VFR "picking his way thru" heavy cells with XM Radio weather

Darwin has a new recruit to watch.

Ron Lee

Peter R. writes:

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 ...

Don't worry: He'll end up dead soon enough, and then he won't be making
anyone sweat any more. Plus he'll have his posthumous 15 minutes of fame on
CNN.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Peter R. writes:

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 ...

Don't worry: He'll end up dead soon enough, and then he won't be
making anyone sweat any more. Plus he'll have his posthumous 15
minutes of fame on CNN.


How would you know, moron?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

How would you know, moron?

There are no old, bold pilots.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

How would you know, moron?

There are no old, bold pilots.


Yes, there are fjukktard

http://www.icasfoundation.org/hall_f...96/hf_cole.htm

Just for instance

Which makes you ....Wrong again!


Bertie

On Jun 4, 12:21 pm, "Peter R." wrote:
I was listening to LiveATC.net's feed of Syracuse, NY, yesterday (Sunday)

Thank you Peter, for introducing a neat web goodie!

After listening to the inflight, and reading some posts here, I am
amazed at your point of view.

As I see it, the controller is the dummy with his his head stuck up
his rear. How can you work full time in this business, and not know
what XM is ?

The controller got nervous by looking at his radar, when the pilot
(who said that he was IFR rated) had his window to look out.

Unsafe ? The pilot is using modern technology to overcome a problem
with ATC, they usually don't offer advice, and will let you fly right
into the soup without warning. Anyway, that is how I see it.

On 6/12/2007 6:58:10 AM, George Graham wrote:

As I see it, the controller is the dummy with his his head stuck up
his rear. How can you work full time in this business, and not know
what XM is ?

I don't know this controller personally, but I fly into and out of SYR twice
to three times every week since 2002 and I know he is no dummy over the air.
My take on this? This is probably the controller's first experience in
dealing with a pilot who continually admitted that he was using the guidance
of his XM weather over the controller's weather assistance to avoid what
appeared to be extreme weather in the aircraft's path.

Recall also that a) XM weather is a relatively new concept, having only been
available for the last two years or so and b) most controllers including this
one are not pilots and therefore are not aware of the latest technology to
grace the GA cockpits.

The controller got nervous by looking at his radar, when the pilot
(who said that he was IFR rated) had his window to look out.

You will note in the audio clip that at one point the controller reads the
latest ATIS at the airport and visibility was reported at 3 miles in haze.
The airport was perhaps 20 miles east of the pilot's location with no
significant geographical differences between it and the aircraft's location.
At another point the controller asked the pilot for the conditions and the
pilot reported visibility at 5 to 10 miles. Between the ATIS and the pilot's
admission to visibility starting at 5 miles, I think for discussion purposes
it is safe to assume that visibility was less than 10 miles.

Yes, the pilot certainly had his window as the primary weather avoidance tool
but it was a very hazy day and the first weather call by the controller
reported extreme weather 8 miles directly ahead, arguably out of the pilot's
sight at that point in the clip.

Unsafe ? The pilot is using modern technology to overcome a problem with ATC,

Based on my understanding and as a WSI downlinked weather customer and IFR
pilot myself, I was pointing out that XM NEXRAD (that which is displayed on
the pilot's Garmin 396) can be up to 9 minutes old, or perhaps even older
(*). This "modern technology" is *not* without limitations. Nine minute old
NEXRAD data will mislead a pilot into believing a strong cell is in one
location when in fact that cell has moved up to 10 miles from that point.
This difference should be enough to support the contention that downlinked
NEXRAD weather is NOT a tool for tactical weather avoidance, as this pilot in
the clip admitted using as such ("picking my way through").

Approach facilities like SYR have weather radar that is much more real-time
than nine minute old NEXRAD data. Why would a pilot fail to use ALL
information available to him and decline controller provided weather
deviations/recommendations, as this pilot seemed to be doing in this clip by
stating that he had his own weather?

(*) note in the clip that the pilot stated that XM NEXRAD could be up to 18
minutes old, which I incorrectly quoted previously in this thread as 8
minutes. If this is really the case, then 18 minute old data may as well be
yesterday's NEXRAD as far as using it as a tool to "pick" your way through a
line. No pilot who strives to avoid thunderstorm penetration would rely on 18
minute old data to circumvent cells.

, they usually don't offer advice, and will let you fly right
into the soup without warning. Anyway, that is how I see it.

Come on. Think about that above statement for a moment. Had you used
"thunderstorms" instead of "soup" you might have had an argument because
there are documented accidents where controllers failed to call out
thunderstorms in the paths of aircraft, but soup? Outside of the airport's
ASOS/AWOS/human observation, controllers have no idea whether every mile
within their airspace is IMC or VMC. Keeping an aircraft out of the "soup" is
simply not a service provided by ATC.

In any event, your point is moot in this example. The controller *was*
attempting to offer weather avoidance services using radar that was much more
current than XM NEXRAD.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:

I don't know this controller personally, but I fly into and out of SYR twice
to three times every week since 2002 and I know he is no dummy over the air.
My take on this? This is probably the controller's first experience in
dealing with a pilot who continually admitted that he was using the guidance
of his XM weather over the controller's weather assistance to avoid what
appeared to be extreme weather in the aircraft's path.

I was thinking the controller understood how XM worked, and wanted to
see if the pilot was aware of the delays and limitations vs. actual
radar. He then trying to offer additional information, but he can't
force the pilot to use it.

On 6/12/2007 12:18:34 PM, B A R R Y wrote:

I was thinking the controller understood how XM worked, and wanted to
see if the pilot was aware of the delays and limitations vs. actual
radar. He then trying to offer additional information, but he can't
force the pilot to use it.

The old, "give him enough rope with which to hang himself," or in this case
get the pilot to back into the conclusion that there actually is a
limitation. Yep, I could see the controller having that hidden agenda, too.


--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:

The old, "give him enough rope with which to hang himself," or in this case
get the pilot to back into the conclusion that there actually is a
limitation. Yep, I could see the controller having that hidden agenda, too.


In some ways, a subtle reminder.

Like asking for a clarification of destination or on-course heading when
an aircraft seems to be headed off-course.