark TCU may produce hail, rain, and ice, the next dark TCU might be fairly uneventful and produce some turbulence as you enter and exit and that's all. You don't need to know what a grizzly bear had for breakfast to know not to poke him with a stick. Respect him just 'cause he's a grizzly bear. 'Accuracy of predictions' is a red-herring, here. Accurate predictions of conditions inside a TCU are not required. Just know that if they're big and dark, they're probably nasty. If you wouldn't penetrate or fly in the vicinity of a CB, you should probably accord a 'big dark TCU' similar respect. I think most people are fairly ignorant of weather, even if we think we are experts. Otherwise the meteorologists would never be wrong, and the rest of us COULD just depend on the forecasts... I suggest that meteorologists are not absolutely wrong as much as you think. Or as much wrong as you think. But even so, this does not speak to ignorance of weather, nor or weather processes, but more to the difficulty in predicting very far into the future the behaviour of a largely chaotic system such as the atmosphere. Pilots do not need to be degreed meteorologists, but they do need to know enough to understand what meteorologists are telling them, and they do need to know the *basics* well enough to expect that flying into a 'big, dark TCU' is very likely a problem. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron McKinnon" wrote in
news:YL9be.1133064$8l.199556@pd7tw1no: snip How on earth could you be an Instrument rated Pilot, or even a non-instrument rated pilot for that matter, and be 'pretty ignorant of weather' ??? snip How can you 'depend on forecasts' alone? They are a sketch of what someone thinks is *likely* to happen. They are not cast in concrete statements of what *will* happen everywhere in the given area. And even if they're right-on, for the most part, they can still miss very localized or short-term events. You can't rely on the forecasts alone. And, in any case, you need to know enough about weather to understand the forecasts so that you know how they might impact you. This implies a certain understanding of the characteristics of things like clouds. snip You don't need to know what a grizzly bear had for breakfast to know not to poke him with a stick. Respect him just 'cause he's a grizzly bear. 'Accuracy of predictions' is a red-herring, here. Accurate predictions of conditions inside a TCU are not required. Just know that if they're big and dark, they're probably nasty. If you wouldn't penetrate or fly in the vicinity of a CB, you should probably accord a 'big dark TCU' similar respect. I think most people are fairly ignorant of weather, even if we think we are experts. Otherwise the meteorologists would never be wrong, and the rest of us COULD just depend on the forecasts... I suggest that meteorologists are not absolutely wrong as much as you think. Or as much wrong as you think. But even so, this does not speak to ignorance of weather, nor or weather processes, but more to the difficulty in predicting very far into the future the behaviour of a largely chaotic system such as the atmosphere. Pilots do not need to be degreed meteorologists, but they do need to know enough to understand what meteorologists are telling them, and they do need to know the *basics* well enough to expect that flying into a 'big, dark TCU' is very likely a problem. I don't disagree that pilots *should* not be ignorant of weather, and *should* not depend on forecasts alone, and *should* be taught to recognize CBs and TCUs and to stay away from them. However, the IFR training syllabus fails to make this a prerequisite for certification to fly a plane in IFR conditions, and as such many pilots *are* ignorant of weather, and *do* depend on forecasts alone, and *don't* recognize TCUs or CBs, because they have not flown near them during their training. A better example than your grizzly bear might be swimming and snorkeling. When you learn to swim, you don't learn much about the fish in the ocean - heck you may never even swim in the ocean during your training. So now you know how to swim, and you go snorkeling. Someone tells you that it is OK to pet most fish because even the sharks don't bite if they are not agitated. One day you find yourself petting a baracuda, because no told you how to recognize it, or to stay away from it, and just last week you pet a nurse shark without any problems and sharks are much scarier, right? I think too many IFR pilots are in that same boat - they don't even know how to recognize a CB or TCU because they've never been shown one (the instructor probably scrubbed the lesson because the forecast called for them) and they passed through the clouds just fine last time... What *is* and what *should* be are two very different things... |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Judah" wrote in message
. .. I don't disagree that pilots *should* not be ignorant of weather, and *should* not depend on forecasts alone, and *should* be taught to recognize CBs and TCUs and to stay away from them. However, the IFR training syllabus fails to make this a prerequisite for certification to fly a plane in IFR conditions, and as such many pilots *are* ignorant of weather, and *do* depend on forecasts alone, and *don't* recognize TCUs or CBs, because they have not flown near them during their training. A better example than your grizzly bear might be swimming and snorkeling. When you learn to swim, you don't learn much about the fish in the ocean - heck you may never even swim in the ocean during your training. So now you know how to swim, and you go snorkeling. Someone tells you that it is OK to pet most fish because even the sharks don't bite if they are not agitated. One day you find yourself petting a baracuda, because no told you how to recognize it, or to stay away from it, and just last week you pet a nurse shark without any problems and sharks are much scarier, right? I think too many IFR pilots are in that same boat - they don't even know how to recognize a CB or TCU because they've never been shown one (the instructor probably scrubbed the lesson because the forecast called for them) and they passed through the clouds just fine last time... What *is* and what *should* be are two very different things... I've heard this plaintive refrain several times in this thread - "No one taught me not to ", "It's not part of the training syllabus", "its not required for certification" ... It doesn't wash. It's a question of airmanship. Its a matter of responsibility. It's the difference between being a Pilot, or an airplane driver. The standards are minimums. The standard curriculum is only a starting point. And