MultiScan Radar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MultiScan Radar
Hi there,
I'm relatively new with a new toy in the cockpit, Rockwell Collins MultiScan WX Radar. After reading its overview, however, I came to realize this new radar is smarter than the conventional WX radar that I am used to. Though some of my colleagues from the old school say this multiscan radar paints the clouds in low level so much that they don't trust it, often turn off the auto scan and get back to manual scan in attempt to find the height of the wx in front of us. But I understand the nature of the multiscan is designed to pick up the lower clouds to caution us of the location of CB whose top is full of low radar-reflecting ice instead of water droplets. I am a kind of pilot who avoids the green area at FL400 if it doesn't take so much deviation. So, I keep its multiscan all the time these days.
I'd like to ask you folks a question here. Under which condition, do you go back to manual scan, if you prefer, for what advantage when flying with this new generation wx radar? I would like to listen to your opinion. Please enlighten me.
Fly safe,
AR
I'm relatively new with a new toy in the cockpit, Rockwell Collins MultiScan WX Radar. After reading its overview, however, I came to realize this new radar is smarter than the conventional WX radar that I am used to. Though some of my colleagues from the old school say this multiscan radar paints the clouds in low level so much that they don't trust it, often turn off the auto scan and get back to manual scan in attempt to find the height of the wx in front of us. But I understand the nature of the multiscan is designed to pick up the lower clouds to caution us of the location of CB whose top is full of low radar-reflecting ice instead of water droplets. I am a kind of pilot who avoids the green area at FL400 if it doesn't take so much deviation. So, I keep its multiscan all the time these days.
I'd like to ask you folks a question here. Under which condition, do you go back to manual scan, if you prefer, for what advantage when flying with this new generation wx radar? I would like to listen to your opinion. Please enlighten me.
Fly safe,
AR
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally new to me and no experience although I used a basic multi-scan in air defence. Having read the Rockwell-Collins sales PDF it LOOKS good. I particularly like the 'analysis' it conducts of the cells (assuming that is reliable!). If I were still flying and had it on board I suspect I'd be having the odd look in fixed scan mode until/if I gained confidence in it.
I'd be interested in the feedback here from experienced users.
I'd be interested in the feedback here from experienced users.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same here in my company. Some older guys take it to manual mode.
What I usually do is leave it in auto and when there's a big echo ahead change to manual to get a better idea of how it is at the present altitude.
I once finished my controlled rest while over the north atlantic and there was a big echo displayed ahead and we where heading right in to it, nice moment to be back. Then changing to manual showed that it was something way below, so no problem.
Most convenient of course is full moon
What I usually do is leave it in auto and when there's a big echo ahead change to manual to get a better idea of how it is at the present altitude.
I once finished my controlled rest while over the north atlantic and there was a big echo displayed ahead and we where heading right in to it, nice moment to be back. Then changing to manual showed that it was something way below, so no problem.
Most convenient of course is full moon
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smartcockpit used to host the user guide of that radar, sadly it has been removed.
We use it for the last 6 or 7 years now and the experience has been great, at least under european conditions. The weather picture in automatic mode is very clear up to the max range and makes it easier to plan strategically around the weather. In low level operation there is a trend for a bigger returns in auto mode, turn down gain a notch or two and it is quite ok.
Personally i prefer the auto mode over the manual one, but switching to manual is sometimes not a bad idea, if only to show how much more difficult it is to get a good picture of the weather ahead. Surprisingly the colleagues on our airbus fleet are not as happy as we are on the boeing with the same radar, apparently it shows there much wearker returns and therefore not enough of the weather in the area.
We use it for the last 6 or 7 years now and the experience has been great, at least under european conditions. The weather picture in automatic mode is very clear up to the max range and makes it easier to plan strategically around the weather. In low level operation there is a trend for a bigger returns in auto mode, turn down gain a notch or two and it is quite ok.
Personally i prefer the auto mode over the manual one, but switching to manual is sometimes not a bad idea, if only to show how much more difficult it is to get a good picture of the weather ahead. Surprisingly the colleagues on our airbus fleet are not as happy as we are on the boeing with the same radar, apparently it shows there much wearker returns and therefore not enough of the weather in the area.
I find that leaving it in auto until returns are being painted then switching to manual and the good old fashioned, looking out the window. gives you the most complete picture of whats ahead.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was especially impressed by their "OverFlight Protection" (Page 34/111 in their overview). So much so that I now secondguess my old-fashion use of wx radar to gauge the height of a cell ahead. How many of us have seen the top of nasty looking CB not even painted on the radar screen before?
