Aviation Dilemma 101 - How much trust in a 10 day forecast??

"Morgans" wrote in message ...
:
: "Peter R." wrote
:
: This time of year (at least during the day) the type of IMC they get is in
: the form of t-storms, is it not? An IFR rating won't really help here.
: \
: I have seen OSH go IFR only, with no T-storms around, but that is the
: exception to the rule. Usually, you are right.
:
: The one day I am thinking of, it went from closed to VFR, in a period of
: about 3 minutes, then closed again.
:
: I wonder if the two Harriers, reporting at 5 miles out, coming in low fuel
: had anything to do with that? vbg It did close again, less than a minute
: after they were on the ground! g
: --
: Jim in NC
:

The down vectored thrust burned a hole that made it VFR. Of course it closed back in after they landed, the heat was
gone...

;-)

The down vectored thrust burned a hole that made it VFR. Of course it
closed back in after they landed, the heat was
gone...

Yea, they did use some downward thrust, for that landing. Did you happen to
see it? I think it was '03.

I happen to be out there flagging 18 traffic on Papa Center, (the next
intersection North of the West Ramp) and they touched down with about half
down thrust, about even with where I was. It had rained, so the runway was
wet, and they kicked up quite a cloud of spray. You couldn't get any
closer, unless you were in the plane! It was _way_ too cool!
--
Jim in NC

The down vectored thrust burned a hole that made it VFR. Of course it
closed back in after they landed, the heat was gone...

There was a book I read 30+ years ago that related the operational
development of radar at an English airfield during WWII. I want to say
Arthur C Clark was the author, but I am not certain.
One of the tales that was related told about an idea someone in the war
ministry had.
The idea was to set out smudge pots along the sides of the runway in a
manner similar to runway lights.
When there was heavy fog and it was necessary to land aircraft, the
ground support crews would drive down the runway and light all the
smudge pots.
The heat generated by the smudge pots would then dissipate the fog along
the runway, allowing aircraft to land.
The smudge pots were lit and the fog did dissipate.
The surprise came when the first aircraft attempted to land. As it
approached the flair, it began to go out of control. The pilot managed
to regain control and successfully land.
Everyone gathered around him as he climbing out of the cockpit, asking
what had happened.
It seems the smudge pots were generating so much heat that the localized
air along the runway became turbulent.
Thus ended the experiment.

In article ,
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

A link showing it in use with a Lancaster bomber:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/overflow/Dresde...ages/0042.html

Aircraft circling above airfield, fog along the runway begins to clear,
pre-landing briefing...
Scientist to Pilot: "Just land between those two rows of fire."
Pilot: "You want me to what!!!"

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
: john smith wrote:
:
: The idea was to set out smudge pots along the sides of the runway in a
: manner similar to runway lights.
: When there was heavy fog and it was necessary to land aircraft, the
: ground support crews would drive down the runway and light all the
: smudge pots.
:
: The system was known as FIDO - Fog Intensive Dispersal Of.
: It used perforated pipes along the runway and usually burned
: the local petrol supply. Problems were encountered in the
: early tests, but it was ultimately put to use and developed
: further after the war.
:
: A link showing it in use with a Lancaster bomber:
: http://www.fpp.co.uk/overflow/Dresde...ages/0042.html
: --


They did something similar with ground based jet engines at Heathrow back in the '60s. Don't know the details...

I seem to remember reading in one of Robert Buck's books
that the airlines were grounded because the weather was
below take-off minimums at some airport in the east, perhaps
JKF. They had several 747s taxi on the runway and that
heated the air enough to raise the RVR to take-off minimums.
As soon as they all started taking off, the heat cleared the
runway.

The FAA tried to violate the crews for "weather
modification, taking off below minimums. They dropped the
case because it was stupid, the weather did improve.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

".Blueskies." wrote in
message
. net...
|
| "T o d d P a t t i s t"
wrote in message
| ...
| : john smith wrote:
| :
| : The idea was to set out smudge pots along the sides of
the runway in a
| : manner similar to runway lights.
| : When there was heavy fog and it was necessary to land
aircraft, the
| : ground support crews would drive down the runway and
light all the
| : smudge pots.
| :
| : The system was known as FIDO - Fog Intensive Dispersal
Of.
| : It used perforated pipes along the runway and usually
burned
| : the local petrol supply. Problems were encountered in
the
| : early tests, but it was ultimately put to use and
developed
| : further after the war.
| :
| : A link showing it in use with a Lancaster bomber:
| :
http://www.fpp.co.uk/overflow/Dresde...ages/0042.html
| : --
|
|
| They did something similar with ground based jet engines
at Heathrow back in the '60s. Don't know the details...
|
|