On Board Radar Wasn't Enough?

If they did have additional radar such as NEXRAD, I'm not so sure they would have diverted around. Awful long ways to get around it to the south. Even with NEXRAD the delay can be so bad (15 min) that it wouldn't be of much use in a rapidly changing storm. Happened to me just a few days ago. ATC pointed out a cell on radar directly in front of me. I had nothing on NEXRAD. About a minute after he pointed it out, a green and yellow echo popped up on the 530. ATC Radar is much better than relying on in cockpit NEXRAD.

Were they in the clear prior to penetration? If so, then they could have easily seen this convergence if they couldn't detect it on their onboard radar.

I agree with the author that more is better and it's the restriction needs to be lifted but I'm not so sure it would have influenced their decision in this case.
 
Well the controllers have access to up to date weather radar images. I'd love to hear what this crew was advised by ATC. I can't imagine ATC not saying something as that flight got that close to a storm of this magnitude.
 
Velocity173 said:
If they did have additional radar such as NEXRAD, I'm not so sure they would have diverted around. Awful long ways to get around it to the south. Even with NEXRAD the delay can be so bad (15 min) that it wouldn't be of much use in a rapidly changing storm. Happened to me just a few days ago. ATC pointed out a cell on radar directly in front of me. I had nothing on NEXRAD. About a minute after he pointed it out, a green and yellow echo popped up on the 530. ATC Radar is much better than relying on in cockpit NEXRAD.
Click to expand...
I had an interesting experience the other day with cockpit Nexrad versus ground radar just north of Greensboro NC.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N215TG/history/20150811/1830Z/KAGC/8NC8

The line of storms was relatively low energy by some measures but it was quite solid. Visually it seemed to extend all the way to Tennessee even though my Nexrad, the FlightAware shows the end of the line north of Charlotte. ATC indicated the line extended for 50 more mile west of where I ended up penetrating it.

I had the fuel to out around the end and do whatever but ATC had aircraft penetrating soft spots in the line both down low and up near the low teens. They were pointing out where I might be able to get through based on their radar and ride reports. I asked for a recommended vector and took it. Still visual I took a very hard look at my Nexrad and the clouds. I made a decision to turn 20deg right of their recommended vector to follow a bright spot and told them I might be deviating left and right on my way through.

I was prepared for 5 minutes of being bounced around in IMC but instead was able to stay 99% visual in the cloud canyons and only had one section of 'rough road' in clear air.

In the end, trusting my rather lengthy viewing of the cockpit Nexrad data AND being visual and patient as I flew along the line trumped ATC's recommendation. It was just an informed judgement call, not a meaningful comparison of the 2 radar sources. I was lucky.

A couple of days later I made this flight:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N215TG/history/20150813/1600Z/KSSI/KPMP
Video before penetration (you can see Cape Canaveral's Shuttle launch and runway facility)

Normal conditions in summertime FL. What was interesting was making a decision about where I would penetrate then having ATC come on and tell me that they had 2 airline ride reports for 2 different points. One was a smooth ride, the other reported 'severe and extreme turbulence'!!!! I explained to my passenger that 'severe and extreme' meant nothing stayed in place that wasn't tied down and in all likelihood the pilot scared himself. I had chosen the smooth path and again, stayed visual for 99% of it. However I was sloppy when I did cut some cloud corners though and had 2 altitude excursions.

The nice part is both flights were interesting and challenging but the only excitement was in the joy of completing them without any excitement.
 
Looks like the 'gap' was closing as they were flying. I hadn't previously known they were going to SLT, originally.

With all the planes flying around this is bound to happen once in a while. Look at the 747 in China a month or two ago. You do just fine deviating 200 times then cut it tight and end up here.

Just never say never, use it as an educational event.
 
Same day...about the same time 30 miles or so east ...

This particular line did not really move much...

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N350MX/history/20150811/2115Z/KFAY/KSHD

I launched after I had watched and waited for the gap I flew through to open...it was 30 or so miles wide when I launched...I flew through without touching a cloud...but the gap was 10 miles wide when I arrived...clear and a million on the other side. I went through just east of the SBV VOR.

The cell to the east was changing directions and, at one time had a GS of about 25kts

The airlines were pouring through this gap headed to RDU...



Bill Watson said:
I had an interesting experience the other day with cockpit Nexrad versus ground radar just north of Greensboro NC.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N215TG/history/20150811/1830Z/KAGC/8NC8

The line of storms was relatively low energy by some measures but it was quite solid. Visually it seemed to extend all the way to Tennessee even though my Nexrad, the FlightAware shows the end of the line north of Charlotte. ATC indicated the line extended for 50 more mile west of where I ended up penetrating it.

I had the fuel to out around the end and do whatever but ATC had aircraft penetrating soft spots in the line both down low and up near the low teens. They were pointing out where I might be able to get through based on their radar and ride reports. I asked for a recommended vector and took it. Still visual I took a very hard look at my Nexrad and the clouds. I made a decision to turn 20deg right of their recommended vector to follow a bright spot and told them I might be deviating left and right on my way through.

I was prepared for 5 minutes of being bounced around in IMC but instead was able to stay 99% visual in the cloud canyons and only had one section of 'rough road' in clear air.

In the end, trusting my rather lengthy viewing of the cockpit Nexrad data AND being visual and patient as I flew along the line trumped ATC's recommendation. It was just an informed judgement call, not a meaningful comparison of the 2 radar sources. I was lucky.

A couple of days later I made this flight:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N215TG/history/20150813/1600Z/KSSI/KPMP
Video before penetration (you can see Cape Canaveral's Shuttle launch and runway facility)

Normal conditions in summertime FL. What was interesting was making a decision about where I would penetrate then having ATC come on and tell me that they had 2 airline ride reports for 2 different points. One was a smooth ride, the other reported 'severe and extreme turbulence'!!!! I explained to my passenger that 'severe and extreme' meant nothing stayed in place that wasn't tied down and in all likelihood the pilot scared himself. I had chosen the smooth path and again, stayed visual for 99% of it. However I was sloppy when I did cut some cloud corners though and had 2 altitude excursions.

The nice part is both flights were interesting and challenging but the only excitement was in the joy of completing them without any excitement.
Click to expand...
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N350MX/history/20150811/2115Z/KFAY/KSHD
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
I thought that the fact that ground-based weather products can be as much as eleven minutes old had been cussed and discussed some time ago.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Yes, and it probably needs to be said again every summer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top