Practical weather books

S

StonewallH

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 26, 2019
Messages
3
Display Name
Display name:
StonewallH_Rv8Driver
Anyone know of any good books on weather specially for IFR pilots liking to make better decisions on when to fly and when not to. I feel I’m super conservative with the slightest dark green/yellow on the radar
 
FAA books - free on the FAA website. Everything else is practice and working with an experienced CFI to learn better decision making. Being conservative will always keep you alive.

Calling Bob Gardner....any other suggestions?
 
Rod Machado has some online course all about weather. Might be worth a look...
 
+1 on Weather Flying...one of the few books I’d re-read on a regular basis.
 
Richard Collins' "Flying the weather map" is also very good.
 
murphey said:
FAA books - free on the FAA website. Everything else is practice and working with an experienced CFI to learn better decision making. Being conservative will always keep you alive.

Calling Bob Gardner....any other suggestions?
Click to expand...

"Weather Flying" by Bob Buck, oldie but goodie.

"Severe Weather Flying" by Dennis Newton.

Bob
 
This will most likely be way more in depth than you want or anyone here needs - https://www.meted.ucar.edu/index.php but they are free.

We used some of the COMET courses that were embedded into the Air Force Weather ADLS gateway as additional learning resources.

The reason I say its most likely way more in depth than you want is because, even though the joke about the weather man being wrong never gets old... the truth is that unless you spend 8-12 hours a day at work and plus whatever schooling to get you there then you will probably never even achieve the level of us 'incompetent' weathermen.

That said, the work is already done for you. Read the local forecast discussion - https://forecast.weather.gov/produc...LB&product=AFD&format=CI&version=1&glossary=1 - and see what the local forecasters reasoning is. Piggyback off their knowledge to build your own. Also, read mesoscale discussions for the same reasons https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/md/

Here's the deal - there are only two upper air observations done per day at 00Z and 12Z. These are used to establish the synoptic scale and mesoscale patterns. Synoptic scale as defined by the Air Force as 1240 - 6200 miles in scale and if I remember off the top of my head correctly meso is 100 - 1240 miles scale. So meteorologists use a data sample that originates from these locations https://www.weather.gov/upperair/nws_upper - which you can see, can be pretty far apart - to determine what will happen in the next 12 hours. The blanks are filled in with climatology, models, sfc readings and most importantly local knowledge/experience.

Most of what you look at are models. The difference between you looking at a model and a weatherman looking at a model however is that the weather man will initialize, verify and perform continuity/consistency on the models. There's discussions for those too however - https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/hpcdiscussions.php?disc=pmdhmd . Sorry if the links don't match what I say exactly as the products we use in the Air Force are basically the same but different. We do stochastic forecasting in the Air Force whereas most civilians that I'm aware of use an ensemble method. A great example of an ensemble are the Hurricane "Spaghetti" Models. Look at how many possible paths are generated and how big the "Cone of Uncertainty" is. You seem the same thing on AWC hazard charts. Large areas of uncertainty.

Also some models work better in some situations. For example the GFS works great in the Midwest. The NAM works great on the East Coast. None of them handle terrain worth a dang. Again, knowledge and experience gained from doing it all day every day. That's not to say that you shouldn't try to on your own though because local knowledge is huge. If you talk to some crusty old salts around here they are still probably mad that the FSS with the weather guy are still not a thing, heck initially even LockMart still connected you with a "local" weather guy when you called 1800WXBRIEF.

I'll tell you right now that what I wrote can be picked apart. Just trying to give an overall outlook of the big picture of where your weather is coming from and how its developed - which is also by the way always going to intentionally err on the side of caution. As a weatherman performing a weather brief I will accept being wrong on the side of caution all day every day. So while the jokes will always ensue about how bad the weatherman is - I'd much rather you scrub a flight, call me a dirty name and live rather then send you into harms way with an overly optimistic weather brief.
 
chemgeek said:
Richard Collins' "Flying the weather map" is also very good.
Click to expand...
I've read all of the aviation-weather books people are mentioning, and I'd recommend Flying the Weather Map far above any of the others (though they're all good in their own ways, and worth reading). The OP wanted "practical": Collins walks you through several flights in each of the four seasons, both pre-flight planning and in-flight decision-making as the weather differs from the forecast. When he wrote the book, digital weather options were more limited than they are now, but everything still applies.

