StormScopes

AggieMike88

AggieMike88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
20,805
Location
Denton, TX
Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
I've been viewing different aircraft on the sales sites and some have the storm scopes attached to the panels.

I've been reading up on the net on how the work, but not much is out there explaining how the pilot makes use of the information.

Can someone enlighten me?
 
The storm scope detects electrical activity from.. storms!

Basically, it will tell you the bearing of electrical activity relative to your plane. Since it does not triangulate, it can't tell you the distance of the electrical activity. This means that a really big storm, far away can appear like its right on top of you.

Because of this limitation, its best used in combination with either visual cues, or if you're in IMC, using it in combination with XM weather will give you a good idea of what's out there. For example, those light/moderate patches of rain up ahead on the XM weather might be just showers, or if you are in an environment where convection is possible, they could be storm cells and packing a mean wallop. If the stormscope is clear in that direction, you're probably ok to fly through. If the scope shows electrical activity, better detour around...

The stormscope is useful for instrument flying, because it provides real time information about convective activity relative to your plane. You won't get that from XM
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
The storm scope detects electrical activity from.. storms!

Basically, it will tell you the bearing of electrical activity relative to your plane. Since it does not triangulate, it can't tell you the distance of the electrical activity. This means that a really big storm, far away can appear like its right on top of you.

Because of this limitation, its best used in combination with either visual cues, or if you're in IMC, using it in combination with XM weather will give you a good idea of what's out there. For example, those light/moderate patches of rain up ahead on the XM weather might be just showers, or if you are in an environment where convection is possible, they could be storm cells and packing a mean wallop. If the stormscope is clear in that direction, you're probably ok to fly through. If the scope shows electrical activity, better detour around...

The stormscope is useful for instrument flying, because it provides real time information about convective activity relative to your plane. You won't get that from XM
Click to expand...

So why does mine have a range on it, and various lightning strikes that I can visually determine to be of different distances, show up approximately where they should be range wise on the stormscope?
 
EdFred said:
So why does mine have a range on it, and various lightning strikes that I can visually determine to be of different distances, show up approximately where they should be range wise on the stormscope?
Click to expand...

My understanding: Range can be estimated by strength as well as frequency distribution of the received signal. Different frequencies are attenuated differently by the atmosphere. So the algorithm assumes a particular relative distribution of frequencies in a lightening burst and and estimates distance.

I don't really care how accurate the range is, I'm staying far far far away from lightening. When I see strikes on my strikefinder, I run away and live to fly another day.
 
EdFred said:
So why does mine have a range on it, and various lightning strikes that I can visually determine to be of different distances, show up approximately where they should be range wise on the stormscope?
Click to expand...

Possibly you have a much newer unit than the ones i've seen! My original post was unclear.. The storm scopes do display range, its just not always reliable.

My understanding was that the range depiction is not something that is completely reliable due to a lack of triangulation. Sounds like yours is pretty good though.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Probably because you have a much newer unit than the ones i've seen!

My understanding was that the range depiction is not something that is completely reliable due to a lack of triangulation.
Click to expand...

It's not completely reliable because the strength of electrical discharge that causes lightning will vary. The range depiction is based on relative strength of the lightning. An intense storm may throw off bigger discharges and appear closer, a weak storm may look further away. That said, the stormscope computer does some calculations of distance based on pulse length and other things.

Best use is to not rely on any one method alone. Coupled with XM/ADS-B radar (or on-board radar) and experience, the stormscope is a valuble tool.
 
I added a Strikefinder to my 310R back in 1993 or 94, it didn't have radar and XM weather wasn't even a day dream yet. ;) I think they can be a valuable tool for avoiding storms, are they perfect, not even close. With the advent of Nexrad weather in the cockpit, I don't think I would spend the money to add a stormscope, but I wouldn't take one either. :D
For weather avoidance, my list goes like this: Eyeballs, XM/Nexrad, radar, Stormscope and if nothing else an ADF will point towards the lightning strikes in a pinch. :yikes:
 
N747JB said:
For weather avoidance, my list goes like this: Eyeballs, XM/Nexrad, radar, Stormscope and if nothing else an ADF will point towards the lightning strikes in a pinch. :yikes:
Click to expand...

Really? I have never heard of that. Pretty cool.
 
