Pentrating Towering Cumulus Clouds

"Ron McKinnon" wrote in
newsG%8e.1066820$Xk.925695@pd7tw3no:


"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was in one once. A towering Cumulus. A big dark one. Weather said
just rain, no thunderstorms. It started raining. Then I lost some
altitude. Looked up and my airplane was coated with ice! Clear, but
ragged ice, about 1/2" thick on all forward facing surfaces.
Fortunately I had warm VMC under me, so I descended and shed the ice.
I don't fly into dark Cumulus clouds anymore. Only reason I did that
time is I was pretty ignorant of weather.

How on earth could you be an Instrument rated Pilot, or even a
non-instrument rated pilot for that matter, and be 'pretty ignorant
of weather' ???

I was just happy to have a
clearance and be able to fly in actual. I was in and out of IMC. Here
comes a big dark one. In I went. Coulda been worse, coulda been
hail....


I suspect that his level of "ignorance of weather" was that he was unable
to accurately predict the conditions inside that dark towering Cumulus
cloud he flew through.

I also suspect that most pilots, VFR or IFR, have been in the same boat at
some point after their IFR training, especially since it is not a pre-
requisite to receiving the instrument rating. We are mostly taught to
depend on forecasts and spend very little time during training on learning
to properly identify cloud formations from actual pictures or live
representations, and to understand what to expect within each type of
cloud.

During VFR training, you learn to just stay away from them. And during IFR
training, you get pounded about the extremes (CBs and Stratus clouds) but
there is really inadequate training of the stuff in the middle - probably
because the stuff in the middle varies so widely.

Can you accurately predict conditions inside of a towering CU unless you
get inside of it? There are different conditions even within the same cloud
that depend on many factors that include pressure, elapsed time, wind
speed, humidity levels, etc. So while one dark TCU may produce hail, rain,
and ice, the next dark TCU might be fairly uneventful and produce some
turbulence as you enter and exit and that's all.

I think most people are fairly ignorant of weather, even if we think we are
experts. Otherwise the meteorologists would never be wrong, and the rest of
us COULD just depend on the forecasts...

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Ron McKinnon" wrote in
newsG%8e.1066820$Xk.925695@pd7tw3no:


"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was in one once. A towering Cumulus. A big dark one. Weather said
just rain, no thunderstorms. It started raining. Then I lost some
altitude. Looked up and my airplane was coated with ice! Clear, but
ragged ice, about 1/2" thick on all forward facing surfaces.
Fortunately I had warm VMC under me, so I descended and shed the ice.
I don't fly into dark Cumulus clouds anymore. Only reason I did that
time is I was pretty ignorant of weather.

How on earth could you be an Instrument rated Pilot, or even a
non-instrument rated pilot for that matter, and be 'pretty ignorant
of weather' ???

I was just happy to have a
clearance and be able to fly in actual. I was in and out of IMC. Here
comes a big dark one. In I went. Coulda been worse, coulda been
hail....


I suspect that his level of "ignorance of weather" was that he was unable
to accurately predict the conditions inside that dark towering Cumulus
cloud he flew through.

The level of ignorance implied by my post was the level of ignorance
stated by the original poster 'Pretty ignorant about weather", and the
stated actions of that poster

I also suspect that most pilots, VFR or IFR, have been in the
same boat at some point after their IFR training, especially
since it is not a pre-requisite to receiving the instrument rating.
We are mostly taught to depend on forecasts and spend very little
time during training on learning to properly identify cloud formations
from actual pictures or live representations, and to understand what
to expect within each type of cloud.

How can you 'depend on forecasts' alone? They are a sketch of
what someone thinks is *likely* to happen. They are not cast in
concrete statements of what *will* happen everywhere in the given
area. And even if they're right-on, for the most part, they can still
miss very localized or short-term events. You can't rely on the
forecasts alone.

And, in any case, you need to know enough about weather to
understand the forecasts so that you know how they might impact
you. This implies a certain understanding of the characteristics
of things like clouds.

