scottd
Pre-takeoff checklist
..............
..................
..................
Last edited:
Tell me about...
- Thread starter scottd
- Start date
JohnSBA
Pre-takeoff checklist
Re: Tell me about... - Improving WX Resources
First off, let me chime in with the hordes of others who are sure to praise the exceptional online resources already available. That said, I do see room for improvement that's mainly related to the current focus on airline and IFR pilots who are very well served already. My suggestions:
- Focus on VFR pilots. A large and growing number of IFR GA pilots are flying glass with live sat wx and airlines have much better resources, so the largest and fastest-growing under-served market is VFR. It's fine to keep all the info already there for IFR, but what good is turbulence info in the flight levels when it's the stuff from 1-3kAGL I'm most worried about?
- Make it simple. Example: the default view for METARS should be "translated." This isn't 1950 - we have bandwidth and computers now, so let's lose the decoder ring.
- Make it graphical. One of my fav ADDS pages is the "Western US" link on http://aviationweather.gov/adds/satellite/ because it's easy to see at a glance what's going on in a region for VFR flight. If it had TFRs, an option for wind streams and velocities, mouseover for ATIS info, and predictions for turbulence and convective activity...
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
The two uplinked product I'd like to see is easily interpretable pirep graphics, one depicting icing and the other turbulence. These graphics should use something better than the current symbology which overlap into a real mess when the density is anything beyond scarce and the images should be divided into three or more altitude bands. A key factor in the practical use of this is a clear indication of areas where no information exists. To enhance the usefulness of such imagery, ATC should be provided with incentives to solicit reports from as many flights as possible including VFR traffic receiving services.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,661
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
"Contour" maps of ceilings and visibility?
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,765
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
I haven't thought it through yet, but how about something into which you can enter your flight plan (including departure time, TAS, and altitude) and it will automatically highlight the correct TAF and AF entries for you as you move along the flight. I wouldn't want to hide the other entries, but highlighting the appropriate one would help eliminate the problem of mis-calculating the correct GMT, and would also take into account the actual time you're expected to be in the area.
The ability to then slide the start time, TAS, and altitude in either direction to play "what if" games would be neat, and maybe change the altitude mid-flight.
I realize that this may wind up being too detailed (and not truly "precise"), so I'm just throwing it out there as an idea.
If it could also give you some way of determining the cloud (not necessarily ceiling) height above the surrounding terrain that would be good. Kind of like recognizing mountain obscuration without needing them to be truly obscured.
Just some off-the-cuff thoughts.
The ability to then slide the start time, TAS, and altitude in either direction to play "what if" games would be neat, and maybe change the altitude mid-flight.
I realize that this may wind up being too detailed (and not truly "precise"), so I'm just throwing it out there as an idea.
If it could also give you some way of determining the cloud (not necessarily ceiling) height above the surrounding terrain that would be good. Kind of like recognizing mountain obscuration without needing them to be truly obscured.
Just some off-the-cuff thoughts.
schmookeeg
En-Route
I'm not a "meteo" guy, so my thoughts are purely from a lay-pilot standpoint.
Also when I say "you", I don't mean "YOU" Scott, I mean the "FAA Weather Providers at large"
P.S. -- I have devoured many sources of information from you on wx data, and I thank you for providing it.
==
Anyway, I fly a lot of XC, literal XC. As such, my priorities may differ from others'. Here's what I'd love to see:
1. The ability to scan "enroute hazards" easily.
Allow me to pick an altitude (and change it using a slider-style tool) and see ice, cloud (if able), turbulence (if able), precip, pireps, convection, etc. for a route or area.
For extra credit, combine this with another slider to give me TIME and come up with a forecast for that same data.
Put it on one huge map that I can zoom in and out on, and toggling buttons for the hazards would be nifty. I can quickly flip through the things I'm concerned about.
I'd love 12 different colors or hash patterns drawn on the chart, one for each item of concern that I may see on my flight.
Make them semi-transparent so that I can see when more than one "item of concern" exists in an area.
Allow me to toggle off the ones I don't want to see, but if I see a watercolor explosion of clown vomit along my route, I'm going to understand immediately that my flight will be exciting -- perhaps more than my aviation excitement tolerance allows.
Currently I have to go all scooby-doo on a dozen different charts (with different symbologies, effective times, government logos, scales, and means of interpretation) to get the same info. You know what? I launch sometimes and STILL have no idea if doom awaits me, and if so, what flavor of doom it is today.
It would be fun on the bun to plot a route and input an ETE and have it mesh the "now" and the "later" all on one depiction, but that's "version 3.0" thinking.
