Crying Wolf with Weather

[Monocock]

Is it my imagination or are these all too frequent "Severe Weather Warnings" crying wolf too much?

We keep having some very stern and definite warnings issued on the met-office web site and the last five times they have been issued they having come to nothing. In fact on two of those days I had a beautiful days flying with slight winds and near perfect vis.

The warning today is suggesting a 40% chance of severe disruption in my area. I shall be interested to see what develops. When I was a young child the sight of someones umbrella blowing inside out was put down to a breezy day and nothing else.

No doubt some of you will join me by saying that the world has become unbeliavably and unecessarily PC over the last ten years. Is it that someone has sued the Met-Office for tripping over in a gust that wasn't forecast??

I just feel that the over zealousness of the site to give out warnings might just backfire one day when we get some REAL weather. If they suddenly realised that there were to be genuine 80 mph winds across the country how would they word their ninth Severe Warning of that month?:*

[WorkingHard]

Spot on. Sort out the met office and get proper forecasts from them not PC rubbish.

[Kolibear]

Yes Mono, I think that you are right and IMHO, it dates back to the 1987 'hurricane'. The Met Office were caught out badly over that one and from then on, have erred on the cautious side.

However, its only their TV & radio forecast which tend to be OTT and as the presenter only has 2 monutes to give a countrywide forecast, they have to have a fairly broad-brush approach.

[High Wing Drifter]

PC?? You mean fear of litigation, which I personally don't think is apparent. The Met Office is doing a fine job. The synoptics show that they are justified in issuing the warnings.

[BEagle]

How right you are, Monocock!

Similarly, the movement of Atlantic weather systems always seem to be later than the weather-guessers forecast. This latest depression is already late....

I'm pretty sure that there is an element of litigation-fear in their forecasts these days.

[robin]

Seems to be a general trend that the timings are well out. The synoptics produced by the met office show quite different patterns over the preceding days and days that looked OK 3 days ahead turned out to be bad.

Perhaps some of the met men around might be able to tell us why that is. Would it be something to do with reliance on the supercomputers

[benhurr]

Well I am trying to decide if to fly up to Prestwick from the Midlands today. Forecast is :

EGPK 270553Z 270716 14009KT 9999 FEW025 SCT045 TEMPO 0716 BKN045 BECMG 1215 09018G30KT

And, if I return later is it going to be worse back at base?

EGNX 270606Z 270716 11008KT 4000 BR FEW030 PROB30 TEMPO 0708 0500 FG BKN002 BECMG 0811 9999 BECMG 1013 11018G28KT TEMPO 1416 8000 -RA

That would appear to be within my personal limits but I, like others expected the forecast to be worse.

I will have to wait for the 1019 TAF's and then decide.

[IO540]

Can the Met Office be sued?

[DFC]

The warning today is suggesting a 40% chance of severe disruption in my area

I have yet to see such a warning provided by the met office in the aviation forecast.

We must not confuse the forecasting provided for the general public including warnings with the forecasts provided to aviation or indeed maritime operators.

To go down that road would lead to a rash of pilots complaining that there was a "sun" symbol on the weather forecast but they hit a hill while in cloud!!!!..........................ops, sorry but some UK pilot did that and hense the "warning cloud on hills" that we get on every UK briefing! :p

You can always tell the "experienced" pilots who haven't got a clue about the weather (forecast or actual) - they hang round the club and wait for someone else to go flying.......and then get airbourne on the basis of someone else's ability to deal with the weather and not their own!!

Regards,

DFC

[witchdoctor]

I will only begin to worry when the wind is strong enough to blow Helen Willetts' clothes off, and then only because I may be in the wrong part of the country to witness the event. :}

[holyflyer]

This mornings 0900 TAF's from Ireland :

CORK AIRPORT EICK 270900Z 271019 09030G45KT 3000 RADZ SCT002 OVC005 TEMPO 1019 09035G55KT 1500 +RADZ SCT001 OVC002


SHANNON AIRPORT EINN 270900Z 271019 08020G32KT 8000 -RA SCT010 BKN020 BECMG 1113 08027G45KT 5000 -RADZ SCT007 BKN010 TEMPO 1219 3000 RADZ BKN005 PROB40 TEMPO 1319 08035G55KT


Storm on the way

[proplover]

Ive suffered at the hands of the met forcasters all to often. The 3 day forcasts arent worth the paper there written on, with even the next days forcasting efforts being all to offten very wide of being even 90% accurate. Learnt never to scrub a flight the day before as all to often ended up looking at perfectly good flying weather after the forcast was for doom and gloom.