I have been using the Stormscope WX-10 for over 20 years and found to be helpful with some limitations. Range on the WX-10 (50% accuracy) can be best determined by setting it to the closest range the dots will show. I found this trick correlate pretty well with XM. The degree of storm activity can be determined by clearing the dots and watching how quickly they reappear. Be advised that you can still encounter heavy turbulence with no dots showing on the screen. On the other hand you can encounter smooth air at low altitude with a lot of lightning (dots) at the higher altitudes. Where there is no XM coverage Stormscope is a good way to go.

José
 
Agree with the previous posts....well done. Stormscopes add the most value when they can be correlated to another weather source such as eyeballs, XM or on-board radar. I have all three (well four if you count eyeballs) and personally the stormscope is the 3rd on the list. I usually use the stormscope for the exact purpose stated earlier; in solid IMC it provides a valuable knowledge of the existence of convection up ahead. The distance measurement is a "software based educated guess". Nexrad (XM) for strategic, Radar for tactical, Stormscope for convection avoidance
 
I just posted a picture on the crossing fronts thread that shows some benign looking clouds without enough moisture to register more than spotty green on radar. However, the stormscope was lit up with 30 plus active strikes along a dry line front. I believe in both SS and XM as a minimum for real IFR flying.
 
I like mine, displays on the 430 with t he XM, they go together well.
 
The Stormscope and Nexrad make a good combination in the cockpit. I have been flying with a Stormscope since 1980 and have never encountered more than moderate chop in IMC when following its advice. XM Nexrad adds a larger picture, but just because it shows rain, doesn't mean that you will get wet or that there is turbulence. XM is great for strategic use and the Stormscope keeps you out of convective activity. I have gotten accustomed to radial spread and interpreting where the storm is located.

A funny story, after we had the original Ryan WX7A Stormscope installed in our Bonanza, the antenna was mounted backwards. Storms would show up and in a half hour or so, catch up to the airplane and then pass us by on the wrong side from what the view out the window suggested. We got it corrected after the flight and it has been great ever since. I now have a WX1000+ installed.
 
wabower said:
The stormscope was developed as a result of watching the ADF needle point to the storms.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that they're getting so rare that this knowledge once was "everyone knows this", it's slowly being lost on the GPS/XM crowd. Interesting.
 
I am a huge fan of stormscope. So much so that I wish the 777 I fly at work had one. It is a great adjunct to the other wx systems and key to finding a smooth ride. Just because an area isn't painting any precipitation on the other systems does not mean it will be smooth and that's where I've used stormscope quite a bit.
 
Only seen one in action once, a few years ago, when I hitched a ride in a Cherokee Six to Airventure. Supposedly it was Serial #1, bought from the inventor by a previous owner of the airplane. Worked great, and yeah, as it was explained to me, it's very much like an ADF loop antenna setup; just a different visual interface. Range based on intensity, but as others have pointed out, that's not as accurate as the bearing info it gives you. The ranging is about as accurate as when you hear ground strikes on the AM band on a car radio... in other words, not so great if you can't see the lightning.

The PIC used it in conjunction with precip areas called out by ATC, to get us through the edges of a front when westbound to KOSH from KMMU. The combination seemed to work very well... we were in and out of clouds throughout, but avoided the nastier stuff, and saw almost no precip.
 
Last edited:
A stormscope is a very very useful tool. Datalink weather is strategic (because of the delays in the datalink and the surface prejudices of ground based radar), but a 'spherics (for atmospherics) device is much more "tactical". It tells you in real time where you do not want to be. And it helps confirm what you see with the mark one eyeball.

My opinion is that for flying in a small airplane, the key to avoiding thunderstorm issues is to get to visual conditions, and use the eyeball first, back it up with something like a stormscope, and integrate datalink weather as well if possible. I do NOT like being in IMC when there's convective activity in my vicinity if I can possibly avoid it. In those times when I've been in that situation, the 'spherics device was a real comfort, even the one time when it convinced me to turn back and land and wait.
 
EdFred said:
So why does mine have a range on it, and various lightning strikes that I can visually determine to be of different distances, show up approximately where they should be range wise on the stormscope?
Click to expand...

There is a given average value that most strikes are expected to be. Think bell-curve. Very large discharges will be stronger than normal and be displayed as closer.

That's a good thing. Means stay away from it.
 
scottd said:
Sure, many pilots have observed that the ADF indicator will point to a thunderstorm. You shouldn't be too surprised by this since a lightning discharge is quite a powerful transmitter.

