More practical IFR advice

[RobertE]

You've all been really helpful on my question regarding the wisdom of penetrating a cell that is just a few thousand feet higher than surrounding cumulous clouds.  May I ask another, that is somewhat related?

 

I've got Nexrad via Sirius-XM in the cockpit and a stormscope that needs a new power supply and, so, is intermittant.  I'll get it fixed soon.  I'm aware that only the stormscope provides the sort of tactical picture one needs to skirt the cells.  My question concerns the wisdom of even that.

 

Since Nexrad provides radar (but is delayed) and the stormscope provides real time info but only for those clouds that are producing sparks, what protection does the combo provide against thunderstorms that are building rapidly but not yet producing lightning??  How does one protect against flying into a thunderstorm that is in the building phase?  Nexrad will show it, but in the wrong position, and the stormscope will show no activity.

 

Thanks. 

[AndyFromCB]

You've all been really helpful on my question regarding the wisdom of penetrating a cell that is just a few thousand feet higher than surrounding cumulous clouds.  May I ask another, that is somewhat related?

 

I've got Nexrad via Sirius-XM in the cockpit and a stormscope that needs a new power supply and, so, is intermittant.  I'll get it fixed soon.  I'm aware that only the stormscope provides the sort of tactical picture one needs to skirt the cells.  My question concerns the wisdom of even that.

 

Since Nexrad provides radar (but is delayed) and the stormscope provides real time info but only for those clouds that are producing sparks, what protection does the combo provide against thunderstorms that are building rapidly but not yet producing lightning??  How does one protect against flying into a thunderstorm that is in the building phase?  Nexrad will show it, but in the wrong position, and the stormscope will show no activity.

 

Thanks. 

 

Actually, a building thunderstorm will readily show up on stormscope but not yet on nexrad, in any spot, right/wrong or otherwise. All that NEXRAD shows is rain. A building thunderstorm will have a lot of static discharge for stormscope to pick up but not much if any base reflectivity and possibly not much composite reflectivity either. 

 

As to skirting cells with stormscope, not a really wise idea. While the direction of the cell is pretty dead on, the distance is a wild guess. Eyeballs go a long way...

[John Pleisse]

Your eyes. You should never be IMC anywhere near convective activity without radar.....good radar.....not a 40 year old Weather Scout. Both Nexrad and Spherics are to confirm, see and avoid. They are for defensive weather avoidance, not tactical penetration.

[WardHolbrook]

Your eyes. You should never be IMC anywhere near convective activity without radar.....good radar.....not a 40 year old Weather Scout. Both Nexrad and Spherics are to confirm see and avoid.

It's not enough to have weather radar on board, you've got to know how to interpret what you're looking at. Attenuation can kill you.

[John Pleisse]

Of course Ward. And the first stop on that train is equipment not found in Mooneys.

[Marauder]

It's not enough to have weather radar on board, you've got to know how to interpret what you're looking at. Attenuation can kill you.

 

Sorry Ward, Ran out of "likes" for today. I sat through a class on radar techniques (I actually think I was supposed to attend the session next door on how to pinch a penny ). It was amazing to see how easy a poorly trained user can be fooled into believing something wasn't there. There are a number good videos out there on these techniques. If a reasonable, fully functional onboard radar option was for Mooneys, I would be standing in line to buy it.

 

With the tools we do have, as John points out, I don't want to be anywhere near IMC in convective weather. Under or over... Stormscopes are also an interesting tool. You can pick up development as astelmaszek mentions. But also on some of the older ones you can pick radial spread which can be just as confusing unless you are clearing, refreshing and understanding what you are seeing.

[John Pleisse]

I was on a 737 flight recently, with the crew trying to pick their way through a front. They would hold their altitude...then climb...and level off again. Just before they would enter IMC near a cell, they would level off, make several shallow turns, lowering and raising the nose multiple times. Obviously, to paint a full radar pix and avoid attenuation. 

[WardHolbrook]

Sorry Ward, Ran out of "likes" for today. I sat through a class on radar techniques (I actually think I was supposed to attend the session next door on how to pinch a penny ). It was amazing to see how easy a poorly trained user can be fooled into believing something wasn't there. There are a number good videos out there on these techniques. If a reasonable, fully functional onboard radar option was for Mooneys, I would be standing in line to buy it.

 

With the tools we do have, as John points out, I don't want to be anywhere near IMC in convective weather. Under or over... Stormscopes are also an interesting tool. You can pick up development as astelmaszek mentions. But also on some of the older ones you can pick radial spread which can be just as confusing unless you are clearing, refreshing and understanding what you are seeing.

