stormscope recommendation

[M016576]

Quote: jetdriven

A type rating only proves that you know the systems of a particular aircraft. You can buy those at Simcom......doesn't mean you know any more than anyone else offering their opinion. Don't be rude!

[PTK]

Quote: gregwatts

A type rating only proves that you know the systems of a particular aircraft. You can buy those at Simcom......doesn't mean you know any more than anyone else offering their opinion. Don't be rude!

[AndyFromCB]

Quote: M016576

To quote all smiles signature block:  some things are best left to professionals.  I firmly believe that hard IFR flight and thunderstorm penetration are two such things....  All the "toys" in the world won't keep you safe if you don't know how and *when* to use them.

Unfortunately, ive never met a pilot that says that they are "below average" in skill or decision making (much like drivers...).  Yet I promise half of us are....

[BorealOne]

Interesting thread. I'm in the multi-tool camp - I've got XM and a stormscope, and wish I had radar for a tactical picture when I'm too far North for XM reception. I try to understand them both and their strenghts and limitations. It's not a 'which is better' question -- it's a 'what's useful now' question.

ASF just put out an interesting webcast on the differences between cockpit weather systems and ATC radar pictures in both the terminal and enroute environments. Extremely instructive.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/webcasts/thunderstorm.html

[M016576]

Quote: astelmaszek

I'm an excelent driver and only buy my underwear at KMart ;-) But when it comes to piloting, I know I'm below average in skill so I try to make up for it in decision making. So when I start to state that "I'm too old for mental maps", you guys remind me that at that point I'm maybe too old for flying because as far as I am concerned, IFR, even with all the gizmos, is still a giant mental map. 

[aviatoreb]

Quote: M016576

As for thunderstorms: Scott Crossfield met the end of his career (and life) attempting to "tactically navigate" a thunderstorm in a light civil... And he was a lot more talented than I am. 

[M016576]

Quote: aviatoreb

I also think of his story whenever discussions like this come up.

 

Quote: M016576

...Oh and I don't use stormscopes enough to feel proficient with them, and I don't use xm wx to "tactically avoid" wx...   So color me in the below average pilot category as well if you want, but my methods fit in well with my risk management profile!!

 

Good advice told by a guy who really is hardly in the "average pilot category".  What is your day job again Job?  I shall continue to take the advice since I really am in the average pilot category and I know it.

 

 

 

 

[Piloto]

Back in the early 90s I did a lot of intentional weather penetration (in  CV-580 N580AS) for in-situ measurements for airborne weather testing and certification. These test were for the RDR-4 with 30" antennas. These tests were also correlated with ground radar sites and multilateration lightning sensors. My conclusion and of others is that lighning sensors only gives you a few pixels of the whole weather picture. Unlike radar or satellite were you can easily identify the boundary of the weather phenomena. Stormscope is a good tool for identifying the strength of the weather phenomena but in no way it can be used for the so called "tactical WX avoidance" (what ever that means). Prudent airline pilots just don't fly into tactical situations specially when carrying 200+ passengers. Most airline pilots stay away from weather at least 10nm or more. And many of these wx deviations are issued by the flight dispatcher via ACARS in coordination with ATC. Keep in mind that even for an RDR-4 radar with 300nm range on a 450kts plane the dispatcher can anticipate a deviation way in advance of what the pilot is going to see on his radar. Leave the "tactical" wx flying to those testing radars or the hurricane hunters and stay out of the weather by a good margin. Nothing worse than having your nice Mooney ding by hail.

José

[M016576]

Quote: Piloto

Back in the early 90s I did a lot of intentional weather penetration (in  CV-580 N580AS) for in-situ measurements for airborne weather testing and certification. These test were for the RDR-4 with 30" antennas. These tests were also correlated with ground radar sites and multilateration lightning sensors. My conclusion and of others is that lighning sensors only gives you a few pixels of the whole weather picture. Unlike radar or satellite were you can easily identify the boundary of the weather phenomena. Stormscope is a good tool for identifying the strength of the weather phenomena but in no way it can be used for the so called "tactical WX avoidance" (what ever that means). Prudent airline pilots just don't fly into tactical situations specially when carrying 200+ passengers. Most airline pilots stay away from weather at least 10nm or more. And many of these wx deviations are issued by the flight dispatcher via ACARS in coordination with ATC. Keep in mind that even for an RDR-4 radar with 300nm range on a 450kts plane the dispatcher can anticipate a deviation way in advance of what the pilot is going to see on his radar. Leave the "tactical" wx flying to those testing radars or the hurricane hunters and stay out of the weather by a good margin. Nothing worse than having your nice Mooney ding by hail.

José