Collins was a magazine editor (possibly the best in aviation writing), so each chapter is a short article, easy-to-read and to the point in the best journalism style, and with a simple infographic of what happened during the flight.
 
David Megginson said:
I've read all of the aviation-weather books people are mentioning, and I'd recommend Flying the Weather Map far above any of the others (though they're all good in their own ways, and worth reading). The OP wanted "practical": Collins walks you through several flights in each of the four seasons, both pre-flight planning and in-flight decision-making as the weather differs from the forecast. When he wrote the book, digital weather options were more limited than they are now, but everything still applies.

Collins was a magazine editor (possibly the best in aviation writing), so each chapter is a short article, easy-to-read and to the point in the best journalism style, and with a simple infographic of what happened during the flight.
Click to expand...

I really enjoyed Richard Collins way of doing WX as a Private Pilot. Working as an Airline Captain and also as a WX Forecaster in the Guard I still use a lot of his techniques. I've had quite a few WX school instructors and co-workers give me the raised eyebrow and ask me "where did I learn that trick".
 
I have a different approach. I plan a lot of flights. Flights I often have no intention of making. But I self brief them, review plan, weather, maps, altitudes, alternates, you name it. Sometimes same day plan sometimes a few days in advance. Then watch them unfold ok “flight day”. Monitor radar, metars across the day. How would have it worked. Better then Planned? Worse? It doesn’t really take long to do this
After time I think you get to hear the orchestra that weather is and not hear the single instrument playing in the background so to speak. I plan a couple a week. Always looking.
 
benyflyguy said:
I have a different approach. I plan a lot of flights. Flights I often have no intention of making. But I self brief them, review plan, weather, maps, altitudes, alternates, you name it. Sometimes same day plan sometimes a few days in advance. Then watch them unfold ok “flight day”. Monitor radar, metars across the day. How would have it worked. Better then Planned? Worse? It doesn’t really take long to do this
After time I think you get to hear the orchestra that weather is and not hear the single instrument playing in the background so to speak. I plan a couple a week. Always looking.
Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly what Rich Collins and us WX folk do :)

I mean there are things we are trained to look for that indicate what may happen but I've had days where every indication said rain and didn't get it and I've had days where we only had some of the ingredients for rain and got it. I'd like to try to write something up but I have a hard time summarizing and not going on tangents... :)
 
benyflyguy said:
I have a different approach. I plan a lot of flights. Flights I often have no intention of making. But I self brief them, review plan, weather, maps, altitudes, alternates, you name it. Sometimes same day plan sometimes a few days in advance. Then watch them unfold ok “flight day”. Monitor radar, metars across the day. How would have it worked. Better then Planned? Worse? It doesn’t really take long to do this
After time I think you get to hear the orchestra that weather is and not hear the single instrument playing in the background so to speak. I plan a couple a week. Always looking.
Click to expand...

This. Weather theory is interesting, but hard to turn into practical - "can I fly safely today". Look at the forecast the day of or day before. Tben look at the actual weather. How close was it, what was different. Fast moving cold front, how accurate is the time it passes, how much does the weather change in front or after it passes. Warm front, how high are the cloud tops, what PIREPS are showing on the aviation web sites, how long does it take to clear.

When you are in the air, how turbulent is it"? What caused it. During my flight instruction, I told my CFI that we are about to go into a thermal. We went from level flight to 500 fpm up right then. He asked how I knew and it was the big Cumulus cloud we were about to go under.

Start big picture and work to more narrow. Where are the fronts and how are they moving. What's going on on Windy, or, if you're within 12 hours, what does the GFA tool say? Weather can be a dry topic (no pun intended). I was a meteorology major for two years in college and just couldn't stand the theory. I could forecast the weather, but not pass the classes.

As a hang glider pilot, I look at the forecast daily, and if it looks like it might be good, I look to the sky and see if it matches my expectation, even if I don't fly. Once I started flying GA, I did the same thing.
 
@Hang 4 - Word.

An in depth understanding of the Pseudo-adiabatic process has helped me accurately forecast - NEVER ! :confused::eek:;)
 
I'll try to do a simple write up and if anyone has any further questions I'll try my best. I'm technically just a "journeyman" in the Air Force WX career field. I had a little bit of a head start over class mates having learned weather earning my pilot's license.

