Stormscope

[carusoam]

Classic topic of tactical vs. strategic lightning/weather detection....

XM and ADSB are great for strategy with known and some unknown (to the viewer) delays...

Strike finders and other spherics devices are real time...

Piloto has brought a third device...  cellphone delivery of weather info...

It is nice to see the delivery time of weather info improving.  It is the assembly time that comes before that, has the unseen delay...

 

The East Coast has lightning strikes in full IMC with rain everywhere.  By the time you see the lightning strikes that come with the storm cells, you should have avoided them already...

 

So...

If you are trying to avoid cells imbedded in IMC...  Spherics is the ‘proven’ way to go...

 

When relying on ATC to give weather guidance...?  that can get manpower limited when the IMC is wide spread across a major portion of the country... typical of weather systems like hurricane season and tornado season that can last for more than a month....

 

PP thoughts only, not weatherman...

Best regards,

-a-

[ArtVandelay]

10 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

The airplane was doing about 150 kts at 9000'. I'm gonna guess that the gear was up. Down and locked is green, otherwise...

TJ, I guess we fly in different skies. About 10% of my PIC hours are IMC. The Stormscope is far better than my eyes.  

We do, in NC you can have benign clouds & precipitation with thunderstorms scattered around. In Florida (except during winter season) it’s sunny or baby cumulus, some grow up and some don’t, you can get thunderstorms popup and disappear. We are surrounded by water and the jet stream is north so the upper atmosphere is generally warm and humid. Only 1% of my PIC time is in IMC.

SS shows them when they’ve started to mature, but not when they are developing. I’ve flown through a few that didn’t show up on nexrad or SS, and didn’t like the ride, so I’ll pass. Since I’m retired I don’t have to fly if I don’t like the weather and have done so on numerous occasions, spending an extra day in hotel waiting for weather to clear or simply flying around it.

[LANCECASPER]

On 9/16/2018 at 4:52 AM, teejayevans said:

SS shows them when they’ve started to mature, but not when they are developing.

"The WX-500 maps all stages in the life of a thunderstorm so that you may avoid a thunderstorm that can build, mature, and dissipate in as little as 20 minutes"

https://www.l3aviationproducts.com/products/stormscope/

 

 

I had a Stormscope on an airplane that, for a few months, I didn't know how to use properly. Studying the manual and flying with an instructor that knows Stormscopes helped me to build my appreciation for what it can do. If I bought an airplane without one I would do what I could to get one installed, especially living in an area where T-storms are popular,

[ArtVandelay]

"The WX-500 maps all stages in the life of a thunderstorm so that you may avoid a thunderstorm that can build, mature, and dissipate in as little as 20 minutes"

Not in the early stage, when it’s still rising, I had a WX10, it had a lot of false positives and seem to only pick up visible lightning.
Their picture even shows anvil top for 1st stage?

[LANCECASPER]

17 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

Not in the early stage, when it’s still rising, I had a WX10, it had a lot of false positives and seem to only pick up visible lightning.
Their picture even shows anvil top for 1st stage?

I've never used a WX-10 so I wouldn't know about that one, but I've used the WX-950, WX-1000 and WX-500 and they all show the early building stages, long before visible lightning, just like the documentation shows. It measures the friction in the building cumulus and shows the charges on the screen, long before the storm reaches maturity.

 

But maybe we could get @JKeeth who works for the company to chime in.

 

[Marauder]

I've never used a WX-10 so I wouldn't know about that one, but I've used the WX-950, WX-1000 and WX-500 and they all show the early building stages, long before visible lightning, just like the documentation shows. It measures the friction in the building cumulus and shows the charges on the screen, long before the storm reaches maturity.

 

But maybe we could get [mention=14644]JKeeth[/mention] who works for the company to chime in.

 

 

A StormScope should pick up any convective activity before visible lightning is seen. Unfortunately my experience is you need to be fairly close to a storm in the brewing stage to see the strikes on the StormScope.

 

What I like about the later model StormScopes is the ability to display strikes and cells. Often in strike mode, I would get radial spread which made it difficult to pinpoint the origin of the lightning. Back in the days when I owned a WX-8, I used it to “stay away” from those segments that were indicating (all 3 ranges lighting up at the same time). With the cell mode on my WX-500, you can get a better idea of where the actual storm is. Coupled with FIS-B, you will get a good idea how far away the storm is.