Its about time the met were taken to task re the accuracy of the forcasts as many event organisers and holiday locations depend on the public turning up and if the forcast is for bad\poor weather then people will stay at home.

Just for this year I recon that the 3 day forcast is only 25% correct, the next day only 75%, youd think with all the £m's poured into the met they could manage a better hit rate - good job this lot arent forcasting the D-Day weather, we'ed still be waiting on the south coast.

[High Wing Drifter]

The warning today is suggesting a 40% chance of severe disruption in my area

I have yet to see such a warning provided by the met office in the aviation forecast.

What's a PROB40 then?

[Monocock]

I have yet to see such a warning provided by the met office in the aviation forecast.

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/weather/europe/uk/disruption_risk.gif

[david viewing]

I'm not sure it's all one way. It seems to me that this 'summer' there's often been a lovely high out there on the 5-day chart that seems time and time again to vanish as the days draw on. Thinking about this, I just checked at random and found this today! Will it happen? Hmm.

http://www.viewing.com/ukflying/20041031PPVO89V1200_large_16.gif

[BEagle]

That'd be nice - a great big blocking high!

Well, if it was summer that is. No doubt at this time of year it'll just mean days and days of radiation fog.....

[DFC]

High Wing Drifter;

I have seen- Prob 40 of strong winds, Prob 40 of low cloud and Prob 40 of poor visibility as well as the Prob 40 of sunshine, drizzle, rain, hail, snow (at times on the same day in the UK!).

But I have never seen an aviation forecast give a direct probability of disruption.

----

Monocock,

As I said, your link provides information put in simple terms for the average member of the public.

There is no mention of the "disruption" in any of the aviation forecasts.............They do however give us the data that we can use to decide for ourselves if our plans are going to be disrupted.

-----

holyflyer,

For the surface wind at Cork read the 1000ft wind!!! - it's nearly that far up!!! :D

Interesting crosswind though - especially if the landing happens during a tempo!

Regards,

DFC

[J.A.F.O.]

DV
I just checked at random and found this today! Will it happen? Hmm. Of course it'll happen; I'm working this weekend.

The metman gave a forecast for us last night of mifg coming in at 0100Z and, to give him his due, it came in at 0107Z. Now, if only it was always that simple.

I find the best way to forecast the weather is to check what days I am working - they'll be the fine days.

[holyflyer]

According to Irish Media flights into Cork are currently being diverted due to extreme weather. 300 Pax so far in shannon.

[david viewing]

300 Pax so far in shannon.

Plenty of room for them there!

[WestWind1950]

I also get the impression that the forcasts are getting worse. Sometimes I ask myself, why don't they just look out the window? :p You make plans according to the reports, then the weather ends up just the opposite... really weird...

I read a report some years ago, that it has to do with the measuring of temps, etc. in the clouds via satelites instead of using weather balloons.... the balloons at least were actually in the clouds... the satelites are too far up. The temps are then matched to older forcasts and then interperlated (or whatever you call it), trying to match the data received with former weather conditions... I wish I had saved the article :ugh:

Westy

[Pilotage]

If it's any use, I personally don't look very often at the Met-Office general forecasts.

I look at TAFS, since those are generated by local forecasters with some reasonable local knowledge (or should be, I've heard rumours that this isn't true any more, but not had them confirmed).

And for weather charts I look here (http://ows.public.sembach.af.mil/wxcharts/wxcharts.htm) which uses USAF data rather than UK met office, and in my experience is a bit more reliable (also very clear and readable).


And then I make my own mind up !

