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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote:
A developing storm won't necessarily show rain either. Falling rain occurs during the mature and dissipating stages of thunderstorm development, and while water droplets may be present during the developing stage (being lifted by the updraft), there may not necessarily be enough to show up on radar as a significant storm. This I didn't know. I agree that his statement might have meant what you said, rather than what I thought it meant. Frankly, I'm not sure how your interpretations of what I wrote are different. I think you've both a pretty good grasp of my concern. But I still don't see how it would imply 'spherics devices are inferior for detecting thunderstorms. I didn't write this. I'm trying to find out just how well they work as avoidance tools, true, but that doesn't imply that I don't like the device. I don't know enough yet. Also, while I'm not positive, if I recall correctly lightning is present in any thunderstorm where turbulence and strong updrafts are present, regardless of the stage of development. From my reading - light yet, I admit - it sounded like lightening occurred only after the developing stage is well along. It takes time for the difference in potential to grow enough that discharges occur, as I've understand what I read. Did I misunderstand? [...] There are certainly "almost thunderstorms" that it's best to fly around. No doubt...but I haven't seen anything that would suggest a Stormscope or Strikefinder wouldn't identify those storms. Wouldn't a strikefinder, by definition, not see a storm that wasn't yet a thunderstorm? I liked your idea, BTW, about trying the strikefinder experimentally. I was up in poor-but-VFR conditions this weekend, and I was trying to do something of that sort. Isolated t-storms were predicted, so it seemed a good opportunity. Unfortunately, the visibility was sufficiently poor and there were enough clouds around that I couldn't really see much at a distance. There were strikes showing, but I couldn't match them with anything visually. Also, nothing was clustering. There were regions with indicated strikes, but of no major density. If I had to guess, I'd say that my understanding about the time it takes for discharges to occur is wrong, and this is a demonstration of "near t-storms" appearing on the strikefinder. Alas, this really is just a guess. I've more reading to do, in the meantime. - Andrew |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
James M. Knox wrote:
Dumb question time. Why exclude cloud-to-cloud? Wouldn't that type of lightning also indicate conditions one would wish to avoid? The official answer is "where would you plot it???" Azimuth: Where the strike is strongest. Distance: Based upon strength. Aren't these how strikefinders handle cloud-to-ground strikes? Some of the newer models have a feature that allows you to temporarily disable the suppression feature. This was in response to pilot requests (pilots who got tired of seeing a lot of lightning and NOTHING showing up on the screen). Yes, well, that would bug me too laugh! - Andrew |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gideon wrote
From my reading - light yet, I admit - it sounded like lightening occurred only after the developing stage is well along. Depends on what you mean by well along. In fact, on a day with strong thermal activity, you can actually detect the static discharges from thermals. They don't fit the models developed for lightning strikes, and often a thermal that is close will show up as a strike much farther away. It takes time for the difference in potential to grow enough that discharges occur, as I've understand what I read. Did I misunderstand? No, that part is right. But realize that when the activity is strong, it doesn't take that much time. Basically, by the time there is enough liquid water for RADAR to see it, there are static discharges strong enough for spherics. Wouldn't a strikefinder, by definition, not see a storm that wasn't yet a thunderstorm? Not really. Static discharges need not be lightning to be detectable. Also, nothing was clustering. There were regions with indicated strikes, but of no major density. If I had to guess, I'd say that my understanding about the time it takes for discharges to occur is wrong, and this is a demonstration of "near t-storms" appearing on the strikefinder. Exactly. A spherics device won't keep you dry (since it can't see non-convective rain) but it will keep you out of severe turbulence. In fact, I've yet to encounter anything worse than occsional light turbulence while relying solely on the spherics. Moderate turbulence in clouds is something I've only ever experienced when allowing a controller with RADAR to vector me through an area I would not have entered without RADAR assistance. Michael |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in news:10fnu8jacpfvs32
@corp.supernews.com: The official answer is "where would you plot it???" What do you mean? You'd plot it where it happens, just as with cloud-to-ground strikes. How could that possibly be an "official" answer? I would have to look, but I think it was in either the manual or a brochure (FAQ) that came with my Stormscope. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
Depends on what you mean by well along. In fact, on a day with strong thermal activity, you can actually detect the static discharges from thermals. They don't fit the models developed for lightning strikes, and often a thermal that is close will show up as a strike much farther away. Ah ha! This is new to me too. It takes time for the difference in potential to grow enough that discharges occur, as I've understand what I read. Did I misunderstand? No, that part is right. But realize that when the activity is strong, it doesn't take that much time. Basically, by the time there is enough liquid water for RADAR to see it, there are static discharges strong enough for spherics. Hmm. Okay. [...] Also, nothing was clustering. There were regions with indicated strikes, but of no major density. If I had to guess, I'd say that my understanding about the time it takes for discharges to occur is wrong, and this is a demonstration of "near t-storms" appearing on the strikefinder. Exactly. So what was I seeing? Static discharges from thermals that could grow into t-storms? A spherics device won't keep you dry (since it can't see non-convective rain) but it will keep you out of severe turbulence. In fact, I've yet to encounter anything worse than occsional light turbulence while relying solely on the spherics. In this case, what are you avoiding? Clusters? Any "strikes"? What's your threshold for "not that way"? BTW, when you write "RADAR" in making your comparisons here, are you referring strictly to ATC RADAR? Or are you including airborn and/or down/uploaded NEXRAD - Andrew |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gideon wrote
So what was I seeing? Static discharges from thermals that could grow into t-storms? Yes, pretty much. In this case, what are you avoiding? Clusters? Any "strikes"? What's your threshold for "not that way"? Depends on how much turbulence I'm willing to tolerate. If I avoid all strikes, I never get anything worse than some light chop and thermal activity. If I avoid only clusters of strikes, and ignore individual dots, I've accepted some increase in risk, and also accepted that I'm going to have light turbulence and some moderate chop at times. If I'm going for a weak spot in a line - an area with relatively little clustering - I know I'm in for it. I won't do this kind of penetration without some sort of RADAR service - either decent ATC RADAR or following a RADAR-equipped light aircraft, preferably both. At that point, I slow to Va-10, ask for a block altitude, and strap in. At that point, I KNOW I'm in a convective area - I'm just counting on RADAR to take me around the worst of it. I don't do this when I can avoid it - it's kind of like flying single engine low IFR. If everything works it will be OK, but do it long enough... As a last resort, you can always switch to the short range mode and steer away from any dots that how up in front of you. It works most of the time, but realize that if you're doing that, you've already screwed up. BTW, when you write "RADAR" in making your comparisons here, are you referring strictly to ATC RADAR? Or are you including airborn and/or down/uploaded NEXRAD Actually, NEXRAD is what ATC has these days, and yes, I'm talking about airborne RADAR as well. By the time there is enough water being suspended for airborne RADAR to see it - meaning distinguish it from the surrounding non-convective light to moderate precip - it will show up on a Stormscope in an obvious way. See, the real challenge of using spherics (or RADAR) is not avoiding weather. That's easy. Simply don't go anywhre you see strikes (or returns). Unfortunately, that doesn't get you where you are going. The challenge is to ignore the light/moderate turbulence (or precip) but avoid the cells. That always requires some amount of judgment and interpretation. How much clustering is acceptable? Depends on lots of factors. It's never perfect. Unless you always turn away from the first indication, you are eventually going to penetrate a cell - the odds will eventually catch up with you. Of course the same is true of flying single engine IFR. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:17 AM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
Ford V-6 engine work | Corky Scott | Home Built | 19 | August 21st 03 12:04 PM |