 

Here is a picture of a storm where there is no lightning activity (as indicated by no lightning symbols and a 0 rate indicator circled). It was a pretty good rainstorm though.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Aerodon]

On 9/15/2018 at 8:17 AM, jazztheglass said:

I'm doing a panel upgrade (low budget) to my Cessna 340. The wx-500 stormscope is inop. I have analyzed the error messages and it points to the processor (box). I contacted L3 and it is $650 to bench test it and then $1800 to repair it regardless of the problem. That seems a little steep to me. I have seen complete systems for sale on ebay for $1000-$2500 and I was hoping to find a processor in that neighborhood price range. My hope is that now that the lightening strikes are available on foreflight and possibly xm in the future, the stormscope will be less necessary, and the demand will drive the price down. If I don't find one reasonably priced I will remove the bracket and antennae and wires, but it would be nice to have since it is set up to display it. Thanks for any leads or comments about stormscopes. I'm posting this on the POA and Twin Cessna sites as well.

 

Are you sure its both?  I thought is was $1800 to repair, or $650 if not repaired?    I have a new old stock processor for $2,450 for you, trade on your non working unit?

 

Don

 

[JKeeth]

16 hours ago, jazztheglass said:

Hi Jim-  it never worked-  I have a picture of the error codes somewhere- my avionics shop reviewed them and it and said it was the processor.  I called L3 myself on Friday afternoon.  They quoted me a bench test and a repair price.  I specifically asked the lady if both charges would be added and she said "yes."  If you have other information please let me know and thanks for replying.  I am looking for that error code photo- stand by

I'll confirm the bench fee and repair pricing this week, but I'm fairly certain the bench fee won't apply if it is determined that the processor requires repair. That's been our normal repair philosophy for quite a long time.

Regarding the picture of the processor, the only LED that is a concern is LED 7, and that LED will be on when the system is in a failed condition. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the processor is faulty. You could have a bad antenna or antenna cable, or it's possible the controlling display isn't configured properly for WX-500 operation. Do you have a picture of the Stormscope fault log from the controlling display? That would be very helpful for troubleshooting the system.

Jim

[jazztheglass]

I will  but right now my panel is disassembled for upgrade.  The avionics guy look at the displays on my avidyne and said it was the processor

[jaylw314]

On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 11:51 PM, carusoam said:

Strike finders and other spherical devices are real time...

Nitpicking, I know but it should be "sferical"  I assume autocorrect got to it!

[carusoam]

Mine must be globe shaped....  

Trying to get the details conveyed...  

Siri gets too helpful a few times per day....

Of those few, one inevitably gets by unnoticed.

The weirdness behind it... similar to distraction... working memory is a limited commodity.  The more the writer pays attention to all the important details, the harder it is to watch for Siri’s errant helpfulness....

Her spelling is generally better than mine.  It would be nice if she didn’t select completely different words....

 

Thanks for catching this sferics challenge...

So I looked it up...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_atmospheric

 

it turns out sferics and spherics are both acceptable spellings of the same word.

But Siri only likes sferics... spherics becomes automatically spelled into a completely different word/meaning.

Thanks again and best regards,

-a-

[Piloto]

One of the problems with VLF lightning detection like the Stormscope is the uncertainty of wether you are close to one or there  is simply a big one ahead past your destination. This causes to maneuver around needlessly.  Satellite lightning X-ray detection gives you pinpoint accuracy of the event so you do not have to make unnecessary turns to avoid the event. That is why I like the Garmin Pilot on my cellphone.  

José

[aviatoreb]

20 minutes ago, Piloto said:

One of the problems with VLF lightning detection like the Stormscope is the uncertainty of wether you are close to one or there  is simply a big one ahead past your destination. This causes to maneuver around needlessly.  Satellite lightning X-ray detection gives you pinpoint accuracy of the event so you do not have to make unnecessary turns to avoid the event. That is why I like the Garmin Pilot on my cellphone.  

José

Jose' my cell phone has spotty coverage already at say 6000 ft and also highly dependent on where I am geographically - more rural areas have more spotty coverage.  For example right near here, over the Adirondacks, there is almost no coverage at any altitude.  But ... weather still happens there - in fact more so - bad weather sometimes forms right over those mountains because of orographic lifting.  I just don't see how you can rely on cell coverage as your main source of weather.

