Crying Wolf with Weather
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also get the impression that the forcasts are getting worse. Sometimes I ask myself, why don't they just look out the window? 
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
Westy
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
Westy
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.)
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 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.)
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?"
Oops!
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
------------
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?"
Oops!
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
------------
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
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
G
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
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"......
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"......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone flying below a portion of airspace defined by aerodrome QNH cannot use anything other than that setting to guarantee safe clearance.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't this mean that one must either call them up for the QNH, or get their ATIS?
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!)
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidentally, what is the lowest that commercial traffic is likely to be above the base of CAS?
Is it 500ft, or is it 1000ft?
Is it 500ft, or is it 1000ft?
If it's as an altitude (i.e 1500ft) then you'd normally be coming down to 2000ft.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Incidentally, what is the lowest that commercial traffic is likely to be above the base of CAS?
Do not mistake CAS with the routing of airliners.
DT
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.