Weather strategy - biggest daily threat?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather strategy - biggest daily threat?
Weather avoidance is something that has always fascinated me, partly because I am a rather bi-polar plane lover who can almost break into a panic attack if things get shakey, and partly from a lifelong interest in meteorology. As I live in the tropics, it also seems that weather is the single biggest 'risk' factor that almost every flight has to deal with. While everything else might behave rouinely, thunderstorms are always a possibility.
This came to mind because I seem to read so many different mentalities regarding avoidance, and in the 787 engine icing thread someone mentioned always satying 100NM away from ITCZ weather, which seems a lot. So I remain unclear what is proper. Some pilots categorically say, 'never go anywhere near', others say sometimes they have to fly into stuff they'd 'rather not'. What does that mean? Personally I'd prefer the pilot stayed as far away as possible/he deems prudent because any turbulence does cause a lot of fear at the back, and I feel if you're transporting passengers you shouldn't enter areas you're not comfortable with, no-one is paying to take risks.
So I'd be interested and grateful to hear your general strategies? And how much are you considering the commercial side i.e. do you fly in areas you'd rather not if the deviation would be 'too far'? And what is too far? I'm inclined to think the pilot should be free to take all avoidance he deems necessary. Do you feel some colleagues are 'too brave'?
I also occasionally read here about poor radar technique being common, but I reassure myself it can't be that bad or we'd be seeing a lot of incidents in SE Asia with the number of flights dodging around the monsters down there! Seems those guys do a pretty stellar job, I'm based in Colombia and hats off to the guys here and in Bolivia, with the weather, terrain, and more rustic airfields they deal with day in day out.
This came to mind because I seem to read so many different mentalities regarding avoidance, and in the 787 engine icing thread someone mentioned always satying 100NM away from ITCZ weather, which seems a lot. So I remain unclear what is proper. Some pilots categorically say, 'never go anywhere near', others say sometimes they have to fly into stuff they'd 'rather not'. What does that mean? Personally I'd prefer the pilot stayed as far away as possible/he deems prudent because any turbulence does cause a lot of fear at the back, and I feel if you're transporting passengers you shouldn't enter areas you're not comfortable with, no-one is paying to take risks.
So I'd be interested and grateful to hear your general strategies? And how much are you considering the commercial side i.e. do you fly in areas you'd rather not if the deviation would be 'too far'? And what is too far? I'm inclined to think the pilot should be free to take all avoidance he deems necessary. Do you feel some colleagues are 'too brave'?
I also occasionally read here about poor radar technique being common, but I reassure myself it can't be that bad or we'd be seeing a lot of incidents in SE Asia with the number of flights dodging around the monsters down there! Seems those guys do a pretty stellar job, I'm based in Colombia and hats off to the guys here and in Bolivia, with the weather, terrain, and more rustic airfields they deal with day in day out.
Last edited by neila83; 10th May 2016 at 19:01.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather combined with experienced and well-trained pilots rarely causes an accident.
Weather combined in inexperienced and/or poorly-trained pilots has and still does cause fatal accidents.
AF447 is a classic example. The recent crash in Russia may be another, but the cause is not yet conclusive.
Weather radars improve with technology. Unfortunately, pilots seem to be going in the opposite direction due mainly to commercial pressure causing a race to the bottom in terms of the attractiveness of the pilot profession - longer hours, more fatigue, and lowering pay and conditions.
Flying with an airline that invests in and looks after it's pilots may actually be safer. Yes really!
Weather combined in inexperienced and/or poorly-trained pilots has and still does cause fatal accidents.
AF447 is a classic example. The recent crash in Russia may be another, but the cause is not yet conclusive.
Weather radars improve with technology. Unfortunately, pilots seem to be going in the opposite direction due mainly to commercial pressure causing a race to the bottom in terms of the attractiveness of the pilot profession - longer hours, more fatigue, and lowering pay and conditions.
Flying with an airline that invests in and looks after it's pilots may actually be safer. Yes really!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the ITCZ can extend for hundreds of miles it might not be possible to fly around it, even if you wanted to. Therefore, you have to work out how to get through it. I've not been that far south but my strategy when I have to punch through a wall of CBs is to is to look for the tops and go inbetween. Before entry I'll confirm that the way looks good on the radar. But to get a reasonable picture you may have to manouevre the aircraft so you are perpendicular to the line. I try to use the same strategy at night but it can take a little longer.
PM
PM
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM - the trouble comes at night: Can't see the tops out the window and lightning is not always a sign of the most severe area of a storm (if present at all).
Rely on the WXR? Seems to cause issues for a lot of crews nowadays..
Rely on the WXR? Seems to cause issues for a lot of crews nowadays..
One of the best by-products of "enhance vision" (IR cameras) is the ability at night to see clouds and pick out heavy, cold rain. It has a very narrow FOV, about 20 degrees, but EVS helps a lot. Even those cold clouds tops without rain and won't paint on WXR show up.
GF
GF
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nem: I don't think I mentioned lightning. And I agree, lightning is not the best indicator of the most active regions on a cloud. But the weather radar I use certainly appears up to the job in my part if the world. Flying in the ITCZ may produce situations where this radar is not up to the job, but as I said I haven't been there.
