Expedite ATC definition?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expedite ATC definition?
Hi just a quick request for help. I am an Airbus driver at LHR and like you I have noticed over the last year or so the request for expedite has become a very common occurence.
From an ATC perspective what is the definition of the word from your SOPs or bible? Does the definition offer any guidance as to how many times per shift one would expect to use such a request?
I ask because I believe Commercial Pressure has dumped yet more Risk and Responsibilty onto the shoulders of Controllers and Flight Crew. I feel the common use of expedite is a symptom of this but I would appreciate your views.
Regards BP
From an ATC perspective what is the definition of the word from your SOPs or bible? Does the definition offer any guidance as to how many times per shift one would expect to use such a request?
I ask because I believe Commercial Pressure has dumped yet more Risk and Responsibilty onto the shoulders of Controllers and Flight Crew. I feel the common use of expedite is a symptom of this but I would appreciate your views.
Regards BP
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no formal definition of the term 'Expedite' in ATC as far as I remember.
When we use it, we are usually wanting it to help us solve a conflict with another aircraft quicker so that we can then release you on a direct route or turn our attention to another problem. What we really mean is that we want you to achieve a level change with another aircraft as quickly as possible in as short a distance as possible. Therefore what we mean is your best ANGLE of climb. What it often gets confused with (and specified as) is best RATE of climb as that is the only thing we have to measure. (If you have 4000ft to go to get above other aircraft we will calculate how many minutes you might need to achieve that and compare that with your predicted ground position to see whether it will work. Then we predict/ask for a rate of climb to achieve it).
What it should NOT be used for is as the only means of separation, as 'Expedite' to a 757 on its way to Edinburgh will have a different result to an A340-300 on its way to Hong Kong. Radar controllers should always be planning some lateral separation, but the use of Expedite can resolve the conflict quicker and let everyone go on their way sooner. Long expedites (eg 6000ft or more) should be avoided, as this is unfair on the crew and prone to embarrassment as rates of climb drop off as you climb higher.
If it is looking a bit tight, because of the different results of 'Expedite' I prefer to use the following system:
"XXX what rate of climb/descent can you maintain through FL YYY?" I then specify what minimum rate I need and monitor it. Then at least we both know what we expect of each other.
In short, if you are asked to expedite, push the throttles forward/extend the airbrake and gain/lose as much height as quickly as you can over the levels given. Then you will get where you want to go quicker and you might reduce the tightening of some of the sphincters of the more 'gung ho' controllers..
When we use it, we are usually wanting it to help us solve a conflict with another aircraft quicker so that we can then release you on a direct route or turn our attention to another problem. What we really mean is that we want you to achieve a level change with another aircraft as quickly as possible in as short a distance as possible. Therefore what we mean is your best ANGLE of climb. What it often gets confused with (and specified as) is best RATE of climb as that is the only thing we have to measure. (If you have 4000ft to go to get above other aircraft we will calculate how many minutes you might need to achieve that and compare that with your predicted ground position to see whether it will work. Then we predict/ask for a rate of climb to achieve it).
What it should NOT be used for is as the only means of separation, as 'Expedite' to a 757 on its way to Edinburgh will have a different result to an A340-300 on its way to Hong Kong. Radar controllers should always be planning some lateral separation, but the use of Expedite can resolve the conflict quicker and let everyone go on their way sooner. Long expedites (eg 6000ft or more) should be avoided, as this is unfair on the crew and prone to embarrassment as rates of climb drop off as you climb higher.
If it is looking a bit tight, because of the different results of 'Expedite' I prefer to use the following system:
"XXX what rate of climb/descent can you maintain through FL YYY?" I then specify what minimum rate I need and monitor it. Then at least we both know what we expect of each other.
In short, if you are asked to expedite, push the throttles forward/extend the airbrake and gain/lose as much height as quickly as you can over the levels given. Then you will get where you want to go quicker and you might reduce the tightening of some of the sphincters of the more 'gung ho' controllers..