P

(N.B. In case others haven't noticed, the new BBC weather 24 hour forecast is fairly helpful for flying purposes - www.bbc.co.uk/weather , then select a town, then click on the "24hr" tab on the top.)

[FlyingForFun]

And we won't mention last Saturday. My colleague and I sat around all morning sending students home whilst watching the 400' cloudbase showing no sign of lifting. When the next forecast indicated the weather was going to deteriorate, we decided to go home.

Next thing that happens, the weather improves. Which is bad enough, except that the flying school owner decided it would be a perfect afternoon to give his son a flying lesson. The first thing he asked when he turned up? "Where is everyone?" :rolleyes:

Oops! :eek:

As for TAFs, the first one of the day at Blackpool generally doesn't reflect the real weather at all. That's because it comes from Manchester, and they can't see the Blackpool weather from their window. But 1000, Blackpool ATC are publishing regular METARs, and Manchester apparently use these to create a more accurate TAF!

FFF
------------

[benhurr]

Well I wish I had gone - pretty much as per forecast.

oh well always tomorrow...

[DFC]

Pilotage,

Remember that the law requires that you base your desicion on both the actual and the forecast conditions. If you only check the TAFs you have not checked the weather!!

It must be decades since there was a forecaster at even the major airfields. Manchester does have the weather centre but as far as I am aware, that is located somewhere downtown miles from the airport.

The places I have recently come across resident forecasters (or atleast a human in the met office that could give an opinion on what was happening) are - RAF fields, Isle of Man and Jersey.

Haven't checked the exact requirement but I believe that the Met Office responsible for thinking up the TAF will wait until they have 3 METARS before transmitting the forecast............this means that at many part time airfields the met observer has to be in well before opening time. ................perhaps the guy at Blackpool prefers to lie in ;)

For airfields that have no METAR reports it is possible in many areas of the world to get a "local area forecast" from the relevant met office...............similar info to what they give in an aftercast except the LAF will have the wind within limits and the aftercast following a runway excursion will be out of limits!!!! :(

The most important thing to remember is that any forecast is an "educated guess".........similar to betting on the horses......and the pilot should be equipped with enough skill and knowledge to either agree with the forecast or contact the forecaster if there is any reason for doubt - a common one being sat on the ramp with a TAF of CAVOK while waiting for the RVRs to lift to minimums but it is the more subtle ones that can catch people out.

Finally, before we complain about the forecasts given by the met office - how many pilots who having discovered that the forecast overcast base 3000 tops 12,000 is actually base 2000 tops 5000.......actually make a PIREP so that the met office have the actual conditions............if pilots can't be bothered to provide the info then the forecaster is being deprived of essential info.

Regards,

DFC

[Evil J]

I think you are all being a little harsh on the Met Office. I am no forcaster (I do have an observers ticket though) but I did much meteorl;ogy during the course of my degree studies.

One thing that is rarely understood is that we are dealing with mother nature. The forces invlolved are so unvbelievable complex as to not really be fathomable my either human or so called super-computer brains. You can have all the models you like and all the experience and forcast the weather to one thing and it may do something completyely different; there is no knowing why, it just does because we still don't really know what is going on that well. Personally I treat all forcasts as "best guess".

Incidentally, and not wishing to hijack the thread. How many of you who don't trust forcasts fly around using a regional pressure setting- that is only a forcast, so should that be trusted??

[Genghis the Engineer]

When using RPS I'm usually at an altitude where my main concern is other aircraft, not terrain. Thus, since presumably everybody else should be using it too, I'm very happy to trust RPS in that context.

G

[BEagle]

The RPS will always be on the safe side and should be used for terrain clearance unless there's a more accurate local aerodrome QNH available. But it provides little in terms of separation from other traffic below the transition altitude; above that then SPS will help, but it isn't mandatory except uder IFR.

And to whom would you send a PIREP in the UK? Do you really think an Air Trafficker would have the time to pass it on? Unlike the US with its PMSV system, there's nothing similar in the UK.

[DFC]

ATS units in the UK do receive PIREPS and do pass them on.

Ever read a sigmet like - "Mod ocnl sev turb obs....."