During VFR training, you learn to just stay away from them.
And during IFR training, you get pounded about the extremes
(CBs and Stratus clouds) but there is really inadequate training
of the stuff in the middle - probably because the stuff in
the middle varies so widely.

If you know that you should stay the hell away from CBs, you
should know to stay away from "big, dark, TCUs" as well.
A big, dark, TCU, depending on how big and dark it is, for
your intents and purposes, should be considered the same
as a CB. A cloud doesn't just turn into a CB and becoume
dangerous because now it's a CB; it becomes dangerous the
bigger it gets. A big, dark TCU, should probably be considered
as dangerous as a new CB.

Can you accurately predict conditions inside of a towering CU
unless you get inside of it? There are different conditions even
within the same cloud that depend on many factors tat include
pressure, elapsed time, wind speed, humidity levels, etc. So
while one dark TCU may produce hail, rain, and ice, the next
dark TCU might be fairly uneventful and produce some
turbulence as you enter and exit and that's all.

You don't need to know what a grizzly bear had for breakfast
to know not to poke him with a stick. Respect him just 'cause
he's a grizzly bear.

'Accuracy of predictions' is a red-herring, here. Accurate
predictions of conditions inside a TCU are not required.
Just know that if they're big and dark, they're probably nasty.
If you wouldn't penetrate or fly in the vicinity of a CB, you
should probably accord a 'big dark TCU' similar respect.

I think most people are fairly ignorant of weather, even if we
think we are experts. Otherwise the meteorologists would
never be wrong, and the rest of us COULD just depend on the
forecasts...

I suggest that meteorologists are not absolutely wrong as much
as you think. Or as much wrong as you think. But even so, this
does not speak to ignorance of weather, nor or weather processes,
but more to the difficulty in predicting very far into the future the
behaviour of a largely chaotic system such as the atmosphere.

Pilots do not need to be degreed meteorologists, but they do
need to know enough to understand what meteorologists are
telling them, and they do need to know the *basics* well enough
to expect that flying into a 'big, dark TCU' is very likely a
problem.

"Ron McKinnon" wrote in
news:YL9be.1133064$8l.199556@pd7tw1no:

snip
How on earth could you be an Instrument rated Pilot, or even a
non-instrument rated pilot for that matter, and be 'pretty ignorant
of weather' ???

snip
How can you 'depend on forecasts' alone? They are a sketch of
what someone thinks is *likely* to happen. They are not cast in
concrete statements of what *will* happen everywhere in the given
area. And even if they're right-on, for the most part, they can still
miss very localized or short-term events. You can't rely on the
forecasts alone.

And, in any case, you need to know enough about weather to
understand the forecasts so that you know how they might impact
you. This implies a certain understanding of the characteristics
of things like clouds.

snip
You don't need to know what a grizzly bear had for breakfast
to know not to poke him with a stick. Respect him just 'cause
he's a grizzly bear.

'Accuracy of predictions' is a red-herring, here. Accurate
predictions of conditions inside a TCU are not required.
Just know that if they're big and dark, they're probably nasty.
If you wouldn't penetrate or fly in the vicinity of a CB, you
should probably accord a 'big dark TCU' similar respect.

I think most people are fairly ignorant of weather, even if we
think we are experts. Otherwise the meteorologists would
never be wrong, and the rest of us COULD just depend on the
forecasts...

I suggest that meteorologists are not absolutely wrong as much
as you think. Or as much wrong as you think. But even so, this
does not speak to ignorance of weather, nor or weather processes,
but more to the difficulty in predicting very far into the future the
behaviour of a largely chaotic system such as the atmosphere.

Pilots do not need to be degreed meteorologists, but they do
need to know enough to understand what meteorologists are
telling them, and they do need to know the *basics* well enough
to expect that flying into a 'big, dark TCU' is very likely a
problem.

I don't disagree that pilots *should* not be ignorant of weather, and
*should* not depend on forecasts alone, and *should* be taught to
recognize CBs and TCUs and to stay away from them.