[Piloto]

23 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Jose' my cell phone has spotty coverage already at say 6000 ft and also highly dependent on where I am geographically - more rural areas have more spotty coverage.  For example right near here, over the Adirondacks, there is almost no coverage at any altitude.  But ... weather still happens there - in fact more so - bad weather sometimes forms right over those mountains because of orographic lifting.  I just don't see how you can rely on cell coverage as your main source of weather.

 

23 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Jose' my cell phone has spotty coverage already at say 6000 ft and also highly dependent on where I am geographically - more rural areas have more spotty coverage.  For example right near here, over the Adirondacks, there is almost no coverage at any altitude.  But ... weather still happens there - in fact more so - bad weather sometimes forms right over those mountains because of orographic lifting.  I just don't see how you can rely on cell coverage as your main source of weather.

Try attaching your cell phone to your visor. The cell phone antenna needs to be in view of the horizon for better coverage.

José 

[Bob_Belville]

Jose' my cell phone has spotty coverage already at say 6000 ft and also highly dependent on where I am geographically - more rural areas have more spotty coverage.  For example right near here, over the Adirondacks, there is almost no coverage at any altitude.  But ... weather still happens there - in fact more so - bad weather sometimes forms right over those mountains because of orographic lifting.  I just don't see how you can rely on cell coverage as your main source of weather.

Jose’ and a few others have mentioned attenuation of the plotted strikes on the Stormscope screen as if that’s a problem. My experience, and I suppose the operator’s manual, explains that phenomenon... a hot storm with multiple strikes can fill the space representing the radial and range on the screen. When this occurs additional strikes are plotted along the radial inward toward the plane. Once that behavior is understood there should be no real ambiguity as to the location of the cell. When flying in stormy skies I hit the clear button frequently, new dots represent the real range. If there are no new dots... sweet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jaylw314]

55 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Jose' my cell phone has spotty coverage already at say 6000 ft and also highly dependent on where I am geographically - more rural areas have more spotty coverage.  For example right near here, over the Adirondacks, there is almost no coverage at any altitude.  But ... weather still happens there - in fact more so - bad weather sometimes forms right over those mountains because of orographic lifting.  I just don't see how you can rely on cell coverage as your main source of weather.

My carrier is Sprint, and I've noticed I only get reception below 3000-4000', even if I'm holding the phone up to the window over a urban area.  I suspect some cell phone towers are directional and are biased to horizontal transmission, but this may differ between carriers, frequencies, networks and towers.

[aviatoreb]

35 minutes ago, Piloto said:

 

Try attaching your cell phone to your visor. The cell phone antenna needs to be in view of the horizon for better coverage.

José 

There are no cell towers in the adirondacks.  You can't get cell in your car, or in the air.

And there is no cell reception at 12,000 or 14,000.

And when over a city I also get poor cell coverage as the cell phone seems to jump between towers to quickly.

Even when the phone is held up high.

[Piloto]

11 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

There are no cell towers in the adirondacks.  You can't get cell in your car, or in the air.

And there is no cell reception at 12,000 or 14,000.

And when over a city I also get poor cell coverage as the cell phone seems to jump between towers to quickly.

Even when the phone is held up high.

You can try a signal booster https://www.wilsonamplifiers.com/att-cell-phone-signal-boosters?msclkid=e93916b465121e3d61d84d1462120278&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=NB%3A USA Mobile Carriers&utm_term=cellular %2Bbooster %2Batt&utm_content=AT%26T 4G Amplifier#

They are common on planes flying over the Amazons and South America. Make sure the external antenna is on the belly of the plane.

José

[bob865]

11 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

There are no cell towers in the adirondacks.  You can't get cell in your car, or in the air.

And there is no cell reception at 12,000 or 14,000.

And when over a city I also get poor cell coverage as the cell phone seems to jump between towers to quickly.

Even when the phone is held up high.

Modern cells sites are only good for a radius of about 1.5-3 miles line of sight(making distance between towers about 6 miles depending on terrain).  Also keep in mind, the antennas used are very directional. A typical site has 3 sectors with antennas covering about 120 degrees of territory and are typically oriented downward (also depedent on terrain).  This is done so low power transcivers can be used and still reach those ranges. Think of it like ADS-B, unless you are very close to a tower, you aren't going to pick it up on the ground becuase the antennas care about users in the air, where a cell site is the opposite, they care about users on the ground.  Your worst site reception, not accounting for distance from the site, is directly over the tower.