Remember that the only way of observing icing, turbulence and to a large extent windshear is from the aircraft in flight..........thus the met office rely on PIREPS especially with regard to these items.

As I said, Pilots can't moan about the lack of data if they refuse to do their bit!

Regards,

DFC

[Sheepy]

Try -
http://euro.wx.propilots.net/

They show the synoptic charts from the USAF for Europe. They tend to differ from the met offices'.

Let you guess which ones are more accurate

[Evil J]

Beagle,

I take your point about the RPS being terrain safe, but there aren't many places in the UK where you are that far from an airport that can give you an accurate QNH.

The problem that I have with people flying around on RPS (especially when they are VFR) is that it causes an unbelievable number of unwitting airspace infrtingements. People, often talking to the military will skulk underneath the base of the class D airspace where I work aiming to be not above 1500' (the base being 1500')-they are quite entitled to do that (although I would rather they called) but because they are using the RPS they are usually 300 feet higher than they think they are as the base of the airspace is set according to our aerodrome QNH. Bosh they are actually at 1800', well inside the airspace and we have to take avoiding action with our passenger jets (assuming they've got mode C-if not they will be assumed to be below 1500 so the traffic will go over them by 200 feet at best!!)

You see my point??

[BEagle]

Anyone flying below a portion of airspace defined by aerodrome QNH cannot use anything other than that setting to guarantee safe clearance.

The problem stems often from the military's atrocious understanding of sub-division of UK airspace. For example, many pilots from Benson blindly setting 1013 on passing 3000 ft QFE with absolutely no regard for the base of the London TMA overhead being based on the London QNH. 5 miles south-east of the aerodrome at 3203 ft amsl, how many of them knew that the LTMA was less than 300 ft above them? Answer - none. Because they haven't a clue and aren't taught about such things....

I tried to get the TA at Benson changed to the same as for the LTMA but was told "It wasn't standard procedure"......

[Deaf]

Sheepy - The important thing is not which is the most accurate but is there a substantive difference.

In Oz years ago we had a met office in melbourne and one in sydney both of these produced a chart for the morning paper of the (alleged) actual (not forecast) at 3pm on the previous day. If they were basically the same then the aviation forecast could be treated with a normal degree of caution. If as was sometimes the case they bore little resemblance to one another then the forecast could be assumed to be worthless.

[IO540]

Anyone flying below a portion of airspace defined by aerodrome QNH cannot use anything other than that setting to guarantee safe clearance.

Doesn't this mean that one must either call them up for the QNH, or get their ATIS?

[Chilli Monster]

Doesn't this mean that one must either call them up for the QNH, or get their ATIS?

Yes - but what's the problem with dialling up the ATIS (if available) if you don't want to talk to them. There's plenty of VOR's as well as standard frequencies pushing out the Heathrow ATIS in the vicinity of the London TMA (for example).

And if there isn't one, as Evil J says - he'd like to hear from you. (If only to give you "Cleared to transit the XYZ zone, East of ABC, not above 1500' ;) )

(Worth pointing out here that one of the recommendations of the 'flyontrack' team was that the subject of RPS needs serious looking at, and even possibly abolishing, for the reasons that Evil J states. It isn't imposible to get a fairly accurate QNH wherever you are in the country - after all, it's not the biggest place in the world after all!)

[BEagle]

Agree entirely, Chili Monster and IO540. It makes no sense to be underflying a portion of airspace defined by an aerodrome QNH with your altimter set to RPS which could well be susbtantially different. Although perhaps it would be acceptable if flying not above, say, 500 ft of the defining vertical limit of the airspace if on RPS. E.g., if the base starts at 4500' QNH, don't fly above 4000' RPS? There's hardly likely to be around 17 millibar difference between aerodrome QNH and RPS, surely?

Not long ago I flew from Brize to White Waltham. Take-off on aerodrome QFE, change to RPS on leaving the CTR. Advise Benson of my presence, set whatever it was they wanted for MATZ penetration, then the London QNH when leaving the MATZ and finally the White Waltham aerodrome QFE. That's 5 different altimeter settings.....