However, the IFR training syllabus fails to make this a prerequisite for
certification to fly a plane in IFR conditions, and as such many pilots
*are* ignorant of weather, and *do* depend on forecasts alone, and
*don't* recognize TCUs or CBs, because they have not flown near them
during their training.

A better example than your grizzly bear might be swimming and
snorkeling. When you learn to swim, you don't learn much about the fish
in the ocean - heck you may never even swim in the ocean during your
training.

So now you know how to swim, and you go snorkeling. Someone tells you
that it is OK to pet most fish because even the sharks don't bite if
they are not agitated. One day you find yourself petting a baracuda,
because no told you how to recognize it, or to stay away from it, and
just last week you pet a nurse shark without any problems and sharks are
much scarier, right?

I think too many IFR pilots are in that same boat - they don't even know
how to recognize a CB or TCU because they've never been shown one (the
instructor probably scrubbed the lesson because the forecast called for
them) and they passed through the clouds just fine last time...

What *is* and what *should* be are two very different things...

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
I don't disagree that pilots *should* not be ignorant of
weather, and *should* not depend on forecasts alone, and
*should* be taught to recognize CBs and TCUs and to stay
away from them.

However, the IFR training syllabus fails to make this a
prerequisite for certification to fly a plane in IFR conditions,
and as such many pilots *are* ignorant of weather, and *do*
depend on forecasts alone, and *don't* recognize TCUs or CBs,
because they have not flown near them during their training.

A better example than your grizzly bear might be swimming and
snorkeling. When you learn to swim, you don't learn much about
the fish in the ocean - heck you may never even swim in the ocean
during your training.

So now you know how to swim, and you go snorkeling. Someone
tells you that it is OK to pet most fish because even the sharks
don't bite if they are not agitated. One day you find yourself
petting a baracuda, because no told you how to recognize it,
or to stay away from it, and just last week you pet a nurse shark
without any problems and sharks are much scarier, right?

I think too many IFR pilots are in that same boat - they don't
even know how to recognize a CB or TCU because they've
never been shown one (the instructor probably scrubbed the
lesson because the forecast called for them) and they passed
through the clouds just fine last time...

What *is* and what *should* be are two very different things...

I've heard this plaintive refrain several times in this thread
- "No one taught me not to ", "It's not part of the training
syllabus", "its not required for certification" ...

It doesn't wash. It's a question of airmanship. Its a matter
of responsibility. It's the difference between being a Pilot,
or an airplane driver. The standards are minimums. The
standard curriculum is only a starting point.

And where your specific knowledge and training is not
sufficient, sufficient intelligence, and 'common' sense
should apply; you'll never be taught all the permutations
and combinations, but you should be able to reasonably
extrapolate from what you have already learned or
experienced.

(You should critically assess what you're told to do or
not do in any event, and see if it make sense. And even
then, if you've never seen a barracuda, or never been
told to avoid them, seeing an unfamiliar fish where a
quarter of its length consists of razor sharp teeth should
reasonably give you pause (you do know about razor sharp
teeth, don't you?). If you've been told not to fly into CBs,
you ought to recognize that a big, dark, TCU might be
just about as dangerous, and maybe you ought to avoid it, too.)

As pilot you are responsible for having all the information
reasonably available pertinent to your flight. This includes
*basic* knowledge of meteorology. Your life depends upon
it. The lives of your passengers depend upon it.

CBs are the sharks and barracudas of the sky. You might
get away with playing with them once or twice, but you
can't expect it. What you can expect is that they'll chew
you up and spit you out like so much bubble gum. A big,
dark, TCU may well be on the verge of being a CB; the
closer it gets to being a CB, the closer it gets to being as
dangerous as a CB, but even if it's not as dangerous as a
CB, it can still be dangerous.

None of us know it all, and All of us make mistakes.
We live (hopefully) and learn (hopefully). But in general
it is no argument nor excuse that "No one told me!" As
pilot , *you* are responsible.