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the phraseology section of our manual:
"Expedite climb/descent"
To require a pilot to climb/descend at best rate.
It is stressed to all trainees that the phrase should not be over-used, on the basis that if pilots hear it all day, every day, their response to it may become less urgent. Controllers should have an idea of what an aircraft can achieve in an expedited climb, and should also know what sort of aircraft should not be told to expedite.
Where at all possible, best practice is for controllers to solve the conflict vertically (climb underneath, descend on top), by using headings (conflicting aircraft to miss by 3 or 5nm), or by using a "level by" restriction, eg "Climb FL370, level by XXXXX", or "Climb FL370, cross XXXXX FL340 or above". Naturally, if a pilot cannot make the stated restriction, we expect that s/he will tell us - but not all do!
I don't know anyone that overuses the phrase "expedite", but then I don't work at TC!
I'm not sure about "commercial pressure" affecting ATCOs - our job should be primarily about safety, and as such excessive use of "expedite" is more likely to be frowned upon than encouraged.
LTP
"Expedite climb/descent"
To require a pilot to climb/descend at best rate.
It is stressed to all trainees that the phrase should not be over-used, on the basis that if pilots hear it all day, every day, their response to it may become less urgent. Controllers should have an idea of what an aircraft can achieve in an expedited climb, and should also know what sort of aircraft should not be told to expedite.
Where at all possible, best practice is for controllers to solve the conflict vertically (climb underneath, descend on top), by using headings (conflicting aircraft to miss by 3 or 5nm), or by using a "level by" restriction, eg "Climb FL370, level by XXXXX", or "Climb FL370, cross XXXXX FL340 or above". Naturally, if a pilot cannot make the stated restriction, we expect that s/he will tell us - but not all do!
I don't know anyone that overuses the phrase "expedite", but then I don't work at TC!
I'm not sure about "commercial pressure" affecting ATCOs - our job should be primarily about safety, and as such excessive use of "expedite" is more likely to be frowned upon than encouraged.
LTP
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Up North
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember being taught that if you tell a pilot to expedite climb/descent they should climb/descend like their life depends on it, because it probably does. For this reason alone I (thankfully) have very rarely used it in a radar environment.
However, when working in the tower, the word expedite gets used far more often, particularly when backtracking aircraft on the main runway. It is a way of telling the crew to hurry-up otherwise someone is going to be carrying out a missed approach.
However, when working in the tower, the word expedite gets used far more often, particularly when backtracking aircraft on the main runway. It is a way of telling the crew to hurry-up otherwise someone is going to be carrying out a missed approach.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore what we mean is your best ANGLE of climb. What it often gets confused with (and specified as) is best RATE of climb as that is the only thing we have to measure
Dictionary meaning of 'expedite'
verb 1. Process fast and efficiently. 2. Speed up the progress of
Synonym: hasten.
In a radar environment, 'expedite climb/descent' means we want fastest rate.
I might be wrong here, but I don't think that greatest climb angle necessarily gives the fastest rate of climb.
As for using the phrase best rate of climb - - hmm best? is that best for efficiency, comfort, speed, preference? best is not clear.
In short, expedite = hurry/get a move on/shift yer ass/climb like a homesick angel/descend like brick
just my tuppence worth
VL
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VL
You are right in saying that "best rate" and "best angle" are two different things. On a 757 best rate is given as Vref+140kts and best angle is taken from the FMC (about Vref+80kts).
In reality, when told to expedite I don't usually increase the thrust, I just dial the speed back towards the best ANGLE speed. The reason for this is as eyeinthesky states. Most radar controllers would like us to achieve the required separation over the shortest geographical distance rather than the shortest time.
In the case of descent, however, we just dial the speed up as high as we can. We may not even deploy the speedbrakes. The increase in ROD at 330kts is quite maked over that at 270kts!
