![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 4, 11:21 am, "Peter R." wrote:
I was listening to LiveATC.net's feed of Syracuse, NY, yesterday (Sunday) during the approach of a large thunderstorm line that was moving towards the airport from the south. At one point a VFR a Cessna 172, approaching the airport from the west, checked in stating his intention to land at SYR. As the C172 progressed, the controller called the pilot to report that the aircraft was eight miles from and heading directly towards a line of extreme weather. The pilot responded in a somewhat unappreciative tone that he was "painting" it. The controller responded with a rather surprised, "Roger." Moments later the controller again called to warn the pilot of extreme weather at his twelve o'clock. The pilot then replied in what sounded like an annoyed tone that he was "picking our way through the weather using our XM." Again, the controller replied with a surprised "Roger." With a quiet moment on the frequency, the controller called the pilot a third time to ask him to explain what XM meant. The pilot described the concept of XM NEXRAD on his Garmin 396, but then added that the refresh rate allowed him to see heavy weather on the 398 from 2 to 8 minutes old. When I heard that the refresh rate was up to 8 minutes old, I cringed to think that this pilot (this one didn't sound like an experienced freight dog to me, but maybe I was wrong) was picking his way through a field of thunderstorms on a day where returns went from light to extreme in less than ten minutes. Granted that the pilot was VFR so presumably he was seeing and avoiding using the outside picture primarily. But this day it was a typical northeast US hazy and humid day with visibility around the 6 to 8 mile range, so having the Garmin 396 for strategic avoidance was a good thing. It still made me sweat from the comfort of my office chair to imagine that this pilot was flying through the weather line using up to 8 minute old data (not even considering the NEXRAD delay before the picture is uplinked to the XM satellites) and declining the more real-time weather guidance offered by ATC (SYR approach has excellent weather radar). Eventually a thunderstorm cell erupted right over the airport, resulting in numerous wind shear alerts and at least one microburst alert, so the pilot called approach to state his intention of diverting southeast towards an airport 50 nm south of SYR to wait out the weather. -- Peter Hello: Eventually we are going to see/read about a pretty "fantastic" accident with this kind of flying. I've done a reasonable amount of "line" running in everything from Boeings to TriChamps (although the latter is much more entertaining since the speed of advance of the thurderstoms and airplane are closley matched!) with a fairly wide range of equipment (Radar to STorm Scopes to the XM). MOST of it was perfectly safe, there were one or two times a few years ago that I had some "unpleasantries" occur that were fortunatly learning lessons... But just from the blow by blow you give this pilot strikes me as not being very clear about what he/she was doing. As you make clear, the big deal with the XM is the delay...and in a cell/cells where "training" is taking place that delay can be deadly. What is fairly scary (at least to me) is that the pilot did not seem to understand the limitations of his equipment and/or the advantages/ limitations of the ATC radar. If Syracuse has an ASR11/12 then they have pretty good wx information. It isnt Nexrad but it is certianly better and more real time then what the XM is showing. Visually you can spot the "training" and this guy was VFR so that showed some smarts...but it is not a far leap to when someone is doing this IFR and finds that the "red" has moved to right where they are...and the airplane they are flying is now testing the limits of structural integrity. the problem with all this new instrumentation is the same as pilots found when they moved from the classic 737 into the EFIS versions (or into complete EFIS airplanes)...the training was not up to the standards of the equipment and people got into severe trouble. I think that your instincts are pretty good here. Robert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Radio "Squelch-type" Noise | Kensandyeggo | Owning | 7 | April 12th 06 07:20 PM |
jeppesen "aviation weather" book | Mike | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | March 26th 06 08:09 PM |