2. Rather than paint whole regions with a sigmet, how about % likelihood or PROB-style gradiations, similar to the TS intensity returns.
The icing sigmets drive me bananas because in winter, it seems like any area with surface temps < 10C gets painted in dark blue. Yes, I understand that means ice is likely, and we're in butt-covering mode lately as a society, but a Pilot is cut from better cloth. I'd like less BS between me and the data. Tell me ice is 10% likely in SFO and 90% likely in Seattle. Gradiate in-between as best you can. I'm not going to sue you because I turned into a sno-cone after flying into an "ice 60% likely" region. Someone else will -- castrate them. Their lawyer impedes my data -- data I need. Fill the website with disclaimers if that's what it takes. Put one on my damn license and move on.
Skew-T stuff hurts my brain. I can compute it, but it's painful. I actually try hard to understand it because it affects me. Joe sixpack is NOT going to the mental anguish to sort this stuff out. Add a Skew-T toggle to my "master map" above.
3. As an IFR pilot, I feel that half of the NOAA/NWS products are surface observation. I understand that is a rich and available mine of information, and that it is probably the only thing that VFR pilots care about -- but you know when I care about it? At arrival, X number of hours away, when I wonder if my approach is going to work out after all, and if the TAF lied to me.
4. I wish ATC would actively know when to solicit PIREP data from pilots. On an average flight, I'll give maybe 1 or 2 pireps IF something is strange. Otherwise I give none. I have no idea when pireps would be interesting, or what areas I'm flying through that would be "of interest" to the boys at the weather desk.
ATC around here (SoCal) is great about soliciting info on tops, for instance, because they have an operational benefit -- they know when they get to cut us tykes loose from IFR management. I have no idea if a front is rolling in and a change in OAT would be "meteo gold" for someone at a desk. I only look at my OAT when I'm in snotty cold weather, or when I give a pirep.
5. Provide some sort of XML data feed for ALL of the raw wx data that currently exists. If I had access to that, I could play and build some amateur version of what I envision, and I'd automate things like the Skew-T calcs. There have to be a few hundred warrior-nerd pilots like me who will come up with our own idea and share it with everyone. One of us will get it right. Look at Skyvector. Skyvector uses the FTP charts from NACO and the published METAR data from ADDS to get its info. I don't even think the METAR data was considered to be a "consumable", since fetching and interpreting it is not easy. But that info is everywhere.
6. Java sucks -- But I'd still rather deal with it than trying to decipher an area forecast by hand.
That's what I can come up with off the cuff.
Nerds rule. Let em.
Also when I say "you", I don't mean "YOU" Scott, I mean the "FAA Weather Providers at large"
P.S. -- I have devoured many sources of information from you on wx data, and I thank you for providing it.
==
Anyway, I fly a lot of XC, literal XC. As such, my priorities may differ from others'. Here's what I'd love to see:
1. The ability to scan "enroute hazards" easily.
Allow me to pick an altitude (and change it using a slider-style tool) and see ice, cloud (if able), turbulence (if able), precip, pireps, convection, etc. for a route or area.
For extra credit, combine this with another slider to give me TIME and come up with a forecast for that same data.
Put it on one huge map that I can zoom in and out on, and toggling buttons for the hazards would be nifty. I can quickly flip through the things I'm concerned about.
I'd love 12 different colors or hash patterns drawn on the chart, one for each item of concern that I may see on my flight.
Make them semi-transparent so that I can see when more than one "item of concern" exists in an area.
Allow me to toggle off the ones I don't want to see, but if I see a watercolor explosion of clown vomit along my route, I'm going to understand immediately that my flight will be exciting -- perhaps more than my aviation excitement tolerance allows.
Currently I have to go all scooby-doo on a dozen different charts (with different symbologies, effective times, government logos, scales, and means of interpretation) to get the same info. You know what? I launch sometimes and STILL have no idea if doom awaits me, and if so, what flavor of doom it is today.
It would be fun on the bun to plot a route and input an ETE and have it mesh the "now" and the "later" all on one depiction, but that's "version 3.0" thinking.
2. Rather than paint whole regions with a sigmet, how about % likelihood or PROB-style gradiations, similar to the TS intensity returns.
The icing sigmets drive me bananas because in winter, it seems like any area with surface temps < 10C gets painted in dark blue. Yes, I understand that means ice is likely, and we're in butt-covering mode lately as a society, but a Pilot is cut from better cloth. I'd like less BS between me and the data. Tell me ice is 10% likely in SFO and 90% likely in Seattle. Gradiate in-between as best you can. I'm not going to sue you because I turned into a sno-cone after flying into an "ice 60% likely" region. Someone else will -- castrate them. Their lawyer impedes my data -- data I need. Fill the website with disclaimers if that's what it takes. Put one on my damn license and move on.