AR
AR
I find it good above 15 000ft but below that I find it paints magenta where there is just a bit of light chop if left in Auto/Cal.
Down a couple on the gain fixes it but I am hesitant to do that as one day it will be for real.
Down a couple on the gain fixes it but I am hesitant to do that as one day it will be for real.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In multiscan magenta is other than doppler turbulence detected?
I Used it some years ago. If you are not used to it, it scares you many times because paints thing well below you that are no factor...
You have to bear in mind that the picture is comprehensive of the full tilt range, up and down.
For analisis you still have to go manual. It is recommended to do so, actually. It is not a "keep it in AUTO you dumbass" gadget.
When you see a buildup, you don't know at what tilt angle it is until you go manual and scan and check personally.
Multiscan is a composition made by the computer. I thimk it is good, and it supresses ground clutter wonderfully
I Used it some years ago. If you are not used to it, it scares you many times because paints thing well below you that are no factor...
You have to bear in mind that the picture is comprehensive of the full tilt range, up and down.
For analisis you still have to go manual. It is recommended to do so, actually. It is not a "keep it in AUTO you dumbass" gadget.
When you see a buildup, you don't know at what tilt angle it is until you go manual and scan and check personally.
Multiscan is a composition made by the computer. I thimk it is good, and it supresses ground clutter wonderfully
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: -
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been using multi scan radars for the past 7 years and I think they're the best, I always try to remember that after all it is a conventional radar with some un-conventional features, so what I do is consatntly change between Auto/Man mode and change tilt, range and gain settings to try and get a clear image in my head of the Wx up ahead.
Have also found that most of the weather shown on the 80nm range usually disappears once you get 20nm or closer, so I have come to the conclussion that anything shown on 20nm or closer while on Auto mode is real so be careful!, Of course move the antenna around as you would on any other radar because if the Wx at 20nm is real it may already be a little too late, specially if you're pushing along at M,78 or above.
Have also found that most of the weather shown on the 80nm range usually disappears once you get 20nm or closer, so I have come to the conclussion that anything shown on 20nm or closer while on Auto mode is real so be careful!, Of course move the antenna around as you would on any other radar because if the Wx at 20nm is real it may already be a little too late, specially if you're pushing along at M,78 or above.
Last edited by AVApilot; 4th Nov 2012 at 16:07.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oceania
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread was started on the COLLINS Multi Scan Radar, some of the posts may be referring to the Honeywell RDR-4000.
The Honeywell RDR-4000 Multi Scan Radar is quite different to the Collins one and their features and performance are not the same.
For example RDR-4000 does not have a conventional manual mode. In manual it only gives a Level and not a conventional tilt angle. I believe the Collins manual mode is more conventional.
Anecdotal evidence is that the Collins MSR is a better radar.
The Honeywell RDR-4000 requires a lot of guess work outside 40nm which leads to some needless diversions around "weather". There is a significant increase in workload using the RDR-4000 in comparison to the Honeywell RDR-4B and can make stormy nights interesting.
It's interesting to follow an company aircraft with a -4000 when you have a -4B. The -4B will generally give less track miles and leaves you wondering.
I doubt that the increase in fuel burn I have using the -4000 over the -4B is offset by the -4000's weight saving.
Maybe I'm just not up to speed with the new high tech systems. What initially looked like a great advancement has been a big disappointment.
Note: The RDR-4000 I use does not have a vertical profile display.
The Honeywell RDR-4000 Multi Scan Radar is quite different to the Collins one and their features and performance are not the same.
For example RDR-4000 does not have a conventional manual mode. In manual it only gives a Level and not a conventional tilt angle. I believe the Collins manual mode is more conventional.
Anecdotal evidence is that the Collins MSR is a better radar.
The Honeywell RDR-4000 requires a lot of guess work outside 40nm which leads to some needless diversions around "weather". There is a significant increase in workload using the RDR-4000 in comparison to the Honeywell RDR-4B and can make stormy nights interesting.
It's interesting to follow an company aircraft with a -4000 when you have a -4B. The -4B will generally give less track miles and leaves you wondering.
I doubt that the increase in fuel burn I have using the -4000 over the -4B is offset by the -4000's weight saving.
Maybe I'm just not up to speed with the new high tech systems. What initially looked like a great advancement has been a big disappointment.
Note: The RDR-4000 I use does not have a vertical profile display.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I initially wasn't too happy with the new radar, but now I reduce the gain to calibrate or less and NEVER go to manual scan. One of the things I have learned is not to start a deviation too soon, areas that you would expect to deviate around at 200 NM may look much different then at 80 NM, as you get closer it gets much more accurate about wx at your specific altitude.