So reaching back to what I said previously about 00Z and 12Z soundings. The biggest takeaway I can summarize as a pilot that went through Air Force WX school - is what are you actually looking at? A 00Z and 12Z analysis chart is the only charts you will look at that are actual weather. Worse than that though - I don't know if this holds true on the civilian side - but the Air Force's Analysis charts are computer analyzed and have to be reanalyzed and adjusted in much the same way that the model charts do that I previously talked about.

So my process begins with pulling up the Satellite image for 00/12Z - whatever is appropriate for time or region of the world I'm working. With some training and practice (I'll attempt a write up for this later hopefully) you should be able to draw an analysis chart based on what you see in the satellite photo. Now you compare your 00/12Z satellite to your 00/12z analysis and reanalyze the analysis moving features as needed to match real life (satellite). Remember, 00/12Z, satellite and radar is the only "real" weather you will ever look at.

What about SFC measurements you might say though, isn't that real weather ? Yes and no. Placement of the ASOS/AWOS can affect the data as well as limitations of the equipment itself. The most prominent example being clouds. We could look at the FMQ-19 readout and it say CLR but when we go outside there was most definitely clouds. Therein lies another issue - send 5 observers out to take an augmented observation and you'll get 5 different METARS. Mine might say FEW 025 while the next guy/gals says SCT030 while the laser beam on the FMQ-19 is hitting the side of the cloud and saying 045.

They're just clouds who cares? Well, part of reading an analysis chart and predicting weather is finding moisture - so clouds are your real life weather that confirms your analysis charts. As the last two posters have said - you hypothesize about what happens and then compare and see what actually happens. This is part of the old school 27 states of the sky method and clouds (satellite or observed) and radar are your verification products.

So, as a pilot the concern becomes - how bad will it be? i.e. I'm cool with flying through light green radar returns but dark green or yellow makes me nervous. The BASIC ingredients for any rain can be broken down into an acronym we use in Wx called MILE. Moisture Instability Lift Exhaust. In the Air Force we have enhanced SkewT which gives us all kinds of values to indicate these kind of things LI, CAPE, CINH, PWI, TT, KI, SSI etc etc you can literally spend all day lost in the sauce but I mention this to refer back to what I previously said about the work already being done for you in local and mesoscale forecast discussions.

Simply though -
  • Moisture - dewpoint depression less than 6 aka Isodrosotherms, these are areas moist enough generally speaking to produce rain
  • Instability - all those values I talked about in the previous paragraph, could literally write a page long description of each value... SkewT mastery CBT in previously linked COMET course can be a good start...
  • Lift - fairly simply orographic or isentropic but also low level jets, low level convergence/confluence, cyclonic turning, troughing, etc, etc again lengthy subject
  • Exhaust - upper level divergence/diffluence
I feel this is a good time to mention one of my favorite resources that I forgot to mention earlie, as it can probably explain a lot of these single specific areas of interest way better than me - http://www.theweatherprediction.com/ .

Basically, once you've reanalyzed the analysis and made the necessary adjustment then you make your hypothesis. You look for the four ingredients above, there are numerous ways to do so (SkewT, hodographs,various charts), there is no one size fits all answer. Unfortunately there is no 'if the PWI is 0.50 and CAPE is 1250' we will get Heavy Rain. There are threshold numbers certainly that indicate you may but as previously stated I've seen it both ways in real life, we had all the ingredients and it didn't happen and had only some of the ingredients and it did happen and it will happen at different thresholds depending on where you are in the world. In the Air Force we have FRM, Forecaster Reference Material - which are basically lists of these ingredients specifically for that local location. In other words we have FRMs for each base and each bases thresholds are different.

Once you made your hypothesis, then you adjust your 00/12Z model to match your (re)analysis and compare/adjust it also to radar images. Then you run the model out with adjustments as a way to verify your hypothesis. If your guess and the model don't match which is very likely is the model over/under estimating over/under performing ? That goes back to the Initializing, Continuity and Consistency of models step. These steps though done initially in a certain order they are also continually done throughout the process. Advantage again to the Wx folk as this process is a 24/7 process but again you can access the model discussions linked previously.

Again, just trying to give an overall big picture kind of - this is what you can do, hopefully you added a few more tools to the toolbag type approach. There are as many different ways to interpret the weather as there are weatherman.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top