[IO540]

Incidentally, what is the lowest that commercial traffic is likely to be above the base of CAS?

Is it 500ft, or is it 1000ft?

Surely as 1000ft is the min separation, and silent non-XP GA traffic could be 1ft below the base, the commercial traffic should be 1000ft above and not 500ft as someone suggested.

This will really get some people going but guess what I have (purely incidentally of course) found to be the most accurate indicator of the local QNH? The GPS altitude. Never more than 100ft away from the altimeter when the latter is set to a known airfield elevation (on the ground) and usually within 20ft. But to be fair I have a £5000 GPS with a rooftop aerial.

[Chilli Monster]

Incidentally, what is the lowest that commercial traffic is likely to be above the base of CAS?

Is it 500ft, or is it 1000ft?

500ft normally. If the base is defined as a flight level (i.e FL75) then you will normally start using FL80.

If it's as an altitude (i.e 1500ft) then you'd normally be coming down to 2000ft.

[DubTrub]

Incidentally, what is the lowest that commercial traffic is likely to be above the base of CAS?

Above? If you live near Norwich, Coventry, EMA, Humberside or others, then "commercial traffic" (i.e 737's et al) is in the open FIR at whatever height they choose, along with the rest of us (as indeed they are entitled to be).

Do not mistake CAS with the routing of airliners.

DT

[Evil J]

DubTrub,

With all due repect that is b@?*£cks with respect to EMA. I should think less than 2% of EMA commercial traffic routes in outside CAS, 99% of that 2% will be freight traffic in the early hours of the morning when very few of even the most hardy GA pilots are out and about.

The other airports you mention I will agree with you on.

[Monocock]

From my friend the Met-Office:


Winds could well gust as high as 70 to 80 mph over parts of Wales, northern England and southern Scotland, enough to bring down trees, cause structural damage, disrupt electricity supplies and overturn high sided vehicles. Gusts of 60 to 70 mph are expected over Northern Ireland and other parts of England, these also bringing a risk of damage and injury.

Anyone getting it?:bored:

We've had a good stiff westerly here today and a mate of mine called today and commented that it was rather breezy in Aberdeenshire. Is it that bad up north chaps?

[Whirlybird]

Pretty wild up here in North Wales. Don't know if the wind is quite that strong, but I did look a bit anxiously at the trees when I drove down the lane earlier today...and it seems to be getting worse.

Still at least here at 1000 ft I don't get the floods; according to the TV the river Conwy has burst its banks again, and the water is still rising....

I'm supposed to be instructing at Tatenhill tomorrow; I wonder what makes me think it's not worth getting ot of bed. :eek: :(

[ShyTorque]

I thought an airfield QNH should only be used to 25 n.m. from the field. :confused:

We flew from south of London to Scotland last night against a 71 kt headwind at FL 45. Only 68 kts this a.m. on the way back. Typical! When you want a decent tailwind you can't get one.. ;)

Not much happening at Taters today, Whirly!

[Monocock]

Ahemmmm:\

I would like to admit to the fact that we did have a fairly breezy night!

So breezy that I even went to check the hangar roof was still there at 4 am....

[Whirlybird]

I listened to the wind getting stronger and stronger last night, then when the lights started flickering I went to bed. I think the power went off a couple of hours later...at least that's when I woke up and couldn't read my electric digital bedside clock. I reported it to the electricity company at 8am, and an hour later phoned again to get a recorded message saying they had loads to do because of the storm, and to phone back at midday. Lit fire and wood stove and decided on a cooked breakfast because I could; cooker is calor gas. Got TAFS on laptop, and East Midlands, round the corner from Tatenhill, was giving 35G53, with a tempo gusting to 65!!!! Cancelled flying...wasn't starting till midday anyway, hence leisurely morning. Checked outside, and apart from a few large tree branches blown down, no obvious major damage. Decided further inspection could wait till torrential rain stopped. Still no power now, but I have laptop, open fire with happy cats round it, kettle bubbling away on woodstove. Quite cosy really. Isn't this how people used to live?

[ShyTorque]

Whirly,

We used to live like that in 1991 when the power went off up here due to severe rain ice pulling down all the power lines right back to the Trent power stations.