I absolutely agree. The problems arise when guys try to use XM weather as if it were airborne weather radar. It seems that every year we get to read NTSB accident reports about folks who make that mistake. 

[AndyFromCB]

I was on a 737 flight recently, with the crew trying to pick their way through a front. They would hold their altitude...then climb...and level off again. Just before they would enter IMC near a cell, they would level off, make several shallow turns, lowering and raising the nose multiple times. Obviously, to paint a full radar pix and avoid attenuation. 

 

I'm highly doubtful that was the case. That giant 40 inch antenna upfront tills up and down, left and right pretty well. And no amount of turning will do anything to help with attenuation. Most software code that runs modern radar detects and portrays attenuation pretty well, however, I don't understand how any amount of tilting is going to allow you to paint a picture past where all the energy is already reflected due the severity of the return.

[donkaye]

Referencing the Stormscope:  A building storm will produce an ever increasing number of cells on the scope.  You will start clearing the screen often.  Looking towards the position of the cells, it will be obvious what is happening.  Even if it was possible to put a 40" dish on our airplanes, I wouldn't consider it, as the turbulence picking your way through such a storm would prevent any passengers dumb enough to have flown with you to ever fly with you again.

 

The initial questioner must not have experienced the type of turbulence I'm talking about, or he wouldn' t be asking the question.  Flying weather in our airplanes is just nothing to be fooled with.  I kid you not when I say I have been in it where the instrument panel was out of focus due to the eye balls bouncing around so much--and that was on a short 48 mile flight.

 

The only way to fly convective weather in our planes is to: 1. primarily look outside. 2. correlate the stormscope data with the XM or FIS-B data  3. give a wide berth (at least 30 miles) to convective buildups. and 4. land the FIRST time you ask yourself the question, "should I go on?".

[Bob - S50]

It's not enough to have weather radar on board, you've got to know how to interpret what you're looking at. Attenuation can kill you.

 

And like it  has been said, only liquid water shows up; not hail not snow not vapor.

 

I've also seen TRW's with tops over 40,000' that did not show up on our radar at 35000' because there was no moisture in it at that altitude.  Sure wouldn't want to go in it though.

 

"A peek is worth a thousand radar sweeps." (unknown wise aviator)

 

In the Mooney, my philosophy is that if I need avionics to pick my way around buildups I shouldn't be flying.  Change my route to go around it, or put it on the ground, wait for the weather to move or dissipate, then continue.  One of the advantages of a light airplane is that there are lots of airports we can land at.  Better to get there late than not at all.

 

It only takes one bad choice to be your last choice.

 

Bob

[John Pleisse]

I'm highly doubtful that was the case. That giant 40 inch antenna upfront tills up and down, left and right pretty well. And no amount of turning will do anything to help with attenuation. Most software code that runs modern radar detects and portrays attenuation pretty well, however, I don't understand how any amount of tilting is going to allow you to paint a picture past where all the energy is already reflected due the severity of the return.

 

Well then....what were they doing?

[Marauder]

Well then....what were they doing?

They were typing responses to MooneySpace threads...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Piloto]

I have a WX-10 Stormscope and found a trick to determine range. The range setting works more like a threshold setting rather than a scale setting. I you have it set to 200nm any dots that show on the screen could be anywhere between 20nm to 200nm. But if you have it set to 25nm it will only show dots for weather closer than 25nm. While en route I set it to 200nm, when I see dots I start down scaling to determine at what range the dots do not show up. This helps me on planning deviation around weather. Before finding this I used to deviate to early based on the longer range setting. Or deviating for weather that was actually beyond my destination. I found the above by correlating the dots in the range settings to XMWX. I also use XM\WX but when I am outside of its coverage like in the Caribbean Stormscope and my Samsung are the only options.

 

José       

[carqwik]

As a newbie, simply don't fly into anything that shows returns on the stormscope within 50 miles or so or any area on Nexrad with reds and yellows...start with easier IMC before tackling more difficult stuff.  Over time, you'll begin to understand how the weather translates onto the Stormscope and Nexrad...and how to use these tools as avoidance measures, not as a way to challenge Mother Nature. 

[N9201A]

Referencing the Stormscope:  A building storm will produce an ever increasing number of cells on the scope.  You will start clearing the screen often.  Looking towards the position of the cells, it will be obvious what is happening.  Even if it was possible to put a 40" dish on our airplanes, I wouldn't consider it, as the turbulence picking your way through such a storm would prevent any passengers dumb enough to have flown with you to ever fly with you again.

