Are stormscopes/strike finders still valid instruments?

[RotorDude]

I've been using the wx radar/Stormscope combination for nearly 30 years and close to 12,000 hours and I've NEVER been snookered by it. The later units do a MUCH better job with the radial spread as compared to the earlier units. After thousands of hours of direct comparisons between what the stormscope was was showing and what the radar was showing I finally stopped worrying about the differences, they were always too small to be an issue at any range.

My technique doesn't vary with the type of equipment. As I have said previously, personally I use the Stormscope to determine if the area is safe to transit (NO Discharges showing on the display) and then some sort of weather radar to circumnavigate the area. The reason being is that while it's good at detecting areas of convective turbulence, a Stormscope lacks the close-in resolution to be able to pick your way safely through it. When it comes to tackling weather like this, whether your IFR in a jet or VFR in a light single you DO have to be able to see it - however, you can see it using on board avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes. That is where the Stormscope / Radar combination comes into play.

You need to remember this about weather radar (airborne and ground based) - essentially all it can show you is dirt and water. If all you're seeing is dirt then you've got the tilt set too low. As for water, the assumption is made that where there's atmospheric water (rain) that's being displayed it is accompanied by turbulence. In other words, if you've got precipitation you've got turbulence and that's not always true. The sferics detectors (Stormscopes) detect electrical discharges in the atmosphere generated by turbulence - a much more reliable way to detect it. Some of the ground based dopler radars that we can receive in the cockpit are very capable at detecting turbulence, the only problem there is that by the time you actually get the updated information into the cockpit it can become "stale". Refresh rates can be problematic.

Bottom line for me is this...

1. Any time you screw around with convective turbulence you've got to be visual. However, you can see it with your avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes. The operative words are SEE and AVOID.

2. Red/magenta returns whether or not associated with turbulence (as indicated by the stormscope) are always too much. Anything less, when accompanied with a "clear" Stormscope display is a just free airplane power wash. Precipitation on the radar and no "dots" on the stormscope = smooth, but wet ride. No precipitation on the radar and dots on the stormscope = bumps, you don't want to be there. Precipitation on the radar and dots on the stormscope = big bumps and you really don't want to be there.

3. I'll take a stormscope and on board wx radar as my first choice any day. If on board wx radar isn't an option then XM radar can be a workable substitute.

4. XM weather by itself is not a substitute for the stormscope / radar combination, but it's better than nothing.

5. As far as gradients within a cell go, each cell is to be treated as if the entire cell was the color of the greatest return in it. In other words, if any part of the cell contains a red or magenta return then all of that cell, even the green and yellow parts, should be considered as if it were red or magenta. This goes for airborne or XM weather.

As always, the above is just my personal opinion based upon my experience. Do not attempt this at home.

Good advice. I would add to that, based on my year+ of experience with NextGen plus Stormscope combination, to keep track of cell movements. This is much easier on the ADS-B display which provides a dynamic loop, allowing easy "feel" for where the cells are headed to and how fast they are moving. If you need to skirt around it, steer well clear of the projected path. Of course when relying (even partially) on the ADS-B weather, keep verifying the data's age, and even then assume some delay beyond that.

 

[Dead Stick]

Good advice. I would add to that, based on my year+ of experience with NextGen plus Stormscope combination, to keep track of cell movements. This is much easier on the ADS-B display which provides a dynamic loop, allowing easy "feel" for where the cells are headed to and how fast they are moving. If you need to skirt around it, steer well clear of the projected path. Of course when relying (even partially) on the ADS-B weather, keep verifying the data's age, and even then assume some delay beyond that.

Personally, my combination of choice would be a vertical profile on board weather radar together with a Stormscope together with XM weather. That combination would be pretty hard to beat and my 6 year old grandson could master it in 10 mins.

 

[aanderson81]

I was watching some of the AOPA videos and came across this the other day. Figured it may be relevant to the conversation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83uvKWJS2os

 

[MajorTurbulence]

I've been using the wx radar/Stormscope combination for nearly 30 years and close to 12,000 hours and I've NEVER been snookered by it. The later units do a MUCH better job with the radial spread as compared to the earlier units. After thousands of hours of direct comparisons between what the stormscope was was showing and what the radar was showing I finally stopped worrying about the differences, they were always too small to be an issue at any range.