G W-H
You are right in saying that "best rate" and "best angle" are two different things. On a 757 best rate is given as Vref+140kts and best angle is taken from the FMC (about Vref+80kts).
In reality, when told to expedite I don't usually increase the thrust, I just dial the speed back towards the best ANGLE speed. The reason for this is as eyeinthesky states. Most radar controllers would like us to achieve the required separation over the shortest geographical distance rather than the shortest time.
In the case of descent, however, we just dial the speed up as high as we can. We may not even deploy the speedbrakes. The increase in ROD at 330kts is quite maked over that at 270kts!
G W-H
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: next door to the pub
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with VL, literally means hurry up, stop pansy assing around and turn that muther! It is getting used more often, especially with reference to runways as traffic increases. Might not be used just in relation to traffic, sometimes use it when pilots need to tighten up a turn to avoid restricted airspace.
Saying all this though, you shoot yourself in the foot using it with Eastern European gents, ".....er.......say again"
FT
Saying all this though, you shoot yourself in the foot using it with Eastern European gents, ".....er.......say again"
FT
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VL -Thanks for yours.
I'm not arguing with the definition of the term from the dictionary, what I am trying to do is make us think about what we really want when we say it.
Take an example loosely from G W-H's information.
Consider an aircraft is climbing at its most economic/comfortable/whatever speed, which is 40 kts faster than its best ANGLE speed but 40 kts slower than its best RATE of climb speed.
You now decide that to get a quicker cross with traffic which may be 15 miles from conflict you ask him to expedite, which by your definition means climb at max RATE. To achieve this he is going to accelerate by 40 kts to achieve his max rate. This takes him closer to the conflict before achieving any appreciable effect.
If, however, he climbs at max ANGLE, he will slow down and improve his flightpath angle, all without shortening the distance to conflict any more than necessary.
I know which I would rather have.
(By the way, I don't know whether there would be as much as an 80 kt difference between the two speeds. It's just for illustration!)
If you look at it graphically with distance on the bottom axis and altitude on the vertical axis, what we want is for the aircraft to achieve as high a level as possible in the shortest distance. The line that plots this may well be steeper than the one which achieves a higher level in the shortest time. It is the first (max ANGLE) line which is what we want. We want the aircraft at a certain level by a certain place, not necessarily by a certain time (although we may think we mean time (maybe by using Vector Lines!
)).
I'm not arguing with the definition of the term from the dictionary, what I am trying to do is make us think about what we really want when we say it.
Take an example loosely from G W-H's information.
Consider an aircraft is climbing at its most economic/comfortable/whatever speed, which is 40 kts faster than its best ANGLE speed but 40 kts slower than its best RATE of climb speed.
You now decide that to get a quicker cross with traffic which may be 15 miles from conflict you ask him to expedite, which by your definition means climb at max RATE. To achieve this he is going to accelerate by 40 kts to achieve his max rate. This takes him closer to the conflict before achieving any appreciable effect.
If, however, he climbs at max ANGLE, he will slow down and improve his flightpath angle, all without shortening the distance to conflict any more than necessary.
I know which I would rather have.
(By the way, I don't know whether there would be as much as an 80 kt difference between the two speeds. It's just for illustration!)
If you look at it graphically with distance on the bottom axis and altitude on the vertical axis, what we want is for the aircraft to achieve as high a level as possible in the shortest distance. The line that plots this may well be steeper than the one which achieves a higher level in the shortest time. It is the first (max ANGLE) line which is what we want. We want the aircraft at a certain level by a certain place, not necessarily by a certain time (although we may think we mean time (maybe by using Vector Lines!
)).
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the definition of EXPEDITE taken from the Pilot/Controller Glossary in the 7110.65.
EXPEDITE - Used by ATC when prompt compliance is required to avoid the development of an imminent situation. Expedite climb/descent nomally indicates to a pilot that the approximate best rate of climb/descent should be used without requiring an exceptional change in aircraft handling characteristics.