Skew-T stuff hurts my brain. I can compute it, but it's painful. I actually try hard to understand it because it affects me. Joe sixpack is NOT going to the mental anguish to sort this stuff out. Add a Skew-T toggle to my "master map" above.
3. As an IFR pilot, I feel that half of the NOAA/NWS products are surface observation. I understand that is a rich and available mine of information, and that it is probably the only thing that VFR pilots care about -- but you know when I care about it? At arrival, X number of hours away, when I wonder if my approach is going to work out after all, and if the TAF lied to me.
4. I wish ATC would actively know when to solicit PIREP data from pilots. On an average flight, I'll give maybe 1 or 2 pireps IF something is strange. Otherwise I give none. I have no idea when pireps would be interesting, or what areas I'm flying through that would be "of interest" to the boys at the weather desk.
ATC around here (SoCal) is great about soliciting info on tops, for instance, because they have an operational benefit -- they know when they get to cut us tykes loose from IFR management. I have no idea if a front is rolling in and a change in OAT would be "meteo gold" for someone at a desk. I only look at my OAT when I'm in snotty cold weather, or when I give a pirep.
5. Provide some sort of XML data feed for ALL of the raw wx data that currently exists. If I had access to that, I could play and build some amateur version of what I envision, and I'd automate things like the Skew-T calcs. There have to be a few hundred warrior-nerd pilots like me who will come up with our own idea and share it with everyone. One of us will get it right. Look at Skyvector. Skyvector uses the FTP charts from NACO and the published METAR data from ADDS to get its info. I don't even think the METAR data was considered to be a "consumable", since fetching and interpreting it is not easy. But that info is everywhere.
6. Java sucks -- But I'd still rather deal with it than trying to decipher an area forecast by hand.
That's what I can come up with off the cuff.
Nerds rule. Let em.
schmookeeg
En-Route
This is what I envision. I wish this existed somewhere. Obviously there are more hazards than I doodled here, but hopefully "ya feel me"
http://flycorona.com/fun/happy-wx.png
http://flycorona.com/fun/happy-wx.png
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
I like Grant's idea of highlighting (bold, green, whatever) the appropriate line of a TAF for the airports along a route, given a route/speed/departure time, then being able to change the departure time with a slider and having those bold entries change appropriately. You'd be able to see the entire TAF for the airport, but being able to quickly see the appropriate line that would be "active" at the time you went through the area, without having to determine the local time zone's GMT / Zulu correction would be very slick for planning purposes.
jimbtv
Pre-Flight
Well, whatever the solution, it better be free and require very little interpretation and/or advance learning.
From my humble opinion, the information is there. It's the pilots that don't seem interested in gleening the wheat from the chaff. It's like learning the details of engine management. Very few pilots take the time to learn new concepts in engine operation, yet they are the first in line to carp against any new ideas.
Using an analogy, the only way to get good weather into most pilot's brains is to make it as simple as pushing the black knob in to go faster, and pull it out to go slower. Outside of that they have to learn weather concepts and the eyes go glassy after the first paragraph on the subject.
It's not the weather service's fault that pilots aren't getting it. It's the pilot's fault. I don't see any way for the weather services to boil it down into something that pilots can consume without further education and study.
Make weather education mandatory and recurrent. Then put knowledgeable and talented trainers in place to teach the subject.
From my humble opinion, the information is there. It's the pilots that don't seem interested in gleening the wheat from the chaff. It's like learning the details of engine management. Very few pilots take the time to learn new concepts in engine operation, yet they are the first in line to carp against any new ideas.
Using an analogy, the only way to get good weather into most pilot's brains is to make it as simple as pushing the black knob in to go faster, and pull it out to go slower. Outside of that they have to learn weather concepts and the eyes go glassy after the first paragraph on the subject.
It's not the weather service's fault that pilots aren't getting it. It's the pilot's fault. I don't see any way for the weather services to boil it down into something that pilots can consume without further education and study.
Make weather education mandatory and recurrent. Then put knowledgeable and talented trainers in place to teach the subject.
RMCN172RG
Pattern Altitude
I'm not trying to sell anything here but the Seattle Avionics flight planner does something like this. It has a time slider and the weather depiction changes as it advances. The graphics drop off and future weather is TAF based which shows a stop light R/Y/G for the major airports along the route with click on access to the airport and it's TAF info.