My technique doesn't vary with the type of equipment. As I have said previously, personally I use the Stormscope to determine if the area is safe to transit (NO Discharges showing on the display) and then some sort of weather radar to circumnavigate the area. The reason being is that while it's good at detecting areas of convective turbulence, a Stormscope lacks the close-in resolution to be able to pick your way safely through it. When it comes to tackling weather like this, whether your IFR in a jet or VFR in a light single you DO have to be able to see it - however, you can see it using on board avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes. That is where the Stormscope / Radar combination comes into play.

You need to remember this about weather radar (airborne and ground based) - essentially all it can show you is dirt and water. If all you're seeing is dirt then you've got the tilt set too low. As for water, the assumption is made that where there's atmospheric water (rain) that's being displayed it is accompanied by turbulence. In other words, if you've got precipitation you've got turbulence and that's not always true. The sferics detectors (Stormscopes) detect electrical discharges in the atmosphere generated by turbulence - a much more reliable way to detect it. Some of the ground based dopler radars that we can receive in the cockpit are very capable at detecting turbulence, the only problem there is that by the time you actually get the updated information into the cockpit it can become "stale". Refresh rates can be problematic.

Bottom line for me is this...

1. Any time you screw around with convective turbulence you've got to be visual. However, you can see it with your avionics just as well as you can see it with your own two eyes. The operative words are SEE and AVOID.

2. Red/magenta returns whether or not associated with turbulence (as indicated by the stormscope) are always too much. Anything less, when accompanied with a "clear" Stormscope display is a just free airplane power wash. Precipitation on the radar and no "dots" on the stormscope = smooth, but wet ride. No precipitation on the radar and dots on the stormscope = bumps, you don't want to be there. Precipitation on the radar and dots on the stormscope = big bumps and you really don't want to be there.

3. I'll take a stormscope and on board wx radar as my first choice any day. If on board wx radar isn't an option then XM radar can be a workable substitute.

4. XM weather by itself is not a substitute for the stormscope / radar combination, but it's better than nothing.

5. As far as gradients within a cell go, each cell is to be treated as if the entire cell was the color of the greatest return in it. In other words, if any part of the cell contains a red or magenta return then all of that cell, even the green and yellow parts, should be considered as if it were red or magenta. This goes for airborne or XM weather.

As always, the above is just my personal opinion based upon my experience. Do not attempt this at home.

I like your comprehensive approach also. I may have to keep my WX500 display on more of the time to correlate those static discharges with turbulence under varying degrees of moisture other than those likely to cause convective turbulence.

The above example that I gave on final to ARB was a downdraft not associated with a thunderstorm (?microburst?- maybe the wrong term since the definition describes this term in association with a thunderstorm) as no lightning or other evidence of a thunderstorm, other than rain, was in the area or present at the airport itself on landing, and the nearest convective activity was mapped out at least 50 and more miles away. The stormscope was showing a "plus sign" overhead at the time.

I have developed a confidence with the stormscope that your experience and RotorDude's validate.

Edit: maybe microburst could be correct as this could have been the early stage of a thunderstorm that quickly dissipated before more mature stages associated with lightning.

 

[petrolero]

Nexrad data, no matter where you get it from, will always be at least 6 minutes behind. That's how long it takes the radar to make a complete update (multiple sweeps at multiple levels). So six minutes plus whatever the lag time is from XM or ADS-B (don't know, but curious).

A strike finder is literally live. But also only shows lightning. A storm cell without lightning is just as dangerous. If it was free, sure. If was $$, probably not worth it with all the other resources available.

That said, I would never be close enough to a storm cell for either to make a difference in a decision.

Well it shows "discharges". Some of these wouldn't be considered lightning. In a towering cumulus cloud they can detect discharges even before true lightning begins. Call them mini-lighting maybe. But it is nice to know that you're heading for it, especially when there is no precip yet and nothing shows up on radar.

That said, mine shows far more false strikes than actual ones. They are always on certain relative bearings (precisely lined up - they're clearly not natural) so I can easily ignore them - and there might be some way to fix that, perhaps something isn't grounded well - dunno.

If you're relying on a strike finder to tactically avoid storms... well... good luck with that. As far as avoiding discharging cumulus clouds, my preference is to go up high above the cumulus and stay out of towering cumulus using my eyeballs. The 'finder is interesting but I can't say that I rely on it much.