Mike
NATCA FWA
EXPEDITE - Used by ATC when prompt compliance is required to avoid the development of an imminent situation. Expedite climb/descent nomally indicates to a pilot that the approximate best rate of climb/descent should be used without requiring an exceptional change in aircraft handling characteristics.
Mike
NATCA FWA
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigpants
If I remember correctlly, expedite, when on the ground means,
If at the hold, immediately taxi onto the rwy and commence take off without stopping.
If you are lined up, immediately apply take off power and go.
If I remember correctlly, expedite, when on the ground means,
If at the hold, immediately taxi onto the rwy and commence take off without stopping.
If you are lined up, immediately apply take off power and go.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
opnot
I think you are referring to "cleared immediate take-off" rather than "expedite".
Incedentally, my dog-eared old MATS Part 1 states in itallics on E(Attach)-3
Expedite climb/descent
To require a pilot to climb/descend at best rate
So despite what I do in reality, MATS Part 1 does define what the term means, even if it is not what you actually want to achieve!
G W-H
I think you are referring to "cleared immediate take-off" rather than "expedite".
Incedentally, my dog-eared old MATS Part 1 states in itallics on E(Attach)-3
Expedite climb/descent
To require a pilot to climb/descend at best rate
So despite what I do in reality, MATS Part 1 does define what the term means, even if it is not what you actually want to achieve!
G W-H
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GWH .. As usual an informed answer - cheers.
eyeinthesky - hmm, yes, I hadn't thought about it like that. Fair point
Mind you I would think that achieveing the altitude in shortest possible time or shortest distance are very close to being the same thing. Unless you climb/descend at a high angle/slow rate. e.g. helicopter or hot air baloon.
And of course, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. I try only to use expedite when safety is not an issue - eg to get a level change between to parrallel aircraft etc.. If I am at the point of needing an emergency separation plan - I'd go for turns any day - particularly after the Ueberlingen disaster
Amazing how many different interpretations there can be to a point. Good thing the fam flights are up and running again.
Cheers all
VL
eyeinthesky - hmm, yes, I hadn't thought about it like that. Fair point
Mind you I would think that achieveing the altitude in shortest possible time or shortest distance are very close to being the same thing. Unless you climb/descend at a high angle/slow rate. e.g. helicopter or hot air baloon.
And of course, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. I try only to use expedite when safety is not an issue - eg to get a level change between to parrallel aircraft etc.. If I am at the point of needing an emergency separation plan - I'd go for turns any day - particularly after the Ueberlingen disaster
Amazing how many different interpretations there can be to a point. Good thing the fam flights are up and running again.
Cheers all
VL
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the South
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expedite
...and from a tower point of view.
If we are faced with a potentially tight gap to get a departure away, we will prep up the traffic as follows:
The first inbound could be asked "..after landing expedite vacating."
The departure will be told to be ready immediate and the second inbound may be warned to expect a late landing clearance.
What we mean by expedite vacating is minimum time on the runway. This should be the norm and many of you try your best to minimise your time on the runway, but that one occasion when you need somebody off quickly...!!! You get the picture. But in line with the previous posts, it should not be over used otherwise the word will loose its impact.
Different scenario, on the ground, as an example, you may be tight on your slot and asked to expedite your taxi. In plain enlish that translates to as quick as you can commensurate with safety.
In a nutshell I guess expedite to the tower peeps means 'without delay'.
If we are faced with a potentially tight gap to get a departure away, we will prep up the traffic as follows:
The first inbound could be asked "..after landing expedite vacating."
The departure will be told to be ready immediate and the second inbound may be warned to expect a late landing clearance.
What we mean by expedite vacating is minimum time on the runway. This should be the norm and many of you try your best to minimise your time on the runway, but that one occasion when you need somebody off quickly...!!! You get the picture. But in line with the previous posts, it should not be over used otherwise the word will loose its impact.