where your specific knowledge and training is not sufficient, sufficient intelligence, and 'common' sense should apply; you'll never be taught all the permutations and combinations, but you should be able to reasonably extrapolate from what you have already learned or experienced. (You should critically assess what you're told to do or not do in any event, and see if it make sense. And even then, if you've never seen a barracuda, or never been told to avoid them, seeing an unfamiliar fish where a quarter of its length consists of razor sharp teeth should reasonably give you pause (you do know about razor sharp teeth, don't you?). If you've been told not to fly into CBs, you ought to recognize that a big, dark, TCU might be just about as dangerous, and maybe you ought to avoid it, too.) As pilot you are responsible for having all the information reasonably available pertinent to your flight. This includes *basic* knowledge of meteorology. Your life depends upon it. The lives of your passengers depend upon it. CBs are the sharks and barracudas of the sky. You might get away with playing with them once or twice, but you can't expect it. What you can expect is that they'll chew you up and spit you out like so much bubble gum. A big, dark, TCU may well be on the verge of being a CB; the closer it gets to being a CB, the closer it gets to being as dangerous as a CB, but even if it's not as dangerous as a CB, it can still be dangerous. None of us know it all, and All of us make mistakes. We live (hopefully) and learn (hopefully). But in general it is no argument nor excuse that "No one told me!" As pilot , *you* are responsible. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Been following this thread and I'm unclear about something. Are
there *really* people out there who 1) have never seen a TCU/CB or 2) have never seen a tornado or 3) have never seen the films on television about these things? I learned about clouds and how they formed and about Tstorms in grade school science class. In particular, hail from Tstorms and how damaging it can be. And how fast the wind can whip a pencil thru 4inch lumber. Had great demonstrations! I've been on a number of commercial flights where the aircraft deviates to avoid those big, white, fluffy, gorgeous clouds (do love Ch9 on United. Just hate United). Which leads me to wonder *WHY* would anyone even consider flying thru CB or TCU? At least without a will and/or a deathwish. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Blanche wrote in news:1115530461.148407
@irys.nyx.net: Been following this thread and I'm unclear about something. Are there *really* people out there who 1) have never seen a TCU/CB or 2) have never seen a tornado or 3) have never seen the films on television about these things? I learned about clouds and how they formed and about Tstorms in grade school science class. In particular, hail from Tstorms and how damaging it can be. And how fast the wind can whip a pencil thru 4inch lumber. Had great demonstrations! I've been on a number of commercial flights where the aircraft deviates to avoid those big, white, fluffy, gorgeous clouds (do love Ch9 on United. Just hate United). Which leads me to wonder *WHY* would anyone even consider flying thru CB or TCU? At least without a will and/or a deathwish. You don't always see them. If they don't have visible lightning, they don't necessarily show up at night. Before getting our StrikeFinder, I got caught a few times. A wild ride at times. If you're in seemingly benign clouds, you may not know what lies ahead. Lynda and I had a memorable encounter while enroute to Parents' Day for our younger when he was in undergraduate school at Miami of Ohio. We had been IMC for quite a while, with a smooth ride, when it all came loose with no warning at all. The VSI was pegged in a vicious updraft. Slowed to Va, extended gear, told ATC that a block altitude was required RIGHT NOW. A Mooney in the vicinity was complaining about 2,000 ft per minute. We had more, but I don't know how much more, as the VSI was off scale. Ordered the StrikeFinder the next week. Have not had an encounter like that since the device was installed -- it gives plenty of warning. --L. R. Du Broff |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Blanche" wrote in message
... Been following this thread and I'm unclear about something. Are there *really* people out there who 1) have never seen a TCU/CB or 2) have never seen a tornado or 3) have never seen the films on television about these things? I learned about clouds and how they formed and about Tstorms in grade school science class. In particular, hail from Tstorms and how damaging it can be. And how fast the wind can whip a pencil thru 4inch lumber. Had great demonstrations! Theres a lot of weather short of big dark threatenly clouds with lighting inside and funnels below, that light planes can benefit from avoiding. Big puffy white Cu don't necessarily look threatening until you have penetrated a few or otherwise experienced them - no matter what you've been told. (I was fortunate enough to spend many hours in gliders among them - with a full understanding of the processes involved, I've never had to poke a big one to know what's in there) Remember the word 'embedded'. There are conditions that are pretty benign IMC that can transition to embedded cells. Without a strikefinder or nexrad or onboard radar or attentive controllers (or Cheap*******) you're flying among convective cells in the blind. Did that once, nothing was violently over the top but 'embedded' became firmly embedded in this skull. Study, research, hangar talk and whatever provide a lot of knowledge but it has to be mixed with some experience in order for one to apply weather knowledge effectively. The trick is dipping your toe without falling in - or least being able to swim out and fly another day. I've been on a number of commercial flights where the aircraft deviates to avoid those big, white, fluffy, gorgeous clouds (do love Ch9 on United. Just hate United). Which leads me to wonder *WHY* would anyone even consider flying thru CB or TCU? At least without a will and/or a deathwish. To get to the other side |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cumulus releases version 1.2.1 | André Somers | Soaring | 0 | March 2nd 05 09:58 PM |
Four States and the Grand Canyon | Mary Daniel or David Grah | Soaring | 6 | December 6th 04 10:36 AM |
[Announcement] Cumulus 1.1 released | André Somers | Soaring | 0 | January 24th 04 11:59 AM |
Blue Clouds | Mark Cherry | Simulators | 0 | September 21st 03 12:57 PM |
Across Nevada and Part Way Back (long) | Marry Daniel or David Grah | Soaring | 18 | July 30th 03 08:52 PM |