In my opinion, using an ADF is very unreliable for this purpose. First, there is no indication of intensity. Second, there is no way for the ADF to point to more than one storm location. In other words, if thunderstorm activity is from more than one area (think of a cell at your 10 o'clock and one to your two o'clock), you can bet that some kind of averaging will result giving you an indication that the thunderstorm is entirely in the wrong direction (ahead of you perhaps). Third, after a lightning stroke, the ADF often wanders quite a bit influenced by other signals. This can make it difficult to assess what's real and what's not.
Click to expand...

Early ADF receivers (before 1980) were susceptible to pointing to thunderstorm activity. But later ADF receivers (like KR-87) using coherent detection are not as susceptible to this problem and maintain the pointer in the direction of the NDB.

José
 
I used mine a lot today flying a lane between storms. A little extra reassurance.
 
A stormscope gives you a graphical depiction of where lightning is supposed to be. Accuracy varies, but for the most part I've found that it's pretty accurate on distance and position.

The lightning represents an area that you don't want to go.

You then steer the airplane to an area that does not have the lightning, and say "Oh, good. No lightning. Yay!"

What one must keep in mind is that many stormscopes are not heading stabilized, and thus you must pay attention to your heading when the lightning strikes pop up, and then decide that you should turn however many degrees left or right. For instance, if I see lightning directly ahead of me, perhaps I will turn 20 degrees to the right. The stormscope, if not heading stabilized, will still say I have lightning at my 12 o'clock until those strikes expire.

Most of the modern stormscopes are heading stabilized, and thus fix this problem. It's just something to be aware of depending on the installation.

The 310 I fly has an on-board radar unit (KWX56, which is a good unit). We are adding a WX-500 Stormscope (also a good unit) which will display on the 530W and Aspen. More tools are more better.
 
You could also make your 20 deg turn and clear the scope, then see where strikes reappear.

That's great you have on board radar and now a modern storm scope! Really can't get much better than that
 
Last edited:
If you have XM weather on something like the 530 or a MFD like the EX500 you have lightning depiction. Why would you want a storm scope? On some of the devices like an EX500 you can superimpose the lightning strikes on the weather depiction. On the Garmins you can put precip on one screen and lightning on the other (in a dual installation).

If you do not have XM, then of course a storm scope is a very useful tool. Eyeballs/ on board radar is first in line for me. XM/lightning detection is a close second mostly for planning the best place to get through. With this set up the storm scope loses some of its importance for me. JMHO
 
ronnieh said:
If you have XM weather on something like the 530 or a MFD like the EX500 you have lightning depiction. Why would you want a storm scope?
Click to expand...

Why? Because a stormscope in-plane is REAL TIME. Any datalinked source has time delay between the data collection, packaging, and distribution. Packets with the lightining data are sent every few minutes. And the accuracy is limited. Data link lightning displays are OK for strategic information - for anything tactical, you want it real-time, in plane.

On some of the devices like an EX500 you can superimpose the lightning strikes on the weather depiction. On the Garmins you can put precip on one screen and lightning on the other (in a dual installation).

If you do not have XM, then of course a storm scope is a very useful tool. Eyeballs/ on board radar is first in line for me. XM/lightning detection is a close second mostly for planning the best place to get through. With this set up the storm scope loses some of its importance for me. JMHO
Click to expand...
 
ronnieh said:
If you have XM weather on something like the 530 or a MFD like the EX500 you have lightning depiction. Why would you want a storm scope? On some of the devices like an EX500 you can superimpose the lightning strikes on the weather depiction. On the Garmins you can put precip on one screen and lightning on the other (in a dual installation).

If you do not have XM, then of course a storm scope is a very useful tool. Eyeballs/ on board radar is first in line for me. XM/lightning detection is a close second mostly for planning the best place to get through. With this set up the storm scope loses some of its importance for me. JMHO
Click to expand...

I have found XM lightning to be next to useless, too much latency and does not indicate the same level of activity as a Stormscope. I have both XM and a Stormscope. I trust my Stormscope for lightning. It tells me if the system is convective or not. If XM shows returns, but the Stormscope is silent, I don't mind getting the airplane wet. The Stormscope will show during the building phase of a thunderstorm, whereas radar will not. Radar will show rain during the dissipating stage, which can be safe to fly thru if there isn't lightning.
 
ronnieh said:
If you have XM weather on something like the 530 or a MFD like the EX500 you have lightning depiction. Why would you want a storm scope? On some of the devices like an EX500 you can superimpose the lightning strikes on the weather depiction. On the Garmins you can put precip on one screen and lightning on the other (in a dual installation).