Different scenario, on the ground, as an example, you may be tight on your slot and asked to expedite your taxi. In plain enlish that translates to as quick as you can commensurate with safety.
In a nutshell I guess expedite to the tower peeps means 'without delay'.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that, if you're talking about LHR tower frequencies, the use of 'expedite' will probably be with reference to vacating the active landing runway.
If this is the case, we're just trying to get you off because the next one is tight up your chuff and the term expedite is NOT used lightly. No, there are no rules as to how many times you may use it in one shift, but to use it too often will ultimately demean it and therefore render it useless.
Any further, PM me.
P7
If this is the case, we're just trying to get you off because the next one is tight up your chuff and the term expedite is NOT used lightly. No, there are no rules as to how many times you may use it in one shift, but to use it too often will ultimately demean it and therefore render it useless.
Any further, PM me.
P7
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks for the replies it is interesting how the term is used and interpreted by both communities.
In general I think the term is only used sparingly by radar but I do feel the phrase is over used in the local environment. Asking crew to expedite vacating reflects the fact that we seem to constantly operate to minimum separation for much of the day at LHR.
Having seen a 767 go off the end at BHX it does concern me to have to try and land and vacate on runways and exits that are often not well lit or uneven or slippery when wet.
I think it reflects unfavourably on the commercial environment eg BAA, other airport operators etc NATs all desperate to make money.
Regards BP
In general I think the term is only used sparingly by radar but I do feel the phrase is over used in the local environment. Asking crew to expedite vacating reflects the fact that we seem to constantly operate to minimum separation for much of the day at LHR.
Having seen a 767 go off the end at BHX it does concern me to have to try and land and vacate on runways and exits that are often not well lit or uneven or slippery when wet.
I think it reflects unfavourably on the commercial environment eg BAA, other airport operators etc NATs all desperate to make money.
Regards BP
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigpants
Its not only the airports etc who want to make the money, I think the airlines should be included in this as well. I assume you fly for BA at Heathrow? if that is the case do you think your bosses would like the 2.5 mile spacing increased to 3 or 4 miles which would in turn mean more holding and more fuel being burnt so that you did not have to sweat on a landing clearance? I am afraid we are all working close to the edge to satisfy accountants.
Its not only the airports etc who want to make the money, I think the airlines should be included in this as well. I assume you fly for BA at Heathrow? if that is the case do you think your bosses would like the 2.5 mile spacing increased to 3 or 4 miles which would in turn mean more holding and more fuel being burnt so that you did not have to sweat on a landing clearance? I am afraid we are all working close to the edge to satisfy accountants.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
opnot
Great point, well made. The biggest pressure for the reduced spacing at LHR is ABSOLUTELY the airlines. If the landing rates drop below certain levels you can watch the clock and guess when they're gonna call.
I appreciate the point that bigpants is trying to make, but to throw stones at ATC from his glass house is a little bit difficult to take. After all, we're providing THEM with the service that THEY request. And if the airlines request the tightest possible spacing then they had better tell their pilots to expect to expedite off the runway.
P7
Great point, well made. The biggest pressure for the reduced spacing at LHR is ABSOLUTELY the airlines. If the landing rates drop below certain levels you can watch the clock and guess when they're gonna call.
I appreciate the point that bigpants is trying to make, but to throw stones at ATC from his glass house is a little bit difficult to take. After all, we're providing THEM with the service that THEY request. And if the airlines request the tightest possible spacing then they had better tell their pilots to expect to expedite off the runway.
P7
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigpants
In simple terms, and if you're in my sector, I just want a bit more climb/descent from you.....I know you can give me something for a short duration by height/speed trade-off and that's what I expect. I am concious that "expedite" will have different values for each type and will depend on your weight. I don't ask unless it is necessary and you can always decline if unable or unwilling. I would add that there is nearly always a benefit for you in complying......we just want to get you to where you're going with the least hassle. Worked Concorde for years and she could do the most awesome zoom-climb on the rare occassion it was required....particularly between CPT and MALBY to get through the subsonic stuff.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another 2 pence <G>...
