"Are you worried about all those non-green colors on the radar?"

Mike Granby wrote:

This seems quite reasonable to me. A given level of return might be
quite flyable in stratus, but quite something else in convective
conditions.

Today's activity was the result of a low pressure system just over the
border of the US into Canada that sent a pretty strong cold front marching
across New England. The temperature differences on either side of the cold
front were about 30 degrees F.

Now I am not a meteorologist by trade or university, but I am pretty
confident that the level three and higher returns showing up on radar ahead
of this cold front today were not falling from a stratus layer.

Presumably the FSS specialist was quite aware of the weather maker causing
the rain and should have saved his smart-assed comments for another, more
docile day. This day there were good reasons for a single engine aircraft
to avoid the "non-green colors" on radar, given that the big jets all were
making every effort to do so *and* that convective Sigments were released
for portions of New England while we were en route.

--
Peter

Now I am not a meteorologist by trade or university, but I am pretty
confident that the level three and higher returns showing up on radar ahead
of this cold front today were not falling from a stratus layer.

Don't be so confident. I recall one trip from Destin back to Houston
where I nearly drove a controller who was just as certain as you are
into a conniption fit. It so happened he was wrong too.

I was flying my PA-30, which doesn't have RADAR of any sort (not even
the XM kind) but does have a good Stormscope. I had already deviated
North to avoid an area of convection (the screen was lit up) but headed
West once I was North of the activity. The controller almost did not
allow me to turn West - he insisted I would be flying through an area
of Level II and III returns, with small areas of IV (that's red) in an
area covered by a convective SIGMET. And he was right. However, all
the actual convective activity was now South of me. I flew through
some moderate and even heavy rain - with no turbulence to speak of.
Nothing worse than occasional light chop. I flew in and between
stratus layers. The controller was checking on me every few minutes,
asking if I needed to deviate - because all he had was the RADAR and
the SIGMET.

There really are times when you can have areas of yellow and red, in
conditions that look like they favor convective activity, and in fact
right next to convective activity, which are nonetheless stratiform and
quite comfortable to penetrate. The key is knowing that convection is
not there. Now how one is to know that without a good 'spherics device
is beyond me.

Michael

Michael wrote:

There really are times when you can have areas of yellow and red, in
conditions that look like they favor convective activity, and in fact
right next to convective activity, which are nonetheless stratiform and
quite comfortable to penetrate. The key is knowing that convection is
not there. Now how one is to know that without a good 'spherics device
is beyond me.

While I do see your point (and always have sided with you on your recurring
theme of getting proper utility out of an aircraft), this particular flight
was a return leg of an Angel Flight mission; it was not a mission critical
freight dog flight. I certainly don't see any harm in erring on the side
of caution in wanting to stay clear of level three and higher returns,
especially when there is an advancing cold front in the area.

Whether these particular returns contained destructive turbulence or not
was not something I wanted to test. All of the weather conditions that day
suggested they could be convective and that was enough for me.

Additionally, my point in starting this thread was to question whether it
is really the FSS specialist's job to imply that I am being too
conservative when asking about the colorful radar returns? IMO, absolutely
not.

By the way, I recall one flight a couple of Septembers ago where the red
returns were due to a local radar being set too sensitive for the falling
*wet snow*. In this particular briefing, the FSS specialist was very good.
He didn't imply that I was too concerned about seeing red. Instead, he
investigated my concerns by pulling up the metars from the area, spotted
snow being reported, then concluding that it was a radar sensitivity issue,
not convective activity, that was causing the reds.

--
Peter

Whether these particular returns contained destructive turbulence or not
was not something I wanted to test.

Actually, it's not something you EVER want to test. I inadvertently
penetrated a Level 3 once, and would not willingly do so again. My
point is that if you have reliable static discharge data, it's not
something you're testing. You can't have strong convection with water
droplets without having static discharges. It's just not possible. If
the water is there and the static discharges are not, then there's no
convection and penetration is safe. It's just that simple.

My trip wasn't exactly critical either, and I could have deviated an
extra 30 miles and been outside the convective SIGMET. But what's the
point? Deviating around stratiform cloud with rain? Now without
'sferics, I would certainly have deviated. Or maybe not, if I had live
lightning data piped into my cockpit.