I would like to see one with a slider that included some graphical projections of the cload layers and precip.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Here is one of my suggestions. I know that the 1 minute weather is available at a lot of airport but it defaults to the ATIS on the ATIS frequency. I would like to have it available in some way other than on the telephone. It would be nice if they could somehow insert it into the ATIS electronically or have another frequency for it.
I understand that learning about weather is important, but from a practical standpoint the weather products that pilots use for flight planning need to be something that can be interpreted quickly. They can't be documents which need a lot of detailed analysis or most people won't use them.I tried that one Jim...most pilots are not interested in learning about weather.
jimbtv
Pre-Flight
All comments are appreciated. I too am learning here.
From my perspective, and due to the way I fly, weather is my biggest obstacle. Safe aviating - got it. Aircraft systems - no problem. IFR system - check. ATC - good to go.
Aerodynamics have been the same since I got my ticket in '85. Outside of emergency procedures, engine management hasn't changed all that much. Navigation, well GPS has added some definate benefits but once you know the tricks, you're good to go. Communication uses the same damn phraseology we've been using since they invented the vacuum tube. My point is that you can remain stagnant in the afore-mentioned skills and still probably fly pretty well.
Weather is continuously dynamic and changing by the moment. Some changes are fast-acting and some are slower than death. Sometimes you fly yourself into trouble and sometimes trouble comes to you. It can be ice one day, under certain conditions, and no ice the next under essentially the same conditions. How come that last puffy cloud was like silk yet the next one just like it will loosen fillings and rivets? The last green on the screen was nothing but the next green is a deluge. Last time I saw that ugly forecast nothing happened so next time I'll bet it will be a false alarm too.
I think you get my point. Weather probably plays the greatest part in most of our flights yet it is ellusive. Now, if your mission is to do touch and go's in the pattern all day, weather is probably low on your list of priorities. But if you are trying to get a normally-aspirated piston single from northern New England to southern Florida, with the wife and kids, and a relative time table, with an optomistic service ceiling of 17k, weather is going to play a huge part in your success and/or failure to complete your mission. Getting out of New England in the winter can be a show stopper unto itself.
This is why I harp on pilot education. The information is there and the weather service has bent over backwards to make it user-friendly. Even so, looking at all that data doesn't mean that you are successfully interpreting all that data.
Guys like Scott Dennstaedt have risked a whole lot to try and offer a bridge between the raw data and a stimulating learning experience. If the simple answer is going to be "make it so simple, even a caveman can interpret it", I don't think we'll ever end up with a solution. Weather is complex and I don't foresee a one-size-fits-all solution to aviation weather interpretation.
Ya, it's a lot of words but I needed to get it off my chest.
From my perspective, and due to the way I fly, weather is my biggest obstacle. Safe aviating - got it. Aircraft systems - no problem. IFR system - check. ATC - good to go.
Aerodynamics have been the same since I got my ticket in '85. Outside of emergency procedures, engine management hasn't changed all that much. Navigation, well GPS has added some definate benefits but once you know the tricks, you're good to go. Communication uses the same damn phraseology we've been using since they invented the vacuum tube. My point is that you can remain stagnant in the afore-mentioned skills and still probably fly pretty well.
Weather is continuously dynamic and changing by the moment. Some changes are fast-acting and some are slower than death. Sometimes you fly yourself into trouble and sometimes trouble comes to you. It can be ice one day, under certain conditions, and no ice the next under essentially the same conditions. How come that last puffy cloud was like silk yet the next one just like it will loosen fillings and rivets? The last green on the screen was nothing but the next green is a deluge. Last time I saw that ugly forecast nothing happened so next time I'll bet it will be a false alarm too.
I think you get my point. Weather probably plays the greatest part in most of our flights yet it is ellusive. Now, if your mission is to do touch and go's in the pattern all day, weather is probably low on your list of priorities. But if you are trying to get a normally-aspirated piston single from northern New England to southern Florida, with the wife and kids, and a relative time table, with an optomistic service ceiling of 17k, weather is going to play a huge part in your success and/or failure to complete your mission. Getting out of New England in the winter can be a show stopper unto itself.
This is why I harp on pilot education. The information is there and the weather service has bent over backwards to make it user-friendly. Even so, looking at all that data doesn't mean that you are successfully interpreting all that data.
Guys like Scott Dennstaedt have risked a whole lot to try and offer a bridge between the raw data and a stimulating learning experience. If the simple answer is going to be "make it so simple, even a caveman can interpret it", I don't think we'll ever end up with a solution. Weather is complex and I don't foresee a one-size-fits-all solution to aviation weather interpretation.