 

The initial questioner must not have experienced the type of turbulence I'm talking about, or he wouldn' t be asking the question.  Flying weather in our airplanes is just nothing to be fooled with.  I kid you not when I say I have been in it where the instrument panel was out of focus due to the eye balls bouncing around so much--and that was on a short 48 mile flight.

 

The only way to fly convective weather in our planes is to: 1. primarily look outside. 2. correlate the stormscope data with the XM or FIS-B data  3. give a wide berth (at least 30 miles) to convective buildups. and 4. land the FIRST time you ask yourself the question, "should I go on?".

 

+1

 

Right on Prof!

 

There is no reason to be pushing on in our airplanes in these conditions...how many more NTSB reports do we have to see before the collective GA Mooney consciousness realizes it is usually not a good idea to be "penetrating a cell"?  

[Danb]

Don, agreed..it seems as though I utilize the NEXRAD more from trend analysis to ascertain a plan. Also use ATC as much as practical listen to other frequencies that may offer a tidbit of advice, don't get lulled into going into a certain direction because the last couple pilots assumed that route. Flight watch and others are valuable tools, that's all we have are tools try to use them wisely, hard rain will clean your plane nicely but updrafts and down so are harmful. Experience is your best source take it learn from it and make decisions to make your flight a delight. DO not go if any doubts drive or cancel be wise. Have fun Good Luck!

[Ron McBride]

I prefer to stay a long ways away from Thunderstorms, Clouds with big rocks in them. Clouds with Ice in them.

 

I am a VFR pilot, with an instrument ticket, over 40 years experience.  Am I conservative, hell yes.

 

"There are old pilots, there are bold pilots, There are NO old bold pilots."      

 

Fly Safe

 

Ron

[Joe Zuffoletto]

For me it's all about what I can see, even though I have NexRad on board. If I can't pick my way around buildups visually, or get above or below them, then I turn around. More than once I've flown into an innocent-looking white puffy buildup that didn't show up on NexRad, only to get my salad tossed or my plane instantly glazed over like a jelly donut. Just last week I was returning from the West Coast and was able to visually slalom through a bunch of buildups between the Continental Divide and the Front Range. NexRad showed nothing. It was kind of fun, but still turbulent enough outside the clouds that I would have hated to go into them, even though there was no precip yet.

[WardHolbrook]

Sorry Ward, Ran out of "likes" for today. I sat through a class on radar techniques (I actually think I was supposed to attend the session next door on how to pinch a penny ). It was amazing to see how easy a poorly trained user can be fooled into believing something wasn't there. There are a number good videos out there on these techniques. If a reasonable, fully functional onboard radar option was for Mooneys, I would be standing in line to buy it.

 

With the tools we do have, as John points out, I don't want to be anywhere near IMC in convective weather. Under or over... Stormscopes are also an interesting tool. You can pick up development as astelmaszek mentions. But also on some of the older ones you can pick radial spread which can be just as confusing unless you are clearing, refreshing and understanding what you are seeing.

My experience in dealing with convective weather wasn’t all gained in jets by any means. However, my technique doesn't vary with the type of equipment I happen to be flying. As I have said previously, personally I use the Stormscope to determine if the area is safe to transit (NO Discharges showing on the display) and then some sort of weather radar to circumnavigate the area. The reason being is that while it's good at detecting areas of convective turbulence, a Stormscope lacks the close-in resolution to be able to pick your way safely through it. When it comes to tackling weather like this, whether you’re IFR in a jet or VFR in a light single you DO have to be able to see it - however, you can see it using on board avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes. That is where the Stormscope / Radar combination comes into play.

You need to remember this about weather radar (airborne and ground based) - essentially all it can show you is dirt and water. If all you're seeing is dirt then you've got the tilt set too low. As for water, the assumption is made that where there's atmospheric water (rain) that's being displayed it is accompanied by turbulence. In other words, if you've got precipitation you've got turbulence and that's not always true. The spherics detectors (Stormscopes) detect electrical discharges in the atmosphere generated by turbulence - a much more reliable way to detect it. Some of the ground based dopler radars that we can receive in the cockpit are very capable at detecting turbulence, the only problem there is that by the time you actually get the updated information into the cockpit it can become "stale". Refresh rates are problematic.

Bottom line for me is this...

1. Any time you screw around with convective turbulence you've got to be visual. However, you can see it with your avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes. The operative words are SEE and AVOID.

