Memory aids for weather?

S

Sarah

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jul 29, 2012
Messages
31
Display Name
Display name:
Sarah
Very early in my exposure to GA, I remember hearing 2 pilots talk about the weather conditions right before we went up; they predicted exactly how the ride would be.

After we landed, I asked the pilot how he knew exactly what to expect and he spouted off some sort of memory aid:

" If the sky is "C" clear.... yada yada yada.. and the clouds are ... yada yada yada.. then the ride will be "C" choppy."

So, I'm kicking myself that I don't remember all the "Yada, Yada" in the middle.
Is it possible that this is some sort of memory aid that ASA or Sporty's has on their DVDs?

I've just started in to weather and while it is so interesting and fun, all of the information is kind of overwhelming me right now.

Anyone know of any ways to remember all the info?
 
Sorry I don't have any memory aids for wx. You won't have to know as much about wx as we should to pass your written or check ride. After 230+ hours and several long xc I am getting better with it. I still have alot to learn. I have probably 80 shortcuts to various wx sites that I like to check, some more than others. The only sure thing I can say about turbulence is that it is always bumpy in the summer below the cumulus layer so I try to get above it on longer trips.

The worst bump I ever felt was the other day at 4500' with a broken strato cumulus layer at 6000'. Winds were out of the NW on the ground at 5kts and NE at 4500' at 15 kts. Only registered 1.2 G's, but boy it is was hard on the head. Remember to always keep your seatbelt extra tight.
 
It's not really a mnemonic, but what gives you the clearest weather is a lot of wind. That also gives you a bumpy ride. When the weather is stagnant, it's smooth but hazy (though, depending on where you are, it's often possible to climb over the haze layer).

That's only a rough correlation. I've been in smooth, clear air before.

Clouds tell you where the air is cooling. Usually, that's because it's rising (though there are other ways to do that). So, if you see a lot of bumpy cumulus clouds, expect updrafts below them and downdrafts between. Bumpy clouds = bumpy air. At least below. The motion stops above the clouds, or there would be more cloud there.
 
Last edited:
If you see big, huge, towering clouds that go up hella thousands of feet, it's best to stay away from them.
 
Okay, good to know.
Maybe it was just that one situation where his little rhyme had any relevance.
I feel pretty confident about the basics of weather.. high pressure vs low.. but it's the deciphering or "predicting" that stresses me out. Of course, I felt the same way when I started with aerodynamics and I feel great about it now.. I guess it all just takes time.
 
scottd said:
Are you talking about weather "rules of thumb" instead?

The problem with rules of thumb with respect to the weather is that they don't always work. This is especially true when Mother Nature is at her worst. You'll be frustrated more than not.
Click to expand...

So true. Take the rule of thumb from above... "Clearest weather means a lot of wind".

Mother Nature will laugh and say, "never seen a blizzard eh kid?"

Weather is literally a lifelong study. There's really no way around it. And it'll still teach you something from time to time after you think you understand it. ;)
 
You guys joke, but I've seen the glider they used to send up into them when it was stored in the NCAR/NOAA hangar at KBJC.

That guy must have had big brass ones.

The thing was covered in little arc weld spots where it'd been part of the path of various lightning strikes.

There was a King Air being outfitted with lots of sensors back then (long long ago) to go do something utterly stupid near thunderstorms too.

Nooooooo thanks!!!

Cool bumper stickers they used to give out back then, though. Need to go see if they're still in the filing cabinet.
 
NCAR studies thunderstorms. Yes, it simply must take cast iron cojones.

But if you want scary, check out what NASA Langley did with the prototype Boeing 737 (NASA 515 -- N515NA). Those guys were feeling out microbursts with unproven weather radar!

We have a DC-8, used for, among other things, bird surveys. Which means 1000 AGL where there are known to be a lot of birds.....and public aircraft aren't limited to 250 KIAS below 10000 MSL.
 