Been following this thread and I'm unclear about something. Are
there *really* people out there who 1) have never seen a TCU/CB or
2) have never seen a tornado or 3) have never seen the films on
television about these things? I learned about clouds and how
they formed and about Tstorms in grade school science class.
In particular, hail from Tstorms and how damaging it can be.
And how fast the wind can whip a pencil thru 4inch lumber. Had
great demonstrations!

I've been on a number of commercial flights where the aircraft
deviates to avoid those big, white, fluffy, gorgeous clouds (do
love Ch9 on United. Just hate United).

Which leads me to wonder *WHY* would anyone even consider flying
thru CB or TCU? At least without a will and/or a deathwish.

Blanche wrote in news:1115530461.148407
@irys.nyx.net:

Been following this thread and I'm unclear about something. Are
there *really* people out there who 1) have never seen a TCU/CB or
2) have never seen a tornado or 3) have never seen the films on
television about these things? I learned about clouds and how
they formed and about Tstorms in grade school science class.
In particular, hail from Tstorms and how damaging it can be.
And how fast the wind can whip a pencil thru 4inch lumber. Had
great demonstrations!

I've been on a number of commercial flights where the aircraft
deviates to avoid those big, white, fluffy, gorgeous clouds (do
love Ch9 on United. Just hate United).

Which leads me to wonder *WHY* would anyone even consider flying
thru CB or TCU? At least without a will and/or a deathwish.



You don't always see them.

If they don't have visible lightning, they don't necessarily show up at
night. Before getting our StrikeFinder, I got caught a few times. A
wild ride at times.

If you're in seemingly benign clouds, you may not know what lies ahead.
Lynda and I had a memorable encounter while enroute to Parents' Day for
our younger when he was in undergraduate school at Miami of Ohio. We had
been IMC for quite a while, with a smooth ride, when it all came loose
with no warning at all. The VSI was pegged in a vicious updraft. Slowed
to Va, extended gear, told ATC that a block altitude was required RIGHT
NOW. A Mooney in the vicinity was complaining about 2,000 ft per minute.
We had more, but I don't know how much more, as the VSI was off scale.

Ordered the StrikeFinder the next week. Have not had an encounter like
that since the device was installed -- it gives plenty of warning.

--L. R. Du Broff

"Blanche" wrote in message
...
Been following this thread and I'm unclear about something. Are
there *really* people out there who 1) have never seen a TCU/CB or
2) have never seen a tornado or 3) have never seen the films on
television about these things? I learned about clouds and how
they formed and about Tstorms in grade school science class.
In particular, hail from Tstorms and how damaging it can be.
And how fast the wind can whip a pencil thru 4inch lumber. Had
great demonstrations!

Theres a lot of weather short of big dark threatenly clouds with lighting
inside and funnels below, that light planes can benefit from avoiding.

Big puffy white Cu don't necessarily look threatening until you have
penetrated a few or otherwise experienced them - no matter what you've been
told. (I was fortunate enough to spend many hours in gliders among them -
with a full understanding of the processes involved, I've never had to poke
a big one to know what's in there)

Remember the word 'embedded'. There are conditions that are pretty benign
IMC that can transition to embedded cells. Without a strikefinder or nexrad
or onboard radar or attentive controllers (or Cheap*******) you're flying
among convective cells in the blind. Did that once, nothing was violently
over the top but 'embedded' became firmly embedded in this skull.

Study, research, hangar talk and whatever provide a lot of knowledge but it
has to be mixed with some experience in order for one to apply weather
knowledge effectively. The trick is dipping your toe without falling in -
or least being able to swim out and fly another day.

I've been on a number of commercial flights where the aircraft
deviates to avoid those big, white, fluffy, gorgeous clouds (do
love Ch9 on United. Just hate United).

Which leads me to wonder *WHY* would anyone even consider flying
thru CB or TCU? At least without a will and/or a deathwish.

To get to the other side