Yes we are using it more and more, and mainly becuase our skies are becoming more and more crowded with dissimilar types of aircraft and it is going to get nothing but worse. For us to try to get aircraft to requested altitudes and routes as quick as we can, we need the drivers to ilk out the best performance that they can, and we don't mean fuel performance. We mean the performance that fighter pilots like to talk about <G>.
As to money pressures, luckly in the US the ATC system isn't based (yet) on a privitized system that worries about money from the users by flying through the area. However, the airlines do complain mightly to the folks who control the purse strings and they then apply a LOT of pressure on the management to move the metal. Note to all, management does NOTHING to get the planes moving. That is up to those of us on both sides of the mike, the rest of the folks just take the credit when it works well and assign blame when it doesn't.
When we do issue an expedite, we do want you to climb or descend at whatever your aircraft can do. We don't want you to overspeed the engines, but we don't want you at econ fuel settings either in the climb, we want to get you UP! Why? Cause y'all tie up the frequency complaining when we don't <G>. Same applies to the descent. When you hear expedite, we want you to come down power off or as close as you can get to it with keeping the pacs operating well. Dial that nose down (if not speed restricted) and get that puppy down. If you don't we indeed can fix it, but it may mean that your number one slot went to number 8 as we try to fit you in while we are turning you and trying to make you miss other inbounds, overflights and possibly military airspace.
Again, do we use it more than we have in the past? Yup, do we want to? Nope, but to get the drivers what they want which is up and out of the way then we have to get everyone to play nicely. Back in the days of FAM flight (remember those?) I was always amazed to get an expedite clearance from ATC and then watch the crew do absolutely NOTHING! <sigh> And they wonder why we sometimes get a bit testy...
regards
Scott
Thunderstorms all over the place and aircraft everywhere where the Thunderstorms weren't and almost none of them on their filed route of flight <sigh>..
Yes we are using it more and more, and mainly becuase our skies are becoming more and more crowded with dissimilar types of aircraft and it is going to get nothing but worse. For us to try to get aircraft to requested altitudes and routes as quick as we can, we need the drivers to ilk out the best performance that they can, and we don't mean fuel performance. We mean the performance that fighter pilots like to talk about <G>.
As to money pressures, luckly in the US the ATC system isn't based (yet) on a privitized system that worries about money from the users by flying through the area. However, the airlines do complain mightly to the folks who control the purse strings and they then apply a LOT of pressure on the management to move the metal. Note to all, management does NOTHING to get the planes moving. That is up to those of us on both sides of the mike, the rest of the folks just take the credit when it works well and assign blame when it doesn't.
When we do issue an expedite, we do want you to climb or descend at whatever your aircraft can do. We don't want you to overspeed the engines, but we don't want you at econ fuel settings either in the climb, we want to get you UP! Why? Cause y'all tie up the frequency complaining when we don't <G>. Same applies to the descent. When you hear expedite, we want you to come down power off or as close as you can get to it with keeping the pacs operating well. Dial that nose down (if not speed restricted) and get that puppy down. If you don't we indeed can fix it, but it may mean that your number one slot went to number 8 as we try to fit you in while we are turning you and trying to make you miss other inbounds, overflights and possibly military airspace.
Again, do we use it more than we have in the past? Yup, do we want to? Nope, but to get the drivers what they want which is up and out of the way then we have to get everyone to play nicely. Back in the days of FAM flight (remember those?) I was always amazed to get an expedite clearance from ATC and then watch the crew do absolutely NOTHING! <sigh> And they wonder why we sometimes get a bit testy...
regards
Scott
Thunderstorms all over the place and aircraft everywhere where the Thunderstorms weren't and almost none of them on their filed route of flight <sigh>..