Last edited:
A spy plane of some sort had been converted to atmospheric research use as well, parked in the hangar just west of the FBO. What was it?

denverpilot said:
You guys joke, but I've seen the glider they used to send up into them when it was stored in the NCAR/NOAA hangar at KBJC.

That guy must have had big brass ones.

The thing was covered in little arc weld spots where it'd been part of the path of various lightning strikes.

There was a King Air being outfitted with lots of sensors back then (long long ago) to go do something utterly stupid near thunderstorms too.

Nooooooo thanks!!!

Cool bumper stickers they used to give out back then, though. Need to go see if they're still in the filing cabinet.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
A spy plane of some sort had been converted to atmospheric research use as well, parked in the hangar just west of the FBO. What was it?
Click to expand...

I don't remember a spy plane, but they had a P-3 I believe. Hmm. Thinking.
 
I wonder if it was one of our ER-2s. That's the NASA version of a U-2. They look like spy planes because, well, they are. They are used for atmospheric research all the time.
 
I think you're right, even to the big NASA emblem painted on it. Always wondered but none of the airport toads seemed to know.

MAKG1 said:
I wonder if it was one of our ER-2s. That's the NASA version of a U-2. They look like spy planes because, well, they are.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I think you're right, even to the big NASA emblem painted on it. Always wondered but none of the airport toads seemed to know.
Click to expand...

Airport toads? :lol:

You can find info about the two ER-2s here:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/AirSci/ER-2/

There isn't anything secret about their missions (though some of the capabilities are still classified), but NASA isn't always very good about disseminating results, motivations, and so on.
 
I think that's what used to be parked up there. I'm not up there enough to know if they have any neat toys these days. Where's Greg? ;)

I also suppose you can't just walk up to the building and get an impromptu tour anymore either. Sec-ur-E-Tay and what-not...
 
Do not know any mneumonics and they tend to hurt my hesd, start remembering too many of them and remember the letters but noit what they stand for. If you are thinking about clouds, I just remember them this way:
cumulus are puffy, so they have been pushed about by wind, so they are unstable, with wind which pushes the stuff that decreases visibility away. So cumulus, unstable which means bumpy, clear air .
stratus are stringy and flat, so not much motion to stir them up, so they are stable, with little or no wind ao no movement of air to push the stuff that decreases visibility away. So stratus stable which means less bumpy rides, but poor visibility.
cumulonimbus. Remember Jack...burnt himself on the candlestick...why because he was not nimble or quick. So I stay away from the candlestick(towering clouds with lightning) because my plane may be nimble, and may be quick, but me not so much.

If you think those guys have cajones, what about this guy. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Storm_Chasing_182_206772-1.html
Saw this a few months ago, and tought to myself this guy needs to see a psychiatrist, because it seems to me he is on a suicide mission. I hope it is a lot more safer than I think.

Doug
 
scottd said:
Yes.



Not sure what you mean here? Cumulus clouds form when air rises in an unstable environment. They can develop when the winds are nearly calm.



Yes. The environment in which cumulus clouds form is unstable.



Normally bumpy below the bases of cumulus clouds and within the clouds, but usually quite smooth flying above the bases and between cumulus towers. Visibility above the bases is typically quite good, but visibility can suffer below the bases at times.



Lightning should never be a requirement to know if a towering cumulus is safe to fly through. Deep, moist convection doesn't need lightning to ruin your day.
Click to expand...


Sorry. I did not mean to suggest that if it was towering cumulus without lightning I would fly into it. I stay far and away from them. My post was more of a way to remember the differences between the clouds and what they suggest about flying conditions. As to the wind comment it is just my way of remembering that the puffiness is a characteristic of something that has been agitated(ie unstable air). Guess using the wind analogy is not necessary. Was not really trying to discuss the true meteorology and physics as much as a way to remember the differences in the conditions.

True about flying above cumulus but getting there can be bumpy.

Thanks for your insight.

BTW any thoughts about the tornado chaser.

Doug
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top