Ya, it's a lot of words but I needed to get it off my chest.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I would think the biggest thing, in my eyes, is to get rid of the stupid abbreviated format. We're not teletyping weather reports over a thin wire that might lose big words (or whatever the reasoning for the original abbreviation was).
Also - Mountain Obscuration is pointless to the VFR pilot. If you can't see the tops of the mountains, you're not flying there anyway. Doubly so for Icing Airmets.
NOTAMs, TFRs, weather forecasts enroute, and terminal forecasts are really the most important things for VFR pilots, IMHO.
Also - Mountain Obscuration is pointless to the VFR pilot. If you can't see the tops of the mountains, you're not flying there anyway. Doubly so for Icing Airmets.
NOTAMs, TFRs, weather forecasts enroute, and terminal forecasts are really the most important things for VFR pilots, IMHO.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
If you have not looked at Dan Checkoway's weathermeister.com, there is a lot of innovative thinking there. I have been using it for a number of years and it is the only website that I find valuable enough to pay for access.
1) Screens are not cluttered with logos, links, sidebars, and disclaimers. The whole screen is weather.
2) METARs, TAFs, PIREPS, and NOTAMS are color coded.
3) I can mouseover a METAR airport identifier and get links to airport information, mouseover the winds and get crosswind components.
4) Screens can be tailored to show exactly what I want to see and in the order that I want to see it. Multiple formats allow me to have "viewed" screens and also to define screens suitable for printing and putting on my kneeboard.
5) Both area and route briefings are available, with route briefings tailored to the airplane being flown and winds at the planned flight time.
I am sure that one could hypothesize some very fancy HTML5 or Flash animations, etc. and I do look at the NWS radar pages in order to see the 1 hour history, but I don't know of a site that provides what weathermeister does. You can practically make ago/no-go decision 6 feet away from the screen, just have someone scroll it and see whether it's mostly red or mostly green!
re the abbreviated format, for me reading it is a lot quicker that wading through a complex text paragraph. I prefer it, but the right approach is probably to make the format optional. For those who like it coded, show it coded. For those who like paragraphs, give them paragraphs.
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
It's kainda hard to teach when the response is, "wee don't need no steenkin eddication...."
schmookeeg
En-Route
Are there weather product luddites out to get you?
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
The point is that, regardless of when the mountains are obscured, I'll still never be in the clouds that obscure them, so it doesn't matter. At what point would I have to worry about mountains I can't see that are covered in a cloud I can't enter?
That's why I think those Airmets are useless for VFR pilots.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Some people might want an educated guess about whether the mountains are going to be obscured or not before they take off so they can decide if it's worth trying the trip.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Are you talking about for sight seeing? I can see that. But for navigation/safety of flight's sake? I really don't see it.
alaskaflyer
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,544
- Location
- Smith Valley, Nevada
- Display Name
Display name:
Alaskaflyer
Because you don't live in the mountains I guess.SkyHog said:
Mountains have passes. People fly through passes to get places. For more than sightseeing.
Though the forecast itself is often wrong, it is nice to know if it is predicted that I can get home.
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
They have a significant impact on my flight planning. Do I go over the Cascades, or around them (Columbia River gorge). VFR, they still matter to me.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I can see that (by the way, I live in the mountains).
But, IME, mountain obscuration is usually around the tops of the mountains, not the passes. The passes are obscured when the surrounding area is obscured, unless we're talking about passes like Monarch or La Veta, which both have AWOS that can be used instead of the Airmet anyway.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I don't get it. If you can go over (not through) them, then you wouldn't be hitting the tops of the mountains anyway, right? So what difference does it make if they're obscured?
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
I go over them at 9500 MSL east bound and 10,500 MSL westbound. And I still have to dodge a really big rock called Mt Rainier. Yes, I can fly V204, but I'm VFR, so it's better if I can see it. If the mountains are obscured, I'm going around and taking the sea level pass through them. "Mountain obscuration" doesn't mean just the peaks are hidden to me.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Mountain obscuration frequently includes the passes not just the peaks. As far as the AWOSs go, that was a fairly recent (+- 10 years?) joint effort with the state of Colorado so don't expect all passes in the country to have AWOS.
No. In fact I wasn't really thinking about sightseeing at all. If the mountains are forecast to be obscured some people would rather plan on another route rather than taking the time to go look and see which can eat up a lot of time. Ask me how I know this.SkyHog said:
