"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

Does any pilot (besides yourself) actually think about this while
flying? If so when? Under what circumstances?

After a while don't pilots kind of get to understand when clouds begin
forming due to warming? And when the clouds do form, don't we (VHF
guys) normally just avoid them?


Perhaps there are parts of the country where that is true, but in the
4-seasons part of the world....
yes, you should be thinking about these things BEFORE flying, not just WHILE
flying.

Now I DO agree that knowing the "fact" that the
dry-adiabatic-lapse-rate-is-3-degrees-Celsius-per-thousand-feet and being
able to check off the correct multiple-choice-box on the FAA or
Transport-Canada exam... is somewhat irrelevant if we do not take that fact
and understand it within the context of the rest of our weather environment.

And I have this belief that some of our instructors are concentrating on
ensuring we pass the exam by knowing these "facts", just as they did,
without really understanding nor properly communicating the broader subject
of aviation meteorology to us.
Therefore, it is left to US to obtain that understanding somehow. We should
not cancel our willingness, hell, our *obligation* to learn, once we walk
out of that ground-school session.


As has been often recorded in these newsgroups, TAFs are often "wrong".
Sometimes even METAR observations are less than perfect, especially from
AUTO sites.

If we had a real good understanding of all aspects of meteorology, we could
recognize the situations in which forecasting should be relatively "easy",
and the situation is which it is more "difficult".... therefore the
situation in which we can take the TAF as gospel, and the situation in which
it is likely to be suspect.

We would recognize not only the "actual" forecast for your area, but also
the "potential" of what the other possibilities were. This works both
ways.... we would recognize the potential for good weather when the TAF said
no, and we would recognize the potential for bad weather when the TAF said
go.

We would recognize whether the formation of an unexpected cloud bank is
potentially dangerous or benign. We would recognize whether an unexpected
clearing is real (and may be bad timing on the part of the TAF), or just a
sucker-hole.

We would understand the "thinking behind the TAF" and we would be in a
position to do our own "now-casting" if the
underlying-conditions-to-that-thinking have changed.... because we would
understand what "underlying conditions" to look for, and what their
implications are.

Knowing more about the underlying meteorology of your current situation will
not only help us avoid current BAD weather... it will help us understand
when GOOD-weather-going-bad is a possibility, and it will help us to
understand the difference between MARGINAL-weather-getting-good and
marginal-weather-getting-bad.

I have a real fear that the new generation of in-cockpit tools to
"upload-the-weather" will further deteriorate our desire to learn. If we
are going to use those tools only to "avoid the bright spots on the map",
then I am afraid that they will not increase our safety factor one bit.

I am certain (well okay: hopeful, anyway) that a very large segment of the
pilot population was well taught, understand meteorology very well and are
doing all they can to learn more and learn correctly. I do fear, however,
that some of us were not only poorly taught, but have accepted that as the
"norm" to be passed on to the next generation. And we now treat meteorology
as just one more check-mark on the exam to be forgotten-about, once passed.

(Pardon me for cross-posting to r.a.s, where this really belongs.)