If you do not have XM, then of course a storm scope is a very useful tool. Eyeballs/ on board radar is first in line for me. XM/lightning detection is a close second mostly for planning the best place to get through. With this set up the storm scope loses some of its importance for me. JMHO
Click to expand...

Datalink lightning is as old as datalink nexrad. So what you see tells you where the lighntning WAS.

Stormscope tells you where the lightning IS.
 
One thing missing from this discussion is that all Stormscopes are not created equal. The later models give a far better indication of what's going on outside than the early models do.
 
Ken Ibold said:
One thing missing from this discussion is that all Stormscopes are not created equal. The later models give a far better indication of what's going on outside than the early models do.
Click to expand...

That is very true. The range and size of the storm is more accurate, at times better than XM.

José
 
Actually, with the 530W you can display lightning (strike or cell) either on an independent screen, or on a page with the map and NEXRAD weather. Interestingly, the newer units seem to be quite accurate- the Stormscope lightning correlates with the NEXRAD data fairly well. Coupled with onboard radar, it really helps weather avoidance and long range planning.
 
Jim, that has been my experience too. The refresh rate for lightning is not the same as the Nexrad. It seems to be much quicker, normally no more than 2-3 minutes where as nexrad it is not unusual to see 6-8 minutes. For me, on board radar is a must if you fly IMC with covective activity. Nexrad/lightning detection is ALMOST a must have item also. JMO.

I think it depends on what kind of independent screen you have. The EX500 will not accept data from the GDL69 for example.
 
Last edited:
ronnieh said:
For me, on board radar is a must if you fly IMC with covective activity. Nexrad/lightning detection is ALMOST a must have item also. JMO.
Click to expand...

I got hosed down pretty good sunday flying along in IMC at 6000 feet with just nexrad (and XM lightning). The return was shown as a small area of light green with some dark green in the middle. It was really just a heavy shower, though it did not show up too well on the XM.

Would have been great to have a Stormscope to use with the XM weather. I detoured around some stuff I could likely have flown through with confirmation from a storm scope that no electrical activity was present.
 
Last edited:
Scott, I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but if you don't have anything else on board, like me for the first 3-4 years of instrument flying, the ADF will tell you that lightning is in the area. If nothing else it serves as a warning, from what I remember we would tune to a strong AM station and listen and watch the needle for general direction. But, to be perfectly honest, I didn't do much serious IFR with threats of thunder storms until I got the Strikefinder in the 310. :D
scottd said:
Sure, many pilots have observed that the ADF indicator will point to a thunderstorm. You shouldn't be too surprised by this since a lightning discharge is quite a powerful transmitter.

In my opinion, using an ADF is very unreliable for this purpose. First, there is no indication of intensity. Second, there is no way for the ADF to point to more than one storm location. In other words, if thunderstorm activity is from more than one area (think of a cell at your 10 o'clock and one to your two o'clock), you can bet that some kind of averaging will result giving you an indication that the thunderstorm is entirely in the wrong direction (ahead of you perhaps). Third, after a lightning stroke, the ADF often wanders quite a bit influenced by other signals. This can make it difficult to assess what's real and what's not.
Click to expand...
 
The other advantage of the stormscope is that it provides you lightning strikes that are cloud-to-cloud, as opposed to simply cloud-to-ground.
 
John Collins said:
I have found XM lightning to be next to useless, too much latency and does not indicate the same level of activity as a Stormscope. I have both XM and a Stormscope. I trust my Stormscope for lightning. It tells me if the system is convective or not. If XM shows returns, but the Stormscope is silent, I don't mind getting the airplane wet. The Stormscope will show during the building phase of a thunderstorm, whereas radar will not. Radar will show rain during the dissipating stage, which can be safe to fly thru if there isn't lightning.
Click to expand...


Ditto - Trusting XM for lightening avoidance is going to lead to a shocking surprise.
 
Baron2PG said:
Ditto - Trusting XM for lightening avoidance is going to lead to a shocking surprise.
Click to expand...

The same goes for thunderstorm avoidance if you are using it too closely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top