Additionally, my point in starting this thread was to question whether it
is really the FSS specialist's job to imply that I am being too
conservative when asking about the colorful radar returns?

I made no comment on that part of your post. I think you made your
point, it's been discussed, and I have nothing to add to it. No, of
course it's not appropriate - but then you get what you pay for.
Pesonally I prefer a self-briefing with DUATS.

Michael

"Michael" wrote:

There really are times when you can have areas of yellow and red, in
conditions that look like they favor convective activity, and in fact
right next to convective activity, which are nonetheless stratiform and
quite comfortable to penetrate. The key is knowing that convection is
not there. Now how one is to know that without a good 'spherics device
is beyond me.

WxWorx.

Red precip without lightning: http://www.seaerospace.com/garmin/396pic2.jpg

Red precip with lightning: http://www.seaerospace.com/garmin/396pic8.jpg

http://www.seaerospace.com/garmin/396pic9.jpg

It is not real time like 'spherics, but it is timely enough to have tactical
value. I have seen it accurately show lightning where there was not yet any
precip. depicted. I've used it--coincidentally in the Destin area--to
penetrate weather that ATC had warned me about. The little inverted
triangles are METARs that are very useful in verifying the nature of NEXRAD
returns.

Both have their limitations. The optimum situation would be to have
'spherics *and* satellite. Having to choose, I'll take the XM weather
because it does so much more.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

WxWorx.

Red precip without lightning: http://www.seaerospace.com/garmin/396pic2.jpg

Red precip with lightning: http://www.seaerospace.com/garmin/396pic8.jpg

Nice.

WSI downlinked weather displayed on a Garmin MX20 moving map: Will never
display the lightning data now offered by WSI, thanks to the feud between
these two companies.

Between WSI and TIS, I don't know how many more technological dead-ends I
can choose in one lifetime.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:


WxWorx.

Red precip without lightning: http://www.seaerospace.com/garmin/396pic2.jpg

Red precip with lightning: http://www.seaerospace.com/garmin/396pic8.jpg


Nice.

WSI downlinked weather displayed on a Garmin MX20 moving map: Will never
display the lightning data now offered by WSI, thanks to the feud between
these two companies.

Between WSI and TIS, I don't know how many more technological dead-ends I
can choose in one lifetime.


How about VHS and Beta Max all over again with the emerging Hi Def DVD
formats.

These folks love to hate each other and, in the process, screw the
consumer over until there is no tomorrow.

"Sam Spade" wrote:

Between WSI and TIS, I don't know how many more technological dead-ends I
can choose in one lifetime.


How about VHS and Beta Max all over again with the emerging Hi Def DVD
formats.

These folks love to hate each other and, in the process, screw the
consumer over until there is no tomorrow.

There is a real chance consumers will react to both with a big yawn.

Home videotape recording was a revolutionary product that everyone wanted.
On the other hand, the new DVD formats offer so small an increment in
display quality over a good 480-P player on an HDTV screen, I think few
people will care enough to upgrade. At least they can afford to wait and
see which new format survives.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:


There is a real chance consumers will react to both with a big yawn.

Home videotape recording was a revolutionary product that everyone wanted.
On the other hand, the new DVD formats offer so small an increment in
display quality over a good 480-P player on an HDTV screen, I think few
people will care enough to upgrade. At least they can afford to wait and
see which new format survives.


Once you see a Hi Def DVD properly connected to a compliant HDV set, you
won't consider the difference between that and up-converted 480P, to be
a "yawn."

"Peter R." wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:

WxWorx.

Red precip without lightning:
http://www.seaerospace.com/garmin/396pic2.jpg

Red precip with lightning: http://www.seaerospace.com/garmin/396pic8.jpg

Nice.

WSI downlinked weather displayed on a Garmin MX20 moving map: Will never
display the lightning data now offered by WSI, thanks to the feud between
these two companies.

Ouch. This is bad for all of us, as there is virtually no competition for
WxWorx/Garmin.

--
Dan

"The future has actually been here for a while, it's just not readily
available to everyone."
- some guy at MIT