PM
PM
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM: Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you'd use lightning as an indicator - it was more of a general observation.
Regarding weather radar: You are obviously using it correctly, but many - especially those coming to flying now - don't seem so proficient with it. I've encountered quite a few who don't realise that ice (cloud tops) won't show up and also a lot who don't understand how to manually manipulate it; they just leave it on auto the entire time.
It becomes very difficult to avoid the bad weather if one doesn't even know it's there.
Regarding weather radar: You are obviously using it correctly, but many - especially those coming to flying now - don't seem so proficient with it. I've encountered quite a few who don't realise that ice (cloud tops) won't show up and also a lot who don't understand how to manually manipulate it; they just leave it on auto the entire time.
It becomes very difficult to avoid the bad weather if one doesn't even know it's there.
To the OP:
Modern aircraft are very strong and have much better weather radars these days. Pilots don't like turbulence either - it is uncomfortable for us too and it spills our coffee - so we will do all we can to avoid it or get away from it. CBs are potentially very dangerous and we keep at least 20nm upwind of them and avoid flying over big ones, or under them.
100nm might sound a lot, but is not that far in big jet terms - it is only about 12 mins flying time at cruising levels. Turbulence can be felt 100nm downwind of a big CB.
Decent crews and decent airlines will take account of actual and possible weather on their route and will take extra fuel to allow for the extra flying miles of CB avoidance. So I would echo what derfred says; chose an established airline with good standards and a good track record, NOT the one offering the cheapest tickets.
Modern aircraft are very strong and have much better weather radars these days. Pilots don't like turbulence either - it is uncomfortable for us too and it spills our coffee - so we will do all we can to avoid it or get away from it. CBs are potentially very dangerous and we keep at least 20nm upwind of them and avoid flying over big ones, or under them.
100nm might sound a lot, but is not that far in big jet terms - it is only about 12 mins flying time at cruising levels. Turbulence can be felt 100nm downwind of a big CB.
Decent crews and decent airlines will take account of actual and possible weather on their route and will take extra fuel to allow for the extra flying miles of CB avoidance. So I would echo what derfred says; chose an established airline with good standards and a good track record, NOT the one offering the cheapest tickets.
I’d love to see someone trying to stay 100nm from CBs in an active part of the ITCZ. Much of the time you’d have to turn around and go back. Hell, 20nm is often exceedingly difficult.
I expend a lot of mental effort, along with the other pilot, trying to optimise routes through bad weather areas. A substantial deviation early doesn’t add nearly so much time and distance as a smaller one close in. Day VMC is much easier than night IMC: although I religiously avoid anything that looks threatening during the day, I’m sure I’ve sailed straight through stuff in the night which I’d have given a very wide berth to otherwise, simply because it doesn’t show up to the weather radar or eyeball.
We’ve also got “ice crystal icing” to think about as well as the normal stuff. Just when you’re congratulating yourself on a nice bit of weaving that kept you out of trouble, the windscreen lights up with St. Elmo’s.
As Uplinker says, aircraft are strong and it is almost unheard of for an aircraft to be lost because of structural failure due turbulence. It seems to be unsuccessful attempts to recover from a far-flung corner of the flight envelope that does for them these days...
I expend a lot of mental effort, along with the other pilot, trying to optimise routes through bad weather areas. A substantial deviation early doesn’t add nearly so much time and distance as a smaller one close in. Day VMC is much easier than night IMC: although I religiously avoid anything that looks threatening during the day, I’m sure I’ve sailed straight through stuff in the night which I’d have given a very wide berth to otherwise, simply because it doesn’t show up to the weather radar or eyeball.
We’ve also got “ice crystal icing” to think about as well as the normal stuff. Just when you’re congratulating yourself on a nice bit of weaving that kept you out of trouble, the windscreen lights up with St. Elmo’s.
As Uplinker says, aircraft are strong and it is almost unheard of for an aircraft to be lost because of structural failure due turbulence. It seems to be unsuccessful attempts to recover from a far-flung corner of the flight envelope that does for them these days...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys thanks for the replies so far. Very interesting to read, and I appreciate the efoort you take to keep up safe. Particularly interesting as i imagine this is perhaps the area of flying that is most down to judgement and interpretation of the pilots flying on the day of what they're seeing, rather than following a set procedure.
Living round Bogota I'm always amazed looking at FR24 at how the guys are still getting in and out of the airport while there's a monster thunderstorm right above me in the city - bear in mind that Bogota airport is closer to the city centre than most international airports and normal departure path would take them directly into it... Obviously they know what they're doing, but I imagine they must be seeing quite a wall of red on the radar as they climb out before turning more promtly than normal!
Out of curiousity...has anyone ever had to turn around and go back because there simply wasn't a gap? It seems the onus is on getting through, but is this ever simply not possible? Or desirable...I understand that you want to get to destination, but just as I wouldn't expect a train to carry on if it was alerted of a tree on the line ahead, I'd hope pilots are prepared to give up if it doesn't look safe. Sorry if that sounds patronising or ignorant, or is a ridiculous comparison, I'm just curious what's going through a pilot's head when faced with an unbroken storm line ahead.
Otherwise, I do always try to pick what I hope to be safer operators. Unfortunately it's really hard as SLF to know which operators genuinely operate to higher standards. It's night on impossible to know who goes the extra mile with training, who encourages regular hand flying, who has the least fatigueing rosters, who maintains their aircraft most rigerously. I have a feeling it's not always the big, traditional names that people imagine to be safest that necessarily are, for instance after what we learned about BA from the engine cowling incident. It would be nice if there was more public information about these things, for one, it would perhaps force some operators to up their game.
Living round Bogota I'm always amazed looking at FR24 at how the guys are still getting in and out of the airport while there's a monster thunderstorm right above me in the city - bear in mind that Bogota airport is closer to the city centre than most international airports and normal departure path would take them directly into it... Obviously they know what they're doing, but I imagine they must be seeing quite a wall of red on the radar as they climb out before turning more promtly than normal!
Out of curiousity...has anyone ever had to turn around and go back because there simply wasn't a gap? It seems the onus is on getting through, but is this ever simply not possible? Or desirable...I understand that you want to get to destination, but just as I wouldn't expect a train to carry on if it was alerted of a tree on the line ahead, I'd hope pilots are prepared to give up if it doesn't look safe. Sorry if that sounds patronising or ignorant, or is a ridiculous comparison, I'm just curious what's going through a pilot's head when faced with an unbroken storm line ahead.
Otherwise, I do always try to pick what I hope to be safer operators. Unfortunately it's really hard as SLF to know which operators genuinely operate to higher standards. It's night on impossible to know who goes the extra mile with training, who encourages regular hand flying, who has the least fatigueing rosters, who maintains their aircraft most rigerously. I have a feeling it's not always the big, traditional names that people imagine to be safest that necessarily are, for instance after what we learned about BA from the engine cowling incident. It would be nice if there was more public information about these things, for one, it would perhaps force some operators to up their game.
Last edited by neila83; 10th May 2016 at 19:24.
If you search "landing (or take-off) near Thunderstorm" on You Tube there are a good number of videos showing flight operations in the vicinity of storms. There are a few that are a good deal closer to the weather than I would be comfortable with!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha yes, I've seen some of those videos, scarier than Saw 8 or whatever one they're on now!
I did read a study, probably linked in a thread here, that analysed pilot behaviour around weather, and found while pilots almost always deviate at altitude, they will quite often fly through the same red radar returns if they're lower down on approach/landing in particular. Not quite sure what to make of that...
I did read a study, probably linked in a thread here, that analysed pilot behaviour around weather, and found while pilots almost always deviate at altitude, they will quite often fly through the same red radar returns if they're lower down on approach/landing in particular. Not quite sure what to make of that...
Last edited by neila83; 17th May 2016 at 16:26.
See the report at:-
http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/pr...05005/5005.pdf
Noting that: "... pilots underestimate the risks inherent in a dynamically changing situation or because they overestimate their own capability to deal with it", and that's independent of experience or training.
http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/pr...05005/5005.pdf
Noting that: "... pilots underestimate the risks inherent in a dynamically changing situation or because they overestimate their own capability to deal with it", and that's independent of experience or training.
I did read a stidu, probably linked in a thread here, that analysed pilot behaviour around weather, and found while pilots almost always deviate at altitude, they will quite often fly through the same red radar returns if they're lower down on approach/landing in particular.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Porirua
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha yes, I've seen some of those videos, scarier than Saw 8 or whatever one they're on now!
I did read a stidu, probably linked in a thread here, that analysed pilot behaviour around weather, and found while pilots almost always deviate at altitude, they will quite often fly through the same red radar returns if they're lower down on approach/landing in particular. Not quite sure what to make of that...
I did read a stidu, probably linked in a thread here, that analysed pilot behaviour around weather, and found while pilots almost always deviate at altitude, they will quite often fly through the same red radar returns if they're lower down on approach/landing in particular. Not quite sure what to make of that...
At altitude you really have no idea of a cell/CBs strength,hence deviations,based on previous traffic ,radar returns,PIREPs etc,in approach at lower altitudes you are constantly monitoring ATC,reports of preceding traffic, and generally you are gathering better more accurate info.
That is not to say you blindly plow through CBs at lower altitudes,I've been pinged on several occasions,but the corridors at lower altitudes when on approach/arrival have limited boundaries ( sometimes) because of departing traffic.I finfpd the new generation radars are awesome,but very sensitive,not all "red" returns are bad
It's actually quite amazing to fly with certain individuals ,and see what they believe is "acceptable"weather to fly through,around,below and above,in a CHK A position I see this constantly.Some I have agreed some not.
Weather evaluation is constant,what is acceptable generally boils down to sound experience and that includes the constant uses of resources available
Last edited by Pakehaboy; 17th May 2016 at 15:21.
Here is the study I saw - coincidentally it was published only two days after an American Airlines flight came to grief in Little Rock, AR whilst landing in a thunderstorm.
https://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/aviat...2_WW-10087.pdf
https://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/aviat...2_WW-10087.pdf