2. Red/magenta returns whether or not associated with turbulence (as indicated by the stormscope) are always too much. Anything less, when accompanied with a "clear" Stormscope display is a just free airplane power wash. Precipitation on the radar and no "dots" on the stormscope = smooth, but wet ride. No precipitation on the radar and dots on the stormscope = bumps, you don't want to be there. Precipitation on the radar and dots on the stormscope = big bumps and you really don't want to be there.

3. I'll take a stormscope and on board wx radar as my first choice any day. If on board wx radar isn't an option then XM radar can be a workable substitute, BUT you have to know and respect its limitations.

4. XM weather by itself is not a substitute for the stormscope / radar combination, but it's better than nothing.

[Hondo]

Ward, you said "Any time you screw around with convective turbulence you've got to be visual. However, you can see it with your avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes."

 

I couldn't agree more with the you've got to see it with your own two eyes part, but I'm afraid to trust Nextrad or Spherics to see and avoid thunderstorms, except strategically or at long range. Aside from see and avoid, I've heard stuff like don't try to out climb them, don't fly under the anvil, don't land or takeoff with a storm near the airport, don't fly under them unless they have a high base, don't enter clouds containing embedded storms and so on.  A level 2 can go to a level 5 in eight minutes, which is faster than Nextrad updates. Would you feel safe with the Stormscope without radar?  

 

How did you learn to trust your avionics when embedded?  

Have your avionics ever failed to provide adequate warning?

[cliffy]

Ward knows what he's talking about.

In Boeings I taught the 10-20-30- mile rule on thunderstorms. If it was a red cell, 10 miles is too close, twenty about right, 30 probably too wide. It worked for 40 years. Went to Archie Trammel's Radar school many, many years ago. He was the best there was. Radar can lie unless you know how to work it. Flew TB700 with only Stormscope but gave all clusters WIDE berth.

If you have a Stormscope, you need to know how to work it, combined with XM you can avoid the bad stuff but do you really want to be out there in that stuff in our Mooneys?

Even with active Radar (I love active radar on board) we always avoided by a wide margin.

I like visual outside in my Mooney. I've done lots of dodging and weaving in visual conditions. Still do but I don't want imbedded cells in solid IFR conditions.

But then again, I've had all the challenges I ever want. I've been to the edge a couple of times and don't ever want to go there again and I caution all whom I know that they really don't want to see the edge either. It ain't worth it!

My rule today? In the summer time, if I wait 24 hrs chances are 95% I'll have clear skies. It just ain't worth it! Thunder storms will kill you! There's no second chance if you screw up!

My caution to all new pilots I help train?

You're not safe unless you've been tempered and you're not tempered until you've done something in an airplane that scared the living crap out of you and YOU know you were the one who did it! It gives you a whole new perspective on flying.

Just this last month we had two 500 hr pilots crash near/at our airport. In one they all walked away, in the other two died. All related to inexperience and being in weather conditions they were not capable of handling.

As they used to say on "Hill Street Blues" - "You all be careful out there"

[WardHolbrook]

Ward knows what he's talking about.

In Boeings I taught the 10-20-30- mile rule on thunderstorms. If it was a red cell, 10 miles is too close, twenty about right, 30 probably too wide. It worked for 40 years. Went to Archie Trammel's Radar school many, many years ago. He was the best there was. Radar can lie unless you know how to work it. Flew TB700 with only Stormscope but gave all clusters WIDE berth.

If you have a Stormscope, you need to know how to work it, combined with XM you can avoid the bad stuff but do you really want to be out there in that stuff in our Mooneys?

Even with active Radar (I love active radar on board) we always avoided by a wide margin.

I like visual outside in my Mooney. I've done lots of dodging and weaving in visual conditions. Still do but I don't want imbedded cells in solid IFR conditions.

But then again, I've had all the challenges I ever want. I've been to the edge a couple of times and don't ever want to go there again and I caution all whom I know that they really don't want to see the edge either. It ain't worth it!

My rule today? In the summer time, if I wait 24 hrs chances are 95% I'll have clear skies. It just ain't worth it! Thunder storms will kill you! There's no second chance if you screw up!

My caution to all new pilots I help train?

You're not safe unless you've been tempered and you're not tempered until you've done something in an airplane that scared the living crap out of you and YOU know you were the one who did it! It gives you a whole new perspective on flying.

Just this last month we had two 500 hr pilots crash near/at our airport. In one they all walked away, in the other two died. All related to inexperience and being in weather conditions they were not capable of handling.

As they used to say on "Hill Street Blues" - "You all be careful out there"

I'll add one more thing...