[aviatoreb]

42 minutes ago, Piloto said:

You can try a signal booster https://www.wilsonamplifiers.com/att-cell-phone-signal-boosters?msclkid=e93916b465121e3d61d84d1462120278&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=NB%3A USA Mobile Carriers&utm_term=cellular %2Bbooster %2Batt&utm_content=AT%26T 4G Amplifier#

They are common on planes flying over the Amazons and South America. Make sure the external antenna is on the belly of the plane.

José

Will that really work?

[aviatoreb]

39 minutes ago, bob865 said:

Modern cells sites are only good for a radius of about 1.5-3 miles line of sight(making distance between towers about 6 miles depending on terrain).  Also keep in mind, the antennas used are very directional. A typical site has 3 sectors with antennas covering about 120 degrees of territory and are typically oriented downward (also depedent on terrain).  This is done so low power transcivers can be used and still reach those ranges. Think of it like ADS-B, unless you are very close to a tower, you aren't going to pick it up on the ground becuase the antennas care about users in the air, where a cell site is the opposite, they care about users on the ground.  Your worst site reception, not accounting for distance from the site, is directly over the tower.

I had guessed (but I do not know) that the reason I often cannot get cell reception even sometimes when flying over a relatively urban region at say 4k is that my phone is tower hopping.  OK this is Erik's theory of why I can't get cell service and don't take it as anything other than Im guessing:  It needs to do a handshake with a tower to say hey tower, here I am so Im talking with you.  When you are on the ground moving at car speeds this works.  When you are in the air, moving at airplane speeds, not only is your phone seeing like say 5 or 10 towers at once, its moving between their zones of influence too fast and so no one tower is keeping you on task for long.

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said:

Jose' my cell phone has spotty coverage already at say 6000 ft and also highly dependent on where I am geographically - more rural areas have more spotty coverage.  For example right near here, over the Adirondacks, there is almost no coverage at any altitude.  But ... weather still happens there - in fact more so - bad weather sometimes forms right over those mountains because of orographic lifting.  I just don't see how you can rely on cell coverage as your main source of weather.

Jose’ and a few others have mentioned attenuation of the plotted strikes on the Stormscope screen as if that’s a problem. My experience, and I suppose the operator’s manual, explains that phenomenon... a hot storm with multiple strikes can fill the space representing the radial and range on the screen. When this occurs additional strikes are plotted along the radial inward toward the plane. Once that behavior is understood there should be no real ambiguity as to the location of the cell. When flying in stormy skies I hit the clear button frequently, new dots represent the real range. If there are no new dots... sweet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s not hard to deal with this radio spread phenomenon. Just turn 20° and then note tge strikes moving off to the right side of the screen and then you’re fine. Between that and XM or ADSB weather it’s not hard to determine where the bad weather is. 

You can drone along for hours and hours in and out of rain or whatever but when you punch the side of a level III thunderstorm all hell breaks loose you will very quickly understand the value of the stormscope. I’ve done this plenty of times in jets and it really depends on what you fly through. One time we hit some stuff in a 747 we went up 1000 feet in about eight seconds. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by jetdriven

[jetdriven]

10 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I had guessed (but I do not know) that the reason I often cannot get cell reception even sometimes when flying over a relatively urban region at say 4k is that my phone is tower hopping.  OK this is Erik's theory of why I can't get cell service and don't take it as anything other than Im guessing:  It needs to do a handshake with a tower to say hey tower, here I am so Im talking with you.  When you are on the ground moving at car speeds this works.  When you are in the air, moving at airplane speeds, not only is your phone seeing like say 5 or 10 towers at once, its moving between their zones of influence too fast and so no one tower is keeping you on task for long.

Cell reception in a small airplane is not very reliable. I try and try and try to get weather data on my phone and occasionally I can. But usually not. Plus  I question the value of 20 minute old cloud to ground only lightning. 

[Piloto]

22 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Will that really work?

Yes, very popular on fringe areas. One limitation on cell phone TX power is the 0.5 watt limitation and an antenna enclosed by your hand and the airframe. Your typical VHF Com is 20 watts TX power with an external antenna. 

José

[Piloto]

    Cell phone coverage in the US https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage#heading-3