Took four or five days for us to get our electricity back. Couldn't go to work because the petrol stations had no power and couldn't pump fuel and I had an empty tank at the time of the power cut. Some shops couldn't sell stuff because they couldn't work the tills.

We were luckier than many as we had a mains gas fire in the lounge, a stock of large ornamaental candles for lighting (we used to live in Germany and brought back a whole load of them) and we used the caravan stove and the barbecue to cook with (in the garage as it kept snowing)! At least the freezer didn't need power as it was so cold. After about 36 hours, the water supply began to fail because our district has it's water pumped by electricity. After two days we were the only house in the street with water, a quirk of the way the mains ran. We ran a service heating water for drinks and hot water bottles for the old folk on our road.



Loved it! Just missed not havng an open fire.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Phoned up the club. "You will not be surprised to hear ...", I said, and they started laughing long before I got to the bit about "... that I'm cancelling my booking for this afternoon."

[tmmorris]

Returning to the original topic ... did anyone else cancel on Wednesday because of the promise of strong winds in the afternoon? I was due to do a cross-country all-day trip and instead just did local in the morning, because the forecast was 15G25 by lunchtime and (according to the duty forecaster himself at Benson!) 25G35 by the end of the afternoon - and it never materialised...!

Tim

[englishal]

57 knots recorded on my roof this morning at 04:30

http://www.digital-reality.co.uk/weather/wvimages/vws738.jpg

South coast.....still, didn't disrupt anything:D

(By the way, if you look at this post after today, the graph will have changed:D )

[javelin]

In Yorkshire the roofslates were rattling all night. Got to the hangar this morning, one tin off the side and the 1" door bolt was bent at 30 degrees, lucky not to have lost the door as well. This is on a sloped roof hangar with the roof into the wind which I thought was better.

I am away next week, hope we don't get any more :{

[FullyFlapped]

Lying in bed on Saturday morning, listening to the wind howl outside as it had done all night long, Mrs FF and I were laughing about the fact that we had managed to sleep through the "Fish" hurricane of '87 when we lived "dahn sarf", despite the fact that during the night, a ruddy great tree had come down in the garden narrowly missing the house.

Got up to make the coffee, drew back the curtains and stood for a few minutes trying to work out why the 30ft fir tree in the garden had adopted a horizontal attitude on top of two cars on the drive ...

And again, we'd slept through the whole thing !

One up for the weatherman, eh Mono ?

And spare a thought for those poor sods in Carlisle ...

FF :ok:

[Penguina]

Hmmmmm. Threw caution to the, ahem, winds last night and indulged in a spirited dispute fuelled by more wine than a PIC come morning could handle. Well, I was assuming the worst with the wx, wasn't I? Actually didn't seem too bad this morning in the SE but my decision had already been made. Never mind, seems to be deteriorating now. First time I've been happy about that in a while! :(

[Whirlybird]

Penguina,

By early evening yesterday, still with no electricity, and the wind outside making the pub 500 ft below in the village less than enticing, I decided cooking a good meal and opening a bottle of wine to go with it was as good a way to spend the evening as any. I too had been hoping to fly today, but couldn't check the 18 hour TAFs - battery on my laptop had expired several hours earlier.:( When the power came on around 7.30 pm, after about 19 hours, I was delighted to find that "normal" high winds were expected today...since I'd had too much wine to make flying sensible. And for once they've got it right, which made me happy too.

[Penguina]

My God, the weather is making us all into alcoholics! :=

[Whirlybird]

No, Penguina, it's that flying normally turns some of us into teetotallers. :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

it's that flying normally turns some of us into teetotallers Indeed that is the right way to look at it.

It can be the occasion for mild embarrassment. In the local pub of a Friday night the landlady expects me to order my usual pint, and has been known to ask why I'm drinking grapefruit juice. "Er, because I'm going flying tomorrow" may not be the answer I wish to give in a pub full of my constituents, some of whom might think I'm not the right person to represent them on the council - if I'm so stinking rich that I can afford to fly I can't possibly understand their life circumstances, can I.