 

You need to consider the ENTIRE cell to be the color of the highest return. In other words, if a cell is painting green and yellow, then that entire cell should be considered yellow. Like wise, it any part of an individual cell is painting red or magenta, then that entire cell should be considered red or magenta. One mistake you don't want to make it to think that you can sneak through the green part of a red cell. That's likely to cause more "excitement" that you'd want to have in one afternoon. 

 

Over the years I've attended quite a few radar training courses given by United Airlines, FlightSafety and 3 or 4 of Archie Trammell's courses back in the day and they were all very good. However, the best one I ever attended was sponsored by Honeywell and given by Capt. Dave Guinn. I know that not many Mooneys have the useless RCA radar installed, but there may be some guys here who will eventually upgrade to something with weather radar installed. My advice to you is to get yourself in a good training course. Until you've attended one you're safer not even turning the bloody thing on.   

[WardHolbrook]

Ward, you said "Any time you screw around with convective turbulence you've got to be visual. However, you can see it with your avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes."

 

I couldn't agree more with the you've got to see it with your own two eyes part, but I'm afraid to trust Nextrad or Spherics to see and avoid thunderstorms, except strategically or at long range. Aside from see and avoid, I've heard stuff like don't try to out climb them, don't fly under the anvil, don't land or takeoff with a storm near the airport, don't fly under them unless they have a high base, don't enter clouds containing embedded storms and so on.  A level 2 can go to a level 5 in eight minutes, which is faster than Nextrad updates. Would you feel safe with the Stormscope without radar?  

 

How did you learn to trust your avionics when embedded?  

Have your avionics ever failed to provide adequate warning?

I agree with your hesitancy to use Nexrad or a Spherics detector for anything except making strategic decisions. The problem with Nexrad is the refresh rate. When things are booming the information can be too old to be used for anything other than provide confirmation of convective activity in the general area. The problem with a Spherics detector is that they lack close-in resolution. In the Falcon 900 that I fly for work, we've got all three - dual Spherics detection systems, Weather Radar and XM Weather. As I said in an earlier post, I use the XM Radar for long range planning. It's ideal for that. When we're flying non-stop, coast to coast, it's nice to have a source of current information on any lines of weather that we'll be dealing with 1000+ miles downrange. Closer in, the Spherics detectors allow us to easily determine which areas of precipitation merit our undivided interest and which do not. Finally, the airborne weather radar allows us to easily avoid those areas of precipitation that have turbulence associated with them.

 

The problem with using just a Stormscope is I've seen plenty of areas of extreme precipitation that did not have any associated turbulence, but I want to avoid those areas as well. Without airborne radar, how would you know that? If you say - "with nextrad" all I would say is that you're a braver man than I am. Of course, there are days when the refresh rates and the life cycle rates of the cells make for adequate info in the cockpit, but what about those other days? How do you know if you're good or not?

 

Personally, with just Spherics and/or Nextrad, I've got to be able to lay eyeballs on any cells. That implies DAY VMC. (How can you avoid something by 20 miles without 20 miles of visibility?) With airborne wx radar my personal options open up dramatically. (Day/Night, IMC/VMC) As far as recommendations on how to fly weather, I'm going to refer you to the book "Weather Flying" by Capt Robert Buck.  

[Marauder]

Met a guy from Ashville, NC on Friday ... He had flown his plane to our little airport for a visit. He had radar on his 1982 C182RG. The term "Impressed" doesn't describe my reaction. He was showing me his new primary instrument monitor ... It wasn't JPI ... it was Electronics Instruments or something like that? Very nice. Very nice

Thunderstorms: Take the long way around, upwind if you can. Most people learn by messing something up! Usually we mess it up two or three times before we learn. That's normal humanity. It only took this simpleton ONCE to learn not to get too close to thunderstorms!

I can seriously use and interpret a radar. The 737NG radar is one if the best I have used. The newer ones have gotten even better than the first ones we got in 737s ten years ago. They now have a very good "auto tilt" and can predict if you will top a cell. ( I don't trust that exclusively) but I still try to tilt up and down and paint the ground through cells on the way down.

We shot this gap into Orlando International (KMCO) less than a year ago ... smooth all the way through ...

(Adding pics from my iPhone momentarily ... Zoom the last window pic you can see 18L & 18R can't figure why some post inverted? Sorry ...){style_image_url}/attachicon.gif image.jpg{style_image_url}/attachicon.gif image.jpg{style_image_url}/attachicon.gif image.jpg

I think your pictures are upside down as proof as to what will happen if you get too close to a thunderstorm.