PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Ownership of risk
View Single Post
Old 4th Dec 2018, 16:38
  #61 (permalink)  
Aurora Australis
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Falkland Islands
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I do not understand the reference to flying with regard to TAFs or indeed METARS. Unless things have changed out of all recognition, wind forecasts and observations are with respect to anemometer height. Flying at 30 feet through the area at 30 ft. sounds intrinsically dangerous.
The point I think BV is making is that the TAFs do include a forecast of conditions above anemometer height - the part of the TAF that appears to trigger the closure of the airspace is the 56//// turbulence code, typically for turbulence up to 3000'. The rest of the TAF often does not contain anything suggesting conditions that would cause major concern. Until recently, it was just the runway that was closed - aircraft could still transit the zone during the forecast conditions, and regularly did (without falling out of the sky or losing control......).
As BV said, you would expect the METARs to bear some similarity to the conditions forecast in the TAF, yet frequently (e.g. as per the data copied in my post #54) there is very little correlation. The accuracy of the TAFs is presumably assessed for quality control - (I would be interested to see the Met Offices own assessment of how accurate the MPA TAFs are), but how is the accuracy of the turbulence forecast for the layers above the airfield assessed, without allowing aircraft through?
A subjective assessment by the majority of pilots I know who have used this airspace over the past 30 years is that recently, the TAFs often seem extremely pessimistic, and the actuals often bear no resemblance to the forecast.

Once again, at the risk of labouring the point, none of us locally think that inbound aircraft should land regardless of conditions, but just that there should be some flexibility, particularly when the forecast conditions are nowhere near materialising.
Yesterday, the forecast was for severe turbulence, and I have no doubt it did occur, and would not have been a day to mess with - but the actuals were reflecting this, e.g. 340/30g46, and 320/09 tempo 350/20g30. (The southbound airbridge was delayed 24 